Vote Nevada PAC filed two new ballot questions today in response to the legal challenge to our independent redistricting commission initiative. Both ballot questions are now on the SOS website: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/2026-petitions 

The Nevada Constitution grants every Nevadan the right to run and vote on ballot questions; failing to empower every Nevadan to exercise that right puts it in grave danger.  Our constitutional amendment ballot question, therefore, reverses the latest interpretation of Section 6, thereby lessening that danger.

The first ballot question directly addresses the 2022 Nevada Supreme Court ruling that drastically re-interpreted Article 19, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution, which is cited in the legal challenge.  Until 2022, the legal interpretation of Section 6 matched the plain language interpretation: It only applied to statutory and statutory amendment ballot questions.  

Here is Article 19, Section 6:

Sec. 6.  Limitation on initiative making appropriation or requiring expenditure of money.  This Article does not permit 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.

In the 2022 Education Freedom PAC v. Reid ruling, our state Supreme Court decided that Section 6 also applied to constitutional amendment ballot questions.  No one has ever used that interpretation, dating back to the addition of Section 6 to the Nevada Constitution in 1972.

Consequently, anyone can now challenge a constitutional amendment ballot question and claim, not prove, that the ballot question’s outcome will require an expenditure of public funding.  And solely based on that claim, the court can require ballot question sponsors to put tax laws in the Nevada Constitution to pay for hypothetical expenditures.  

It takes at least five years to amend the Nevada Constitution, so how exactly can someone accurately estimate the cost of something new and then craft a tax or tax increase that will withstand the constant fluctuations in our economy?  It is impossible. 

If this wasn’t bewildering enough, it has also become very apparent that the Reid ruling is not being applied uniformly to all constitutional amendment ballot questions.  Two constitutional amendment ballot questions were on our 2024 ballot and will also appear on our 2026 ballot, which will likely require an expenditure of state funds for at least administrative costs. 

Yet, neither Ballot Question 6 nor Ballot Question 7 includes revenue-generating taxes.  What is the difference between our ballot question and these questions?  The only difference is that no one sued to force these ballot question sponsors to add a taxing mechanism to their constitutional amendment ballot questions.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives every American the right to equal protection under the law.  This is clearly not happening in Nevada with the new requirement to include taxing mechanisms in constitutional amendment ballot questions.  Instead, Nevadans are being subjected to different standards and treatment by the state, depending on the actions of the political parties and special interest groups.

If the political parties and special interest groups like your ballot question, the state gives you a free pass to avoid unfunded mandate requirements.  But if the political parties or special interest groups dislike your ballot question, then your initiative is pulled into court to trigger the state to enforce the taxation requirement. 

Furthermore, upon reviewing all the information about ballot questions on the Nevada Secretary of State’s website, there is not a single mention of Article 19, Section 6, nor is there any reference to the Reid ruling requirements. How is the average Nevadan supposed to know about the new revenue-generating taxation requirement to ensure they put taxes into our state constitution when running a ballot question?

We clearly now have a two-tiered system for direct democracy in our state.  One tier for Nevadans who can hire attorneys to manage their ballot initiatives, and one for Nevadans who represent themselves and so cannot afford to hold government and powerful people accountable.  

Our second ballot question is also a constitutional amendment. We must ensure that every Nevadan is treated equitably and fairly in the redistricting process.  Nonpartisan voters must be entitled to the same rights and protections as all voters, regardless of their political affiliation.  The political parties should have no power to silence any Nevadan through rigged redistricting maps. 

The second ballot question, therefore, adds this language to our existing Voter Bill of Rights: 

(All eligible voters have a right:) To have equal rights and treatment in all aspects of representative government without regard to political party affiliation, including, but not limited to, processes that determine representation through apportionment and redistricting.

Vote Nevada Supporters,

I want to share background information on the two ballot questions we filed today with the Secretary of State’s office.  Below you will find a link to the Secretary of State’s Ballot Petitions website as well as the very detailed press release, which we put out for the news media.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sec. of State Ballot Petitions: https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/2026-petitions

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Refer to the link at the end for background information and essential details.

On September 9, 2025, Vote Nevada PAC exercised our state constitutional right to amend Nevada’s constitution through the ballot question process.  This right is under threat and must be protected and preserved. 

We refiled the independent redistricting commission ballot question as it was filed in 2020, 2022, and 2024.

