Court Opinion

ID: 9961471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 20:08:07.049415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:48.535993
License: Public Domain

140 Nev., Advance Opinion cg

                                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                               NEVADANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE                              No. 87681
                               FREEDOM, A POLITICAL ACTION
                               COMMITTEE,
                               Appellant,
                               vs.
                               DONNA WASHINGTON, AN                                    FILED
                               INDIVIDUAL; COALITION FOR
                               PARENTS AND CHILDREN, A
                               POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE;
                                                                                                       URT
                               AND FRANCISCO V. AGUILAR, IN HIS
                                                                                        iEF DEPUTY CLERK
                               OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE
                               NEVADA SECRETARY OF STATE,
                               Respondents.

                                            Appeal from a district court order granting injunctive relief
                               preventing the Secretary of State from placing an initiative petition on the
                               ballot.   First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell,
                               Judge.
                                            Reversed.

                               Elias Law Group LLP and David R. Fox, Elisabeth C. Frost, and Daniel J.
                               Cohen, Washington, D.C.; Bravo Schrager, LLP, and Bradley S. Schrager
                               and Daniel Bravo, Las Vegas,
                               for Appellant.

                               Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, and Laena St-Jules, Senior Deputy
                               Attorney General, Carson City,
                               for Respondent Francisco V. Aguilar, Secretary of State.

                               Guinasso Law, Ltd., and Jason D. Guinasso, Reno.
                               for Respondents Donna Washington and Coalition for Parents and
                               Children.

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA                                                                             2 8.4- 13
(0) 1947A    atiail.

              %.* • .n?",•••
                    Stranch, Jennings, & Garvey, PLLC, and Nathan R. Ring, Las Vegas;
                    Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock, P.C., and Joseph Sandler,
                    Washington, D.C.,
                    for Amicus Curiae Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation.

                    BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.'

                                                      OPINION

                    By the Court, STIGLICH, J.:
                                Appellant Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom (NRF) intends
                    to place an initiative petition on the ballot that would establish a
                    constitutional right to reproductive freedom. The initiative petition would
                    grant every individual a right to make their own decisions regarding all
                    matters related to a pregnancy, including prenatal care, childbirth,
                    postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion
                    care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care.       Respondents
                    Donna Washington and Coalition for Parents and Children (collectively
                    Washington) filed a complaint in district court challenging the petition.
                    They alleged that the petition failed to meet statutory and constitutional
                    requirements and sought to enjoin respondent the Secretary of State from
                    placing the initiative on the ballot. Specifically, Washington asserted that
                    the initiative petition violated the single-subject requirement because it
                    considered multiple medical procedures, instead of being limited to only

                          1The Honorable Patricia Lee, Justice, voluntarily recused herself from
                    participation in the decision of this matter.
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                          2
(0) I947A    alem
                pregnancy or abortion. The district court granted the injunction, finding
                the initiative petition invalid for three reasons: (1) it does not contain a
                single subject, (2) its description of effect is misleading, and (3) it requires
                an expenditure of money without raising the necessary revenue.
                             We conclude the district court erred.       First, all the medical
                procedures considered in the initiative petition concern reproduction. To
                assert that they could not all be addressed together because they are
                separate procedures is improper. Each medical procedure relates to human

                reproduction, and they are germane to each other and the initiative's single
                subject of establishing a right to reproductive freedom. We further conclude
                that the description of effect was legally sufficient and the initiative petition
                does not require an expenditure of funds. Accordingly, we reverse.
                                  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                            In September 2023, NRF filed its notice of intent to circulate an
                initiative petition that proposes adding a section to Article 1 of the Nevada
                Constitution recognizing a person's right to reproductive freedom.
                Subsection 1 of the initiative describes the right to reproductive freedom as
                follows:
                            Every individual has a fundamental right to
                            reproductive freedom, which entails the right to
                            make and effectuate decisions about all matters
                            relating    to   pregnancy,   including,   without
                            limitation, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum
                            care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation,
                            abortion, abortion care, management of a
                            miscarriage and infertility care. The right of an
                            individual to reproductive freedom shall not be
                            denied, burdened or infringed upon unless justified
                            by a compelling State interest that is achieved by
                            the least restrictive means available.

