Court Opinion

ID: 9630903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:23:52.041329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:45.954745
License: Public Domain

Shearing, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that the ballot initiative is constitutional as it applies to judges. I also believe that the ballot initiative’s explanation regarding its effect on judges is accurate and meets the statutory standard of being “in easily understood language and of reasonable length.” NRS 293.250(5). While the explanation may not set forth all of the initiative’s implications for judges in light of other constitutional provisions, that is not required under the law. If that were the requirement, no ballot initiatives would be deemed acceptable and still comply with the requirement of being “of reasonable length.”
I submit that the question as presented to the voters in the 1994 election should either be upheld as satisfactory or struck down as defective. If upheld as satisfactory, it should be on the ballot in *62the next election in the same form as it was first approved. This court is not justified in changing the ballot question when the voters have already approved it. If the court deems the question as passed defective, the separate question and new explanation must be placed on the ballot and passed in two consecutive elections.