Quantcast
Home 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

sponsored by
News


BALLOT QUESTION 5: Challenge to tax initiative argued

Sides debate legitimacy of signatures







VIRGINIA CITY -- Petitions seeking a constitutional amendment to cap property taxes might have contained some minor procedural errors but substantially complied with state requirements, a judge was told Monday.

Joel Hansen, a Las Vegas attorney representing Sharron Angle and other supporters of the California-style Proposition 13 property tax cap, said circulators attempted to follow the requirements for initiative petitions, including submitting affidavits intended to protect against fraud.


Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • UNLV sacks football coach Sanford
  • NORM: CityCenter seeks presidential visit




  • The standard for petitioners is that they "substantially complied" with the requirements, which they did, he said.

    But attorneys for the Nevada State Education Association argued the affidavits were not complete, disqualifying several thousand signatures in Clark County and making the measure ineligible for the November ballot.

    The dispute is being heard by senior Judge Charles McGee, who is expected to rule from the bench at the conclusion of what is expected to be a two-day hearing. Regardless of his decision, the dispute probably will end up before the Nevada Supreme Court for a final ruling.

    The hearing was in the historic Storey County courthouse because of space limitations in Carson City. McGee, a retired Washoe County judge, is hearing the case after both Carson district judges were challenged by the parties.

    Regardless of how the courts ultimately rule, the tax cap measure will be on the ballot in November. There won't be time for a final decision before ballots are printed, said Matt Griffin, deputy secretary of state for elections.

    The measure will be Question 5 on the ballot. If the measure is disqualified, the votes probably will remain uncounted, he said.

    Hansen said there is neither evidence nor any suggestion that fraud took place in the collection of the signatures.

    Secretary of State Ross Miller certified the measure for the November ballot after the clerks of the state's 17 counties determined there were enough valid signatures. Angle needed 58,628 signatures; Miller found that 64,166 signatures qualified.

    But the measure also had to qualify in all 17 counties, and the petition narrowly survived a random review of 5 percent of the signatures in Clark County. She needed 40,364 signatures in Clark County. The 5 percent review showed she had 40,571 valid signatures, just 207 more than required.

    But teachers union attorney Mike Dyer told McGee there are problems with many of the signature pages.

    Some pages submitted in Clark County did not include the required affidavits with them, and signatures were not always tallied on the affidavits. Petition circulators are to sign affidavits that they personally circulated petitions and counted the signatures on their petitions, among other things.

    Rejecting the pages in question would invalidate 7,894 signatures, resulting in the failure of the measure to qualify both in Clark County and statewide, he said.

    Hansen said circulators attempted to follow the affidavit requirements, but the law is unclear. The decision was made to submit one affidavit with each bundled number of signature pages, which satisfied the requirement to substantially comply with the rules, he said.

    At one point McGee asked whether the petitioners were "sloppy" by not providing an affidavit for each page of signatures.

    "It wasn't because they were trying to be sloppy," Hansen said. "They thought this was the right way to do it."

    The Nevada Supreme Court last week rejected three other initiative petitions, finding the circulators did not follow the affidavit requirements. But in those petitions, the record was clear that circulators did not follow requirements because they were unaware of them.

    In the Angle petition case, circulators were aware of the requirements and attempted to comply with them, Hansen said.

    Miller rejected the affidavit challenge by the teachers union when he certified the measure for the ballot. The teachers union then took the matter to court.

    Angle's proposed constitutional amendment would limit property tax increases to 2 percent per year for all property until a property is sold.

    The current cap, set by the Legislature in 2005, is 3 percent per year for owner-occupied homes and 8 percent for other property, including commercial.

    Angle has tried for years to get a property tax limit into the Nevada Constitution. She has argued the cap needs constitutional protection because the Legislature could revoke its cap anytime it wished.

    Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax was subpoenaed to the hearing and testified that the tax petitions were delivered in a variety of formats, with some held together with paper clips and others with rubber bands.

    The fact that affidavits did not accompany every signature page did not factor into the check of signatures but was brought to the attention of the secretary of state's office, he said.

    Evidence also was presented that the petitions initially turned in to Clark County contained numerous photocopies, many of which were removed by the submitter after being told they could not be accepted for purposes of meeting the signature count.