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                       3
(0) I947A
                     Subsection 2 permits the State to regulate abortions after fetal viability but
                     prohibits such regulation when, in the professional judgment of an
                     attending provider of health care, an abortion would protect the pregnant
                     individual.     Subsections 3 and 5 prohibit the State from penalizing or

                     prosecuting a pregnant individual based on the outcome of a pregnancy or

                     penalizing or prosecuting an individual or entity who assists another person
                     in exercising their right to reproductive freedom. Subsection 4 provides
                     similar protections to health care providers:
                                   The State shall not penalize, prosecute or otherwise
                                   take adverse action against a provider of health
                                   care, who is licensed by the State, for acting
                                   consistent with the applicable scope of practice and
                                   standard of care for performing an abortion upon,
                                   providing abortion      care to,     or    providing
                                   reproductive care services to an individual who has
                                   granted their voluntary consent.
                     Additionally, subsection 6 states that nothing in the initiative "limits the
                     rights to equality and equal protection."
                                   The initiative includes two definitions. It defines a "compelling
                     state interest" as "an interest which is limited exclusively to the State's
                     interest in protecting the health of an individual who is seeking
                     reproductive health care that is consistent with accepted clinical standards
                     of practice."    It also defines "fetal viability" as the point when, in the
                     professional judgment of an attending provider of health care, there is a
                     "significant likelihood" that a fetus could survive outside of the uterus
                     without extraordinary medical measures.
                                   NRF included the following description of effect on the
                     signature pages for the petition:
                                   If enacted, this initiative would add a new section
                                   to Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution establishing
                                   a fundamental right to reproductive freedom. This
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                            4
(0) I947A    440ip
                                initiative enables individuals to make and carry out
                                decisions about matters relating to their
                                pregnancies, including prenatal care, childbirth,
                                postpartum care, birth control, vasectomies and
                                tubal ligations, abortion and abortion care, and
                                care for miscarriages and infertility.
                                If this measure is enacted, the State still may
                                regulate provision of abortion care after fetal
                                viability, except where medically indicated to
                                protect the life or physical or mental health of the
                                pregnant individual.
                                Under this measure, the State may not penalize,
                                prosecute, or take adverse action against any
                                individual based on the outcome of a pregnancy of
                                the individual, or against any licensed health care
                                provider who acts consistent with the applicable
                                scope and practice of providing reproductive health
                                care services to an individual who has granted their
                                voluntary consent. Neither may the State penalize,
                                prosecute, or take adverse action against any
                                individual or entity for aiding or assisting another
                                individual in the exercise of the rights established
                                by this initiative.
                                Washington filed the underlying complaint seeking to enjoin
                    the Secretary of State from placing the initiative on the 2024 election ballot.
                    Washington challenged the initiative on three grounds: (1) it violates
                    Nevada's single-subject requirement, (2) the description of effect is
                    misleading and fails to provide essential information, and (3) the initiative
                    requires the expenditure of money but does not provide the necessary
                    funding.2

                          2The Secretary of State was listed as a defendant but did not file an
                    answer and took no position on the matter at the hearing. Likewise, the
                    Secretary has filed an answering brief on appeal that takes no position.
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                          5
(0) 1947A    eat.
                            After a hearing, the district court granted Washington's request
                for declaratory and injunctive relief, barring the Secretary of State from
                placing the initiative on the ballot. The court concluded that the initiative
                embraces a multitude of subjects that are covered under various chapters
                of the Nevada Revised Statutes.           The court also concluded that the
                description of effect was misleading and omitted important effects of the
                initiative petition. Lastly, the court concluded that the initiative requires
                the State to create a board to determine whether a provider of health care
                acted within the standard of care in providing reproductive care, that
                creating such a board would require the expenditure of money, and that the
                initiative does not provide a revenue source for that expenditure.        This
                appeal followed.
                                               DISCUS SION
                            The Nevada Constitution gives the people the authority to place
                an initiative on the ballot to make law directly by proposing legislation and
                constitutional amendments.      That power is broad but subject to some

