Opinion ID: 2593976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: The March 2006 petition is the petition on file with the Secretary of State

Text: Additionally, the committee's argument that it complied with all constitutional filing requirements when it filed the December 2005 legal-sized petition, containing the same section 4(4) language as the circulated petition, is unavailing. Both of the December versions contained defective descriptions of effect and, for that reason, only the March version is operational since it, with its compliant description of effect, was by definition the copy that the committee intended to circulate. Article 19, Section 2(4) states, with emphasis added, that [i]f the initiative petition proposes an amendment to the Constitution, the person who intends to circulate it shall file a copy with the Secretary of State before beginning circulation. Although the committee asserts that the description of effect is designed to be a quick reference and the initiative's actual language is what becomes binding if approved by voters, the committee dilutes the importance of the description of effect. In particular, the committee's analysis skips a step, ignoring the fact that this descriptive language is what appears directly above the signature lines, as registered voters decide the threshold issue of whether they even want the initiative placed on the ballot. Nevada Constitution Article 19, Section 2(4) requires the committee to file a copy of the petition that it intends to circulate with the Secretary of State, and the description of effect has been made part of that filing requirement under NRS 295.015. Accordingly, a copy of the petition that the committee intend[ed] to circulatenamely the copy with the compliant description of effecthad to be filed in order to satisfy both constitutional and statutory filing requirements. Throughout these proceedings, the committee has characterized the difference in the March 8 version and the circulated version as a typographical error, but while the discrepancy may have been inadvertent, the record demonstrates, as set forth below, that the difference between the March 8 filed version and the circulated version was material and substantial in at least two respects. First, the difference between the two versions' initial 2007-2009 spending limit has been calculated at approximately $1.3 billion, representing 14 percent of the state's budget, and the committee offered no nonspeculative evidence to refute the fiscal analysis. Notably, the circulated version allows for a 21-percent increase in state spending during the initial budget cycle. Contrasted to the March 8 filed version, which would constrain spending to 7.4 percenta substantial reduction over the historical rate of growth in government spendingthe difference is significant. Moreover, because the spending limit for the initial 2009-2011 biennium would become the basis for all future spending limits, the effect of the typographical error would reach far beyond the $1.5 billion mark. Second, because the circulated version allows for $1.5 billion more in spending per biennium than the filed version, and because, under the circulated version, spending could continue at or even beyond its historic rate, the primary purpose of the TASC measure would not be effectuated under the circulated version. In other words, the circulated petition, as drafted, would have no effect on the very problem that it claimed that it would remedy, i.e., government overspending. Therefore, the circulated version would not be an accurate reflection of the committee's vocalized intent to implement a constitutional limit on government spending. The circulated petition involves more than a mere typographical error; it is misleading. And as the opponents point out, if the committee were permitted to file multiple versions of the initiative with the Secretary of State and rely on any or all of them, interested parties would be left to guess which version was being circulated, and only when the circulated version was submitted to the county registrars' offices for verification would anyone other than the proponents have the opportunity to review which version was to be placed on the ballot. Thus, because the two December versions of the petition contained noncompliant descriptions of effect, which the district court invalidated, the March 8 petition, containing the revised description of effect in accordance with the district court's order, is the representative copy on file with the Secretary of State that was intended to be circulated for signatures, as set forth under both Nevada Constitution Article 19, Section 2(4) and NRS 295.015, which mirrors Article 19, Section 2(4)'s language. With this issue resolved, we now turn to the district court's order denying the opponents' request for injunctive and declaratory relief.