Opinion ID: 2633581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The initiative must be severed to preserve the people's will

Text: The opponents argue that the initiative should be wholly stricken from the ballot. The proponents, on the other hand, assert that the initiative should be severed and preserved, in major part, for the voters' consideration. For four reasons, severance and preservation is appropriate in this case. First, and foremost, under the unique circumstances of this case, the initiative, even though it violates the single-subject requirement, is severable, as its primary subject is readily discernable. As discussed above, the vast majority of the initiative's provisions  twelve of fourteen  address eminent domain. Additionally, the proponents have repeatedly stated that the initiative concerns eminent domain. Thus, because the initiative has a single primary subject, it is amenable to severance; the two unrelated sections, 1 and 8, can simply be omitted from the rest of the initiative, so that it may proceed as an eminent domain initiative. Second, the initiative's section 14 contains a severability clause, which provides that [a]ny provision contained in this section shall be deemed a separate and freestanding right and shall remain in full force and effect should any other provision contained in this section be stricken for any reason. Thus, the initiative petition's signers have expressed a desire to allow the initiative to proceed even without some sections, and, in severing, this court need not speculate whether the signatories would have signed the petition in its severed form. Third, NRS 295.009 does not prescribe a remedy for violations of the single-subject requirement. In the absence of a legislative mandate that all violations of the single-subject requirement result in an initiative's disqualification from the ballot, severance is permissible. Severance is routinely employed by courts to address single-subject violations after legislative enactments. [38] Unlike Nevada, most other states' single-subject requirements are included in their constitutions. [39] Because Nevada derives its single-subject requirement from a statute, as opposed to the Constitution, we are not constitutionally mandated to strike the initiative from the ballot. [40] Additionally, when the single-subject requirement was first proposed in the form of S.B. 224, the accompanying Legislative Counsel's Digest indicated that the measure required that petitions contain only one subject matter and matters properly related thereto, which had to be clearly expressed in the petition's title. [41] It went on to state, Petitions violating these requirements are declared void. [42] The actual language of the proposal, with regard to initiatives, required that petitions embrace only one subject and, [i]n all cases where the subject of the act or resolution is not so expressed in the title, the act or resolution is void as to the matter not expressed in the title. [43] After the Senate passed the proposal, the Assembly passed a significantly amended version, which revised the language of that provision in a manner eliminating any reference to void petitions, more like that which is now used. [44] The amended version was very similar to a separate bill that had been proposed in the Assembly. [45] The Senate did not concur with the Assembly's amendments, however, and S.B. 224 was referred to a joint committee. [46] The joint committee generally kept the amended language in the provision at issue, further changing it mainly to eliminate reference to the petition's title. That version was ultimately passed. [47] No legislative minutes describe why the original provision was changed as to the one subject issue, or why the void language was removed. Thus, the only evidence of legislative intent regarding a remedy for violations of the single-subject requirement is that violations do not automatically render an initiative void. [48] We therefore exercise our power to sever the initiative's provisions that concern secondary subjects, since the remaining provisions, pertaining to the primary subject (eminent domain) satisfy the following conditions: (1) the provisions have legal effect, and (2) it appears the [voters] intended the provisions to stand alone even if another section in the same [initiative] is held invalid. [49] Here, the sections related to eminent domain are not impacted by severing sections 1 and 8, and the voters intended for these sections to stand alone if necessary. Fourth, and significantly, our Constitution reserves to the people the initiative power. [50] Although the Legislature has the power to enact laws to facilitate the operation of the initiative process, [51] which includes enacting a single-subject requirement for initiative petitions, this court, in interpreting and applying such laws, must make every effort to sustain and preserve the people's constitutional right to amend their constitution through the initiative process. In this instance, because the Legislature has provided no specific remedy, striking the entire initiative, instead of severing the offending sections and allowing the remaining initiative to be placed on the November ballot, would run counter to the people's right to express their will through the initiative process. We have recognized that the right to initiate change in this state's laws through ballot proposals is one of the basic powers enumerated in this state's constitution. [52] And, although the dissent asserts that our decision to sever is inconsistent with this court's prior decision in Rogers v. Heller , [53] our decision in no way affects our conclusion to not intervene in Rogers. In Rogers, the validity of the initiative rested on a threshold funding requirement under Nevada Constitution, Article 19, Section 6, which required strict adherence. [54] Thus, we declined to sever the impermissible provision, as it was clearly unconstitutional. Additionally severing the initiative for lack of an appropriation mechanism would have gutted the initiative's central component: that the Legislature appropriate and spend a specific amount for public education in all future budget biennia. [55] No other portion of the initiative could have stood in the absence of this central component. We agree that an initiative that does not meet a threshold constitutional requirement is not subject to judicial severance for the reasons stated in Rogers and cited by the dissent. However, in the present case, unlike the situation in Rogers, we are not faced with a challenge to a constitutional requirement; rather, we must interpret a recently enacted single-subject statute. The initiative can also be kept substantively intact by severing sections 1 and 8. For all of these reasons, we conclude that sections 1 and 8 should be severed from the initiative in light of the single-subject violation. Severance eliminates the Hobson's choice described by our dissenting colleagues. We also note that the proponents remain free to circulate, in the future, one or more initiative petitions concerning the severed sections.