                limitations. In particular, an initiative petition must be limited to a single
                subject, include a legally sufficient description of effect, and provide a
                revenue source for any required expenditure of funds. When considering
                whether an initiative petition complies with those requirements, a
                reviewing court must ensure the people's right to the initiative process is
                not quelled. See Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nev. Jobs, 129
                Nev. 35, 37-38, 293 P.3d 874, 876 (2013) (explaining that a court must
                construe an initiative petition's compliance with the description of effect
                requirement in such a way that does not "obstruct, rather than facilitate,
                the people's right to the initiative process"). Thus, the party challenging an
                initiative petition bears the burden of demonstrating the initiative is clearly
                invalid or does not comply with these requirements.           See Las Vegas
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                      6
(0) 1947A
                   Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council of Las Vegas (LVTAC), 125
                   Nev, 165, 176, 208 P.3d 429, 436 (2009) (holding that the party challenging
                   ballot measures "beads] the burden of demonstrating that the measures are
                   clearly invalid"). Our review is de novo given that the district court resolved
                   the challenge to the underlying initiative petition without any factual
                   disputes. Helton v. Nev. Voters First PAC, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, 512 P.3d
                   309, 313 (2022).
                   The initiative petition complies with the single-subject requirement
                               NRF asserts that because the initiative contains a single
                   subject, "creating and defining a fundamental right to reproductive
                   freedom," the district court erred when it concluded that the initiative
                   petition violated Nevada's single-subject requirement. We agree.
                               Under Nevada law, "[e]ach petition for initiative or referendum
                   must ... [e]mbrace but one subject and matters necessarily connected
                   therewith and pertaining thereto." NRS 295.009(1). A petition meets this
                   single-subject requirement if its provisions "are functionally related and
                   germane to each other in a way that provides sufficient notice of the general
                   subject of, and of the interests likely to be affected by, the proposed
                   initiative." NRS 295.009(2).
                               Applying these provisions, we have stated that the "preliminary
                   inquiry. .. is whether the initiative's parts are 'functionally related' and
                   'germane' to each other." Nevadans for the Prot. of Prop. Rights, Inc. v.
                   Heller (NPPRI), 122 Nev. 894, 907, 141 P.3d 1235, 1243 (2006). To answer
                   that question, the court must first determine the initiative's overarching
                   purpose or subject and then determine if each provision is functionally
                   related and germane to that purpose or subject. See id. at 907-09, 141 P.3d
                   at 1244-45; LVTAC, 125 Nev. at 180, 208 P.3d at 439. In determining an

SUPREME COURT
       OF
    NEVADA
                                                          7
(0) MTh ,-(Far ,
                initiative's purpose or subject, we look to the initiative's textual language
                and the proponents' arguments. LVTAC, 125 Nev. at 180, 208 P.3d at 439.

                            We recently applied this analysis in Helton. 138 Nev., Adv. Op.
                45, 512 P.3d 309. That case concerned an initiative petition seeking to
                implement open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections for
                specified officeholders. Id. at 312-13. We first identified that the initiative's
                purpose was "the framework by which specified officeholders are presented

                to voters and elected."3 Id. at 314 (emphasis omitted). We then analyzed
                the changes proposed—an open primary and ranked-choice general
                election—and concluded that even though the two changes concerned
                different steps in the election process, they were functionally related and
                germane to each other and the initiative's purpose. Id. at 314-15. Thus, we
                concluded the initiative complied with the single-subject requirement. Id.
                at 315.
                            The    initiative   petition       here   has   the   single   subject   of

                establishing a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.                     All the

                initiative's provisions functionally relate and are germane to that subject
                arid each other.    Subsection 1 establishes and describes the right to
                reproductive freedom.     Subsections 2 through 5 ensure that the right
                established in subsection 1 cannot be violated by the State. Subsection 6
                clarifies that the initiative does not narrow or limit equal protection rights.
                Lastly, subsection 7 defines terms used within the initiative.                  Thus,

