Opinion ID: 2593976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: NRS 295.009, which requires initiatives to include a description of effect, and NRS 295.061, which provides the right to challenge an initiative's description of effect, are constitutional

Text: Preliminarily, the committee argues that any noncompliance with the description-of-effect requirement under NRS 295.009(1)(b) should not be fatal to the TASC initiative because NRS 295.061which allows a party to challenge the description of effect languageimposes an extra-constitutional burden on the initiative process. [3] According to the committee, because the Constitution only requires that the full text of the measure proposed be included on the petition, the Legislature did not have the power to enact NRS 295.009, requiring a description of effect, or NRS 295.061, providing a right to challenge that description. The committee asserts that NRS 295.061 places a severe burden on core political speech in violation of the First Amendment and that the district court's order invalidating the original description of effect amounted to a prior restraint. We disagree. The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. [4] Statutes are presumed to be valid, and the challenger bears the burden of showing that a statute is unconstitutional. [5] In order to meet that burden, the challenger must make a clear showing of invalidity. [6] Although the Nevada Constitution provides that the power to propose amendments to the Constitution by initiative petition is reserved to the people, [7] it also provides that the Legislature may enact laws that provide procedures to facilitate the initiative and referendum process. [8] Additionally, the legislative power includes the broad power to frame and enact laws, unless there is a specific constitutional limitation to the contrary. [9] Here, the plain language of Nevada Constitution Article 19, Section 5 imparts in the Legislature authority to enact laws to facilitate the initiative process, such as requiring a description of effect and allowing challenges on this basis. [10] Other states have constitutionally imposed similar legislation to provide for a summary or description of the initiative on the face of the petition. [11] And in Campbell v. Buckley, [12] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, over a First Amendment challenge, Colorado's requirement that an initiative include a title that expresses the initiative's true intent, concluding that the statutory summary, single-subject, and title requirements served to prevent voter confusion and promote informed decisions. [13] The court also concluded that the state's important regulatory interests were sufficient to justify the reasonable and facially neutral title-setting requirement. [14] Accordingly, we conclude that both NRS 295.009's description of effect requirement and NRS 295.061's proviso allowing for a challenge to that description are legitimate procedures that, in accordance with Nevada Constitution Article 19, Section 5, facilitate the people's right to meaningfully engage in the initiative process.