Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

News
Jun. 07, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Appeal on three ballot petitions filed

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
More Info

CARSON CITY -- Advocates of two proposed ballot petitions to cap revenue for the Las Vegas convention authority and a third plan to restrict tax-raising ballot questions filed a court appeal Friday to revive the plans rejected by Secretary of State Ross Miller.

The appeal to Carson City District Court states Miller sided with "special interests" in blocking the measures, which supporters are trying to place on the November ballot.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • Alleging fraud, authorities raid voter group
  • NORM: Simpson planned acquittal party
  • Nevada's economy dead last
  • NORM: Hard-core fans ask: Has Jacko moved?
  • NORM: Bobbitt trains for boxing bout in LV
  • NORM: Letterman gives an 'A' to O.J. jury
  • PALACE STATION ROBBERY: Audiotapes convicted O.J.
  • Judge: Attacker 'gleeful'
  • REACTIONS TO CONVICTION: EXPERTS: PAST HAUNTED O.J.
  • Circle of friends surrounds lost pal



    • Former state Treasurer Bob Seale pushed the revenue caps, and former state Controller Steve Martin promoted the ballot restriction plan.

    The plans, all backed by Las Vegas Sands Corp. owner Sheldon Adelson, were opposed by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and the state AFL-CIO.

    Miller sided with the critics' arguments that the affidavits of petition circulators lacked a required statement of the number of signatures, and also lacked a required statement that each signer had a chance to read the full text of the plans prior to signing the petitions.

    Two of the petitions would take most new room tax revenues normally allocated to the convention authority and use the money either exclusively on statewide education needs or in equal measures for education, transportation and public safety.

    The third measure would impose a two-thirds vote requirement for approval of ballot measures that would raise taxes.

    Each proposal needed a minimum of 58,836 signatures.

    Proponents had said the two revenue-cap plans each had more than 111,000 signatures while the plan to restrict any tax-raising ballot questions had nearly 123,000 signatures.

    Miller said county clerks and registrars couldn't verify any of the signatures because of the flaws. Based on those determinations, he said the petitions "failed to substantially comply with statutory and constitutional requirements."

    The Review-Journal contributed to this report.



    Leave Your Comment 3 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Al Katraz wrote on June 09, 2008 11:48 AM: Vic, looks to me like the Secretary of State is just following Nevada law/regulations regarding petitions...in the best interests of maintaining the integrity of the system. For what those attorneys are being paid by Adelson you'd expect them to be able to read the rules and do it correctly. NevadaBiker is correct. For those petitioners to try to portray themselves as fighting special interests is a joke...they ARE the special interests.


    Nevada Biker wrote on June 07, 2008 10:14 AM: You need to get more sleep, Vic. Why should the "union pukes" (as you call them) sit back and allow themselves to be screwed by an initiative petition that plainly fails to comply with the law? Don't the unions have the same right as anyone else to invoke the law in such a case and insist that Mr. Adelson follow the rules? If the unions' claims are meritless, they'll be rejected, but thus far their arguments have been sustained by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. Or are they "pukes," too? Don't you find it significant that EVERY OTHER PETITION circulated this year managed to comply with the requirements that the Adelson petitions ignored? And don't you think that Mr. Adelson himself qualifies as a "special interest?"


    Vegas Vic wrote on June 07, 2008 04:13 AM: Again the union pukes are sticking their noses where they don't belong. I can see the objection by the LVCVA because they'd lose some revenue. But the objections should be tossed out with the garbage because these petitions were circulated AND signed as per Nevada requirements. It has gotten to the point that our rights as voters are being trampled on by special interest groups and that should NOT be the case. If a petition has the requisite number of valid signatures, it should be put on the ballot, period. No contention. No discussion.