                      3To the extent Washington argues that Helton created a new single-
                subject compliance criteria by requiring an initiative to include a framework
                concerning the subject, instead of addressing the mechanics of a subject, we
                reject this contention. Our discussion of those terms in Helton was to help
                explain why the initiative there did not violate the single-subject
                requirement.
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                           8
OD) 1947A
                      subsections 2 through 7 all functionally relate to subsection 1 and the
                      creation of a right to reproductive freedom.
                                  The inclusion of enforcement provisions that ensure the State
                      does not violate the newly established reproductive freedom right does not
                      violate the single-subject requirement. We acknowledge that some of the
                      proposed prohibitions against penalties and regulatory allowances
                      contained in subsections 2 through 5 could have been proposed in separate
                      initiative petitions. Nevertheless, that possibility does not preclude a single
                      initiative that presents them together when they are all germane to the
                      creation of a right to reproductive freedom. In Helton, we recognized that
                      an initiative petition can propose more than one change and still comply
                      with the single-subject requirement as long as the changes are functionally
                      related and germane to each other and the overall subject of the initiative.
                      512 P.3d at 315. This is true here, as all the initiative's sections relate to
                      reproduction. Further, even though the medical treatments or conditions
                      discussed in the initiative may be addressed by various NRS chapters, they
                      each concern the subject of reproduction and can be addressed together in a
                      petition addressing that subject.
                                  Washington takes issue with this view of the petition's subject,
                      arguing that characterizing the broad idea of "reproductive freedom" as the
                      petition's single subject results in "logrolling." The term "logrolling" was
                      used by the concurring and dissenting justices in NPPRI to describe what
                      the single-subject requirement is intended to prevent. 122 Nev. at 918, 141
                      P.3d at 1251 (Maupin, J., concurring and dissenting); id. at 922, 141 P.3d
                      at 1254 (Hardesty, J., concurring and dissenting). As Justice Hardesty
                      explained, "logrolling" occurs "when two or more completely separate
                      provisions are combined in a petition, one or both of which would not obtain

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                            9
(0) (947A    Alitto
                enough votes to pass without the other."        Id. at 922, 141 P.3d at 1254

                (Hardesty, J., concurring and dissenting). In that scenario, an unpopular
                provision typically is buried in the text of an initiative addressing a more
                popular provision that the proponent expects will easily be approved by the

                voters. Id. The single-subject requirement thus aims to prevent logrolling
                by ensuring that the voters' attention is focused on the one subject being
                advanced, "without creating confusion over what that subject is, and

                without making them choose between competing policy goals." Id. at 923,
                141 P.3d at 1254. This court expanded upon that discussion of logrolling in
                LVTAC, stating that logrolling may also occur when an unpopular provision
                is concealed in a lengthy, complex initiative. 125 Nev. at 176-77, 208 P.3d
                at 436-37.
                              We are not convinced this initiative petition involves logrolling.
                The petition itself is rather short and limited to protecting reproductive
                rights. Additionally, the initiative petition does not tie a highly attractive

                proposal to one that may struggle to get votes. Notably, Washington does
                not identify a popular provision that NRF is using to hide a less popular
                provision. In fact, the most contentious provision in the petition, abortion,
                is prominent and clearly identified both in the petition and in the
                description of effect.   We cannot say that NRF is hiding an unpopular
                provision in a lengthy, complex petition or attaching an unpopular provision
                to a popular one. Thus, logrolling has not occurred here.
                              This initiative petition's single subject is the creation of a
                fundamental right to reproductive freedom. All the petition's provisions are
                fundamentally related or germane to that single subject.           There is no

                logrolling.    We therefore conclude that the district court erred by

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                       10
(0) 1947A

