Opinion ID: 2633618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Initiative v. referendum

Text: The NCIAA seeks to amend existing statutes by imposing stricter nonsmoking prohibitions. It does not ask the voters to approve or disapprove the current scheme, although implicitly, a vote in favor of the initiative expresses some dissatisfaction with the current statutes. Specifically, the initiative is based on existing statutes, NRS 202.2491 and 202.24915. Rather than provide a red-lined version of the current statutes with the proposed amendments, the initiative's proponents have asked voters to amend NRS Chapter 202 by adding a section that reads as follows, and by declaring inconsistent portions of the existing statutes null and void. The opponents argue that the null and void language renders the measure a referendum and that it must fail because the proponents did not set forth the full text to be approved or disapproved [45] and because they filed the petition too early. [46] They rely on an unpublished Ohio Court of Appeals decision that, in dictum, suggested that a measure appeared to impermissibly combine a referendum with an initiative and that a referendum would be untimely. [47] This court has, however, previously considered initiatives that sought to amend existing statutes and did not require that those measures also satisfy referendum requirements. [48] Also, California courts have noted that [e]nactment is not a quality of the referendum [49] and that [w]hen a statute replaces a prior statute, filling its function and adopting much of its wording, we would normally assume the new law takes effect upon the demise of its predecessor. [50] Here, the initiative clearly does not seek simply to reject Nevada's current anti-smoking statute, but to enact one with broader coverage. And the null and void provision is unnecessary since, if adopted, the new measure would replace the old version. Certainly, this language does not render the measure a referendum. Consequently, as this and the other arguments that are properly considered preelection do not warrant removing the NCIAA from the ballot, we affirm the district court's order denying injunctive or declaratory relief.