Opinion ID: 2630289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Striking the signatures was the proper remedy in this case

Text: This court has repeatedly held that when an affidavit is defective, the signatures are properly stricken. [59] Also, many courts in other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion. [60] The proponents, however, assert that since NRS 295.0575 does not specify a remedy for noncompliance, striking the signatures was improper. In light of this ample authority, the proponents' argument lacks merit. The proponents also rely on the legislative history of NRS 295.0575, which was passed as part of A.B. 604, to argue that striking the signatures was not the proper remedy. In particular, the proponents point to statements by Assemblyman Marcus Conklin expressing concern with the idea of wholesale signature-striking. [61] But Assemblyman Conklin's comments related to a provision contained in a companion bill, A.B. 606, not A.B. 604. [62] Moreover, later statements by Assemblyman Conklin indicate that he approved the language; [63] this language was not included when portions of A.B. 606 were incorporated into A.B. 604 and A.B. 606, as a separate bill, was abandoned. [64] This isolated and equivocal legislative history does not mandate that this court reverse its decadeslong practice, followed in other states as well, of striking signatures based on invalid circulator affidavits. [65] And the proponents do not suggest any other remedy, except for their expressed hope that, if they had more time, they might have been able to obtain additional evidence of compliance. As discussed in the previous section, however, this speculation was insufficient. Striking the signatures is therefore the appropriate remedy.