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.