    Lomax said in an interview his primary concern with the ballot dispute is how it might affect the printing of ballots for the November general election. Printing should begin this week, he said.

    Ballots are supposed to be mailed Sept. 24 to get to overseas locations, Lomax said.

    If the property tax cap measure does qualify, it would be the only citizen-backed initiative petition to make it to the ballot this year. Others have been abandoned by the sponsors or rejected by the courts.

    If approved by voters this year, the property tax measure would have to be approved a second time, in 2010, before it could take effect.

    Angle, a former state Assemblywoman from Reno, has called the legal challenge by teachers a stalling tactic.

    If implemented, Angle's measure could affect education funding, including raises for teachers.

    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

    Leave Your Comment 10 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:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Crasher wrote on September 10, 2008 09:21 PM: The 3 percent is an abatement not a cap...read it on your tax bill. Let's see 3% per year for 6 years equals 18% .. can you afford that? Some people have had up to a 100% increase during a year when house values have gone down!! Wake up Nevada, your civil rights are being taken away. The court just removed 83,000 people's right to petition.


    Vegas Vic wrote on September 09, 2008 08:01 PM: "The people already have a 3 percent per year tax cap." Which can be changed at the will of the legislators WITHOUT voter consent. In fact, one of the FIRST things our illustrious legislature is going to consider at its start is increasing the percentage by one percent for one year. Yeah, right. Only for one year. If you believe that, I've got some prime land in southern Florida to sell you.


    I agree... wrote on September 09, 2008 04:11 PM: with you UNLVStud....Angle is a complete nut....she lost in her race against Raggio...THANK GOD....she just can not get it thru her thick skull that WE THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA DO NOT WANT HER or her California thinking. She was a loser when she was in the Assembly...Her claim to fame is voting NO on everything...whooo what a record to stand on. Anyway, hopefully someone will tell her that she is no longer welcome in Nevada...and head west to California!!


    UNLVStud wrote on September 09, 2008 02:11 PM: Angel and her petition should be thrown out if they can't follow the rules. This petition would do nothing but hurt local communities and would result in Nevada turning into California. As I have said before, if she likes California's laws so much, she should move there.

    Of course this petition hurts seniors and first time home buyers the most. Instead of paying a uniform tax as your neighbor, you pay a higher tax on property once it transfers hands.

    This is just another Repbulican tactict to keep wealth out of the hands of the majority of people.

    Just say No to petitions.


    Ben Dover wrote on September 09, 2008 01:23 PM: I can't believe the greedy teachers. When will they understand that the job they signed up for is to babysit the children of "the hard working people struggling to make a living." You know, the ones who send their kids to school thinking that by doing so, they've fulfilled all their parental obligations, abnd consequently abdicate all other responsibility.

    How dare the teachers think they deserve any more money. I'm sure that when those "hard working people struggling to make a lving" are asked to use their own money to buy work supplies, or to deal with the social and personal problems of their employers familes, they'll happily do so.


    Mr. November wrote on September 09, 2008 09:06 AM: Sharron Angle is a wingnut. She makes my party look bad but I dislike the teachers union much, much more. I will really have to think about this one.


    Mac wrote on September 09, 2008 08:16 AM: Once again it is quite evident which side the teachers are on.

    They're NOT on our side, the people whose very children they teach. Not on the side of hard working people struggling to make a living.

    No, they want more, more, more money taken from us, without end. Never enough for them (I mean the children).

    Wouldn't it be fair to let the taxpayers decide how much is enough to send toward the government and schools? No?


    Dr J wrote on September 09, 2008 08:15 AM: Add the teacher union to the list of people who don't give a damn. They keep the taxes high and file lawsuits to prevent THE PEOPLE from lower taxes. I work for the school district and will NEVER join the union. All they do is drain your paycheck for $1200 a year and take the money and file lawsuits with it. They can go to he11.


    Oh Please! wrote on September 09, 2008 07:50 AM: "...always against the peoples needs."

    The people already have a 3 percent per year tax cap.


    LP wrote on September 09, 2008 04:43 AM: Again, rejected by the courts.
    How can the people get ahead when the courts are always against the peoples needs.

    We keep telling everyone. The cops and judges are NOT on your side..