Opinion ID: 2569886
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: In the same manner

Text: Concerning the Legislature's argument that Article 15, Section 3(2) is invalid because Question 9 was not presented in 1996 in the same manner as it was in 1994, the Nevada Constitution provides that, if a majority of the voters approve a ballot question to amend Nevada's Constitution, the question shall be resubmitted to the voters at the next succeeding general election in the same manner as such question was originally submitted. [59] The Legislature argues that Question 9 was not submitted in the same manner because, in 1996, it appeared on the ballot in two subsections, due to the Nevada Judges Ass'n v. Lau opinion. This court has already considered this argument, twice. In Lau, the court implicitly acknowledged that presenting Question 9 in the form of two parts in 1996 complied with the in the same manner requirement when we recognized that [i]f either proposal passes in the 1996 general election, the Constitution will be effectively amended as to the proposal or proposals receiving a majority vote. [60] Then, a few years later, this court noted in Rogers v. Heller that initiatives must be kept intact so as not to obstruct the people's voice and pointed out that this requirement was met in Lau because the decision in Lau to sever the initiative petition into two questions did not change the petition's substance. [61] These decisions now hold positions of permanence in this court's jurisprudence  precedent that, under the doctrine of stare decisis, [62] we will not overturn absent compelling reasons for so doing. [63] Mere disagreement does not suffice. [64] Thus, as no party has pointed to weighty and conclusive reasons for negating the voters' decade-long expectation that term limits, whenever effective, are a political reality, [65] we will not disturb our prior conclusion that the 1996 term-limit ballot question was constitutionally presented in the same manner as it was presented in 1994.