Nevada’s redistricting process is plainly corrupt and must be put into alignment with Nevada’s transparency and accountability laws.

We are not proposing a nonpartisan redistricting commission; instead, we support a balanced commission with Democrats, Republicans, and non-major-party Nevadans.  Currently, while nonpartisan and third-party voters comprise just under 43% of registered voters, nonpartisan and third-party elected representatives comprise 0% of our legislature. 

The proposed commission, therefore, aligns with the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of representative government and provides a seat at the table for all Nevadans.

Our redistricting commission will be independent of our legislative redistricting process. This is key to our proposal.  Currently, our legislature exempts itself from Nevada’s Open Meeting Law and Public Records Act, which means it exempts itself from transparency and accountability. 

Consequently, legislators draw the people’s redistricting maps behind closed doors, blocking the public’s right to know who is enabling Nevada’s politicians to pick their voters.  This is an indefensible, corrupt process that must change.

If our legislators were interested in addressing this corruption, the legislative majority could have heard and passed AJR5 in the 2025 legislative session, yet the bill failed to receive even a hearing.  Assemblywoman Kasama’s bill proposed amending the Nevada Constitution to put redistricting under our Open Meeting Law and Public Records Act.

Our ballot question also limits redistricting to the 180 days following the release of the Census, so there will be no mid-cycle redistricting.  This obviously addresses the partisan nonsense in the news right now.

Our amendment transfers existing funding for redistricting from the legislative process to the independent redistricting commission, which is similar to Ballot Question 6 and Ballot Question 7 from 2024.  Neither of those ballot questions includes a taxing mechanism despite expending state funds due to the presumption that current state funding can be used to implement those two amendments.

This proposed amendment also utilizes the exact wording of Senate Joint Resolution 6 from the 2025 Nevada legislative session. As a legislative resolution, it was written by the Legislative Counsel Bureau, which comprises attorneys who write legislation; therefore, our ballot question meets all current legislative legal qualifications.

To further strengthen the rights of voters, we will also fill a second, related ballot question.

Second Ballot Question: Reduce Barriers to Primary Voting

Currently, we have segregated primary elections where members of the two major private political organizations exclude non-party members from participating in their closed, taxpayer-funded primaries.

We must ensure every eligible voter can make their voice heard in every taxpayer-funded election.   The two major private political parties do have a protected right of association, but they do not have a right to force taxpayers to pay for their internal nominating functions.

This problem is happening even though in 2020 Nevadans put a Voter Bill of Rights in our constitution, which states that all eligible voters have a right:

9. To equal access to the elections system without discrimination, including, without limitation, discrimination on the basis of race, age, disability, military service, employment or overseas residence.

https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/voters-bill-of-rights

To clarify this right, we are filing a second ballot question to add the right to equal participation in all taxpayer-funded elections regardless of political affiliation to our state constitution’s Voter Bill of Rights. 

12.   To fully participate in all publicly funded elections without limitation, including, but not limited to, any requirement to affiliate with any private organization, such as a political party.

Political parties can engage in privately funded nominating processes if they so desire.  For example, in 2024, the Nevada Republican Party ran a private caucus in the presidential preference primary, and the national Democratic Party hosted a private Zoom meeting to select Kamala Harris.

In closing: 

In 2024, both political parties advised voters not to support Ballot Question 3 because the BQ3 campaign had received outside funding.  They did this knowing it is almost impossible to pass a ballot question without millions of dollars, which is why their preferred ballot questions (6 & 7) also received outside funding.

Vote Nevada is comprised of Nevadans with no outside funders; we simply need the opportunity to speak to our fellow Nevadans to try to pass necessary democracy reforms.  If either of the political parties sues to stop us so they can maintain control of our democracy, the parties will win, and we will lose our right to fix what the parties have broken. 

History of Redistricting Reform in Nevada

 Thank you for being a Nevadan with me,

 Sondra

Vote Nevada is now qualified to receive donations through
Smith’s Inspiring Donations; you can read more about how to donate to Vote Nevada each time you use your Smith’s loyalty card here https://www.smithsfoodanddrug.com/i/community/smiths-inspiring-donations

Vote Nevada is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit civic engagement
organization.  Anyone can become a supporter by emailing info@vote-nevada.org;
we have no membership dues. You can now donate to Vote Nevada through
PayPal at  https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=L423L7FBMMBEA