Question #1: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to provide for the appointment of Supreme Court justices and District Court judges by the Governor for their initial terms from lists of candidates nominated by the Commission on Judicial Selection, with subsequent retention of those justices and judges after independent performance evaluations and voter approval?
A lot of conservatives are supporting this one, and I completely see their point: voters tend to put stupid people in office. Case in point: Elizabeth Halverson. Having judges temporarily appointed would solve that.
But here’s why I oppose it. First, just because the people are not doing their research and getting involved is no reason to take away their authority to choose their judges. We should never, ever give away any of our autonomy. Agreeing with the mindset that elites should take care of us can only lead to tyranny.
Second, though there are areas in American politics where some leaders are chosen for us by other leaders (and before the seventeenth amendment, there used to be more), in those cases the latter were elected with the understanding that they would choose the former. Such would not be the case here, where a committee of lawyers and other yahoos would have that power, but would not be picked by us for that purpose.
Third, how does this guarantee there won’t be incompetence or corruption? Unless this new selection committee is headed by Elliott Ness, they’ll be susceptible to mistakes and worse.
No, Nevada, do not give up your power to choose your judges.
Question #2: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow for the establishment of an intermediate appellate court, that would have jurisdiction over appeals of certain civil and criminal cases arising from the district courts?
Yes, the Nevada Supreme Court is very busy, but spending more money and expanding government is not the answer. This would cause longer delays for those seeking justice, and it would only encourage more frivolous lawsuits. So most other states have such appellate courts. So what? Being different from other states is what made us so successful. Let’s not follow the lemmings over the cliff.
Question #3: Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to authorize the Legislature to amend or repeal any provision of this Act only if necessary to resolve a conflict with any federal law or interstate agreement for the administration, collection, or enforcement of sales and use taxes?
Oh boy! You mean the government can have more power to tax me without me having any say-so in the matter? Great! Where do I sign?
(And for those of you ungifted in my area of specialty, that was sarcasm.)
Question #4: Shall Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution be repealed and shall Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to revise provisions relating to eminent domain proceedings?
Repeal PISTOL? No way. Not after the voters worked so hard to get this passed in the first place. PISTOL, in case you didn’t know, is what protects Nevada citizens from the insane government-seizure-of-private-property-on-a-whim effects of the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, possibly the worst thing they’ve done in a generation. At any rate, I wonder who wrote and pushed for this question. I’m willing to bet it wasn’t a grassroots group, unless big government lobbyists can be considered grassroots, now.
Question #5: This question is advisory only. Shall the consent of the governing body of the local government be required before the State Legislature can act to decrease revenues or reserves collected by, distributed to, or held by the local government, or impose fees on or mandate new or different services be performed by the local government?
For some real fun, read the argument against this one in the sample ballot. It invokes a metaphor of a parent-child relationship between state government and local governments. Wow. This reminds me of last March when Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman used the same metaphor to explain his treatment of local unions. That was one of the few times I’ve really been disappointed in him.
So, no, whoever wrote that argument. The state is NOT like a parent who gets to do with funding whatever they wish, to the exclusion of the needs of the pitiful, pathetic, local government peons you disdain with such arrogance. You absolutely DO need to work with us, instead of just taking back our allowance and making us stand in the corner to think about what we’ve done.