                                                                              •
                      determining that the initiative petition did not comply with the single-
                      subject requirement.
                      The description of effect is legally sufficient
                                   Next, NRF challenges the district court's conclusion that the

                      initiative petition's description of effect is defective. NRF asserts that the
                      description of effect is a straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative
                      summary of the initiative's effect. Thus, NRF argues the description of

                      effect complies with NRS 295.009(1)(b).
                                   NRS 295.009(1)(b) requires each initiative petition to Is]et
                      forth, in not more than 200 words, a description of the effect of the
                      initiative . . . if the initiative . . . is approved by the voters." Because the
                      description of effect is statutorily required to be no more than 200 words, it
                      41cannot constitutionally be required to delineate every effect that an

                      initiative will have; to conclude otherwise could obstruct, rather than
                      facilitate, the people's right to the initiative process." Educ. Initiative, 129
                      Nev. at 38, 293 P.3d at 876. In sum, the description of effect "must be a
                      straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative summary of what the
                      initiative is designed to achieve and how it intends to reach those goals."
                      Helton, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, 512 P.3d at 316 (quoting Educ. Initiative, 129
                      Nev. at 37, 293 P.3d at 876).
                                   The district court concluded that the description of effect is
                      legally insufficient. In doing so, the court concluded that the description of
                      effect is "misleading because it fails to mention that the law will bar the
                      State from prosecuting, fining, or regulating any rniscarriage or stillbirth";
                      fails to clarify what provider of health care would make a decision that an
                      abortion is necessary; and does not define the term "medically indicated,"
                      which "misleads voters into believing that there is a specific set of criteria
                      to determine when the mother's physical or mental health requires an
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                              11
(0) 1947A    cleliD
                abortion." The district court was also concerned that the description of
                effect does not address the equal protection section.
                            We disagree with the district court. The description of effect
                addresses the initiative's goals: to recognize and protect a fundamental
                right to reproductive freedom. The description of effect also addresses how

                the initiative intends to reach those goals: by defining what is included in
                the right to reproductive freedom and limiting the State's regulation and
                prosecution of reproductive decisions.      Although Washington and the

                district court express concern with the failure to address specific effects of
                the petition, we reiterate that a description of effect cannot be required to
                address all possible ramifications of an initiative in the limited 200-word
                summary. See Helton, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, 512 P.3d at 317 ("With so few
                words in which to explain the effect of an initiative petition, a challenger
                will always be able to find some ramification of or provision in an initiative
                petition that the challenger feels is not adequately addressed in the
                description of effect."). Most of the omitted effects identified by Washington
                and the district court do not concern the initiative's primary goal. Instead,
                the identified omissions involve how the initiative may apply in a variety of
                hypothetical situations, such as whether a prosecution may be permitted
                after a miscarriage or stillbirth. The court cannot, after the fact, conclude
                that the description of effect must discuss certain potential issues when the
                proponents do not allege that the primary goal of the initiative petition was
                to address those potential issues.     See id. at 317 (explaining that the

                sufficiency of the description of effect does not depend "on whether someone
                else could have written it better"). Because the description of effect for this
                initiative petition is "a straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative
                summary of what the initiative is designed to achieve and how it intends to

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                      12
(0) I917A
                reach those goals," we conclude the description of effect is legally sufficient.
                Id. at 317-18 (internal quotation marks omitted).
                The initiative petition does not require an expenditure of money
                             Lastly, NRF argues that the district court erred when it
                concluded that the initiative violates the Nevada Constitution because it

                requires an expenditure of money but does not provide a source of revenue.
                We agree that the initiative does not require an expenditure of money.
                             Article 19, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution generally
                guarantees the people the power to legislate and to amend the Nevada
                Constitution by initiative petition.    That power is limited by Article 19,
                Section 6, which precludes "the proposal of any statute or statutory
                amendment which makes an appropriation or otherwise requires the
                expenditure of money, unless such statute or amendment also imposes a
                sufficient   tax,   not   prohibited   by   the   Constitution,   or   otherwise
                constitutionally provides for raising the necessary revenue." See also Nev.
                Const. art. 19, § 2(1) (stating that the people's power to legislate by initiative
                petition is "subject to the limitations of Section 6 of this Article"); Educ.
                Freedorn PAC v. Reid, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 47, 512 P.3d 296, 302-03 (2022)
                (holding that Article 19, Section 6's limitation on the initiative power
                applies to petitions that propose constitutional changes).             Thus, "an
                initiative that makes an appropriation or requires an expenditure of money
                is void if it does not also provide for the necessary revenue." Educ. Freedom,
                138 Nev., Adv. Op. 47, 512 P.3d at 303 (internal quotation marks omitted).
                             The district court concluded that the initiative requires an
                expenditure of money to create a board to determine if abortions are
                performed within the standard of care.        In particular, the district court

