4 Nevada questions on November election ballot

Nevada voters who've held fast to their right to elect judges are being asked to forgo judicial elections in favor of an appointment process. They're also being asked to create an intermediate appeals court.

Those issues, both of which have failed before, are two of the four questions that will be decided by voters when early voting begins Oct. 16 in advance of the Nov. 2 election.

Another measure would authorize the state Legislature to change the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 without voter approval - and make it easier to tax Internet and catalog sales under a bill pending in Congress.

Another would tweak - some say weaken - a constitutional amendment already passed by voters restricting government's ability to take private property under eminent domain.

Question 1 would amend the Nevada Constitution and establish an appointment process for Nevada Supreme Court justices and District Court judges. It was passed by the 2007 and 2009 Legisla-

tures, and must be approved by voters to be implemented.

Voters last defeated a similar measure to appoint judges in 1988, but advocates of Question 1 are hoping some changes and a public education campaign will help it prevail.

Under Question 1, judicial candidates would have their qualifications screened by the Commission on Judicial Selection, a process used now to fill judicial vacancies. The commission would submit finalists to the governor who would make the appointment.

After two years, judges and justices would be subject to a public evaluation by a new Commission on Judicial Performance before having their names placed on a general election ballot to determine whether they should be retained for a six-year term. They would have to receive 55 percent of votes cast to be retained and undergo evaluations and retention votes every six years afterward.

A group called Nevadans for Qualified Judges is advocating the measure, and has the backing of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former Nevada Chief Justice Bill Maupin, state Sen. Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and others.

A poll conducted in July for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and KLAS-TV showed 54 percent of voters opposed judicial appointments.

"We'd argue this process enables voters to more easily remove bad judges from the bench," said Nicole Willis-Grimes, a spokeswoman for the group.

The effort began after an unflattering series of stories about Nevada's judicial system by the Los Angeles Times in 2006, and a scandal involving former Clark County District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson who was ultimately removed from the bench.

Willis-Grimes said the goal is to remove an appearance that campaign contributions buy influence in the courtroom and ensure judges are qualified.

Question 2 would authorize the creation of an intermediate appeals court, something voters have rejected twice in the past 30 years. It failed by a margin of 6 percent in 1980 and 8 percent in 1992, when critics argued another layer of judiciary would just shift the court's logjam from one court to another and increase litigation costs.

The July newspaper poll showed 58 percent voter support.

Nevada is one of 11 states that doesn't have an appellate court. The state Supreme Court resolves all appeals, and is one of the busiest in the nation. In 2009, the seven-member Supreme Court received more than 2,100 new cases and disposed of roughly the same number.

Question 3 would authorize the Legislature to amend the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 "to resolve a conflict with any federal law or interstate agreement for the administration, collection or enforcement of sales and use taxes."

Voters have handily rejected similar ballot measures in the past. Because the law was first enacted by referendum, changes must be approved by voters.

The issue revolves around efforts in Congress to streamline collection of taxes for online or catalog sales. Currently, Nevada residents don't pay sales tax on items purchased online or from catalogs if the seller is from outside the state.

Nevada and 19 other states are members of the Stream-lined Sales Tax Project, an effort created by the National Conference of State Legis-

lators, National Association of Governors and Federation of Tax Administrators to persuade Congress to give them authority to collect taxes on remote sales.

"If Congress passes the bill, those states that are full members are the only ones that will share in the revenue," said Dino DiCianno, Nevada taxation director.

The ballot measure would authorize the Legislature to make changes to the law to remain in compliance with the agreement. Any changes in the tax rate or exemptions would still require voter approval, he said.

Question 4 would amend a constitutional provision known as PISTOL - the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land - that was passed overwhelmingly by voters in 2006 and 2008.

That amendment prevents governments from transferring property taken from one private party to another private party for development, and sets a five-year time frame during which public projects must begin before the property is offered back to the original owner for the original price.

It also imposes requirements on appraisals and defines "just compensation" for a property owner to include compounded interest and all "reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred."

After its initial passage, critics who feared it would cripple local governments and public projects worked with lawmakers, who approved a companion bill and proposed constitutional amendment revising the PISTOL amendment.

Among other provisions, the revision, Question 4, would extend the time limit from five years to 15, and require anyone who wants to challenge the taking of property in court to pay their own costs.

It also allows exceptions to the prohibition of transferring private property to another private party, such as through a government lease.

Question 4 has been approved twice by lawmakers and will replace the existing eminent domain amendment if passed in November.