TASC initiative fails to make election ballot

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - A proposal to curb government spending was stripped Friday from Nevada's Nov. 7 ballot by the state Supreme Court.

The high court also erased several sections of a plan to limit land seizures by government agencies, but left the rest of that proposal on the ballot.

Quick decisions on the two plans had been expected, following Aug. 23 court arguments. Election officials throughout the state are up against deadlines for getting general election ballots to printers, so they can be ready for mailing to absentee voters later this month.

The seven-member court voted unanimously to reject the government spending plan, known as the Tax and Spending Control or TASC initiative, saying supporters failed to strictly comply with mandatory, constitutional rules for ballot questions. The court rejected arguments that "substantial compliance" would be good enough.

The Nevada Constitution "is the organic and fundamental law of this state, and to allow a sweeping amendment to it or to this state's legislative acts, without strict adherence to the rules set forth therein, would work against government stability," the court said.

Justices also said allowable spending in a circulated version of the plan was $1.5 billion more than the amount allowed in a copy filed with the secretary of state, and would have allowed spending "at or even beyond" historic levels.

Since TASC proponents were vocal about limiting government spending, "the circulated petition involves more than a mere typographical error. It is misleading," the court said.

"It's a political decision," said state Sen. Bob Beers, TASC's chief backer who recently lost the Republican nomination for governor.

"There's plenty of judicial precedent here within the state to forgive minor technical errors that have very little impact on the measure's content," Beers, R-Las Vegas, added.

Beers said he plans to continue his efforts to curb government growth. He blames public employee unions for the steady increase in government spending.

The court's decision "is likely to widen the gulf between those who work for the government and those who don't," Beers said. "Our out-of-control government unions are going to eat our people alive if we don't do something about it."

The measure was opposed by Nevadans for Nevada, a union-led coalition, and the court's ruling was praised by Danny Thompson, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO Nevada.

"I think it was the right ruling for the right reason," Thompson said. "It didn't comply with the single-subject law and there were two different versions - and not just a comma out of place. There were substantive differences."

The government spending plan was modeled on Colorado's Taxpayers Bill of Rights. It proposed to amend the Nevada state constitution to limit local and state government spending increases by using a formula based on the rate of inflation.

Nevada isn't the only place where advocates of smaller government have sought to pass measures capping state spending.

The Michigan elections board on Friday voted against putting a measure on the November ballot that would limit state government spending, agreeing that backers did not collect enough valid signatures.

That followed a recent decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court to throw out a proposed petition to reduce growth in government spending because it lacked enough valid signatures. Oregon and Montana have similar fall ballot measures.

Justices also had raised questions about the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL, the initiative aimed at curbing eminent domain abuses, but in a ruling that included two partial dissents decided to leave part of it on the ballot.

Proponents of PISTOL, on the ballot as Question 2, say they want to stop governments from acquiring private land through eminent domain and then selling the land for private development.

"These guys put on the robes of Solomon and came up with a win-win decision for everybody," said former judge Don Chairez, a PISTOL supporter and Republican candidate for attorney general.

"What they took out merely were the footnotes, not a big concern for me," Chairez added. "They've left the heart - not allowing Kelo-type taking."

Chairez' said the measure was a reaction to last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, which allowed eminent domain authority to be used to obtain land for commercial purposes that generate tax revenue.