                focused on subsection 4 of the initiative, which provides the State cannot
                :`penalize, prosecute or otherwise take adverse action against a provider of
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                       13
(0) 1947A
                    health care, who is licensed by the State, for acting consistent with the
                    applicable scope of practice and standard of care for performing an abortion
                    upon, providing abortion care to, or providing reproductive care services to
                    an individual." The district court reasoned that only a provider of health
                    care can testify as to the standard of care and thus a panel or board would
                    need to be created to evaluate whether an abortion had been provided
                    within the standard of care.
                                The district court reads too much into subsection 4.          The

                    provision limits the State's ability to prosecute a health care provider for
                    providing abortion services or reproductive care that a party has consented
                    to receive. It does not require that such providers be prosecuted if their care
                    falls below the standard of care. Nor does the provision clearly contemplate
                    a new State entity to determine the standard of care or to evaluate whether
                    a provider performed within the standard of care. As the district court's
                    order seemingly recognizes, if a health care provider were prosecuted or
                    sued for substandard care, appropriate expert testimony could be presented
                    to address the applicable standard of care. If a provider's care fell below the
                    standard of care, current laws and procedures for penalizing or prosecuting
                    a health care provider could address such a situation.         See, e.g., NRS

                    Chapter 41A (permitting an action for professional negligence when a
                    health care provider's treatment falls below the standard of care, causing
                    damages); NRS Chapter 630 (governing licenses of health care providers
                    and providing procedures for discipline). Further, to the extent the district
                    court construed the initiative as requiring a standard of care to be set as a
                    matter of law, the state government already includes entities that the
                    Legislature could task with adopting such regulations.         See, e.g., NRS

                    442.007(1) (providing that "Mlle State Board of Health shall adopt

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                          14
(0) 1947A    4044
                regulations establishing standards for perinatal care provided by any
                provider of health care"); NRS 442.260(1) (providing that the Division of

                Public and Behavioral Health "shall adopt and enforce regulations
                governing the conditions under and the methods by which abortions may be
                performed"). Accordingly, it is not a foregone conclusion that the initiative
                requires an expenditure of money to create a board to make those
                determinations. The idea that the initiative requires such an expenditure
                is speculative, at best.
                             Washington failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that
                the initiative petition includes an appropriation or requires the expenditure
                of money. Washington provided no relevant evidence below, and the fiscal
                report did not indicate that the initiative petition would require an

                expenditure of funds. Even at oral argument before this court, Washington
                acknowledged that any appropriation or expenditure of funds would be
                merely speculative at this point. Accordingly, we conclude the initiative
                petition does not violate Article 19, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution.
                                              CONCLUSION
                             The district court erred when it credited Washington's
                challenge to the initiative petition and enjoined the Secretary of State from
                placing the measure on the ballot.     The initiative petition has a single

                subject: the establishment of a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.
                All the provisions of the initiative petition are germane or functionally
                related to that subject.   Additionally, the description of effect is legally
                sufficient, as it is a straightforward, succinct, and nonargurnentative
                summary of the initiative's goals and how it intends to achieve those goals.
                Lastly, Washington did not meet her burden of demonstrating that the
                initiative petition requires an expenditure of money.       Accordingly, we

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                     15
(0) 1947A
                reverse the district court's order enjoining the Secretary of State from
                placing the initiative petition on the 2024 ballot.

                                                           Al;„%y,*"..P       J.
                                                    Stiglich

                We concur:

                                                                 , C.J.
                                         Cadish

                Pickering                                    Herndon

                Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVAOA

10) I947A
                                                      16