Editor’s Note: This is the last in a four part series that have introduced the candidates and issues appearing on the 2016 General Election ballot for Moapa Valley voters.
By VERNON ROBISON
Moapa Valley Progress
Moapa Valley voters will be faced with five important questions on the ballot in the upcoming election. Four of these are state-wide ballot initiatives, two of which have become quite controversial. The fifth is a question for Clark County residents only, regarding increasing taxes for road construction.
The following article will briefly explore what is in these ballot measures and lay out the arguments made for and against each one.
To see the PROGRESS recommendations on each of these measures please read this week’s Editorial column on the Opinion page of this edition.
Question 1: Background checks
Shall Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to prohibit, except in certain circumstances, a person from selling or transferring a firearm to another person unless a federally-licensed dealer first conducts a federal background check on the potential buyer or transferee?
Currently the State of Nevada does not require background checks during tranfers of firearms between unlicensed individuals. There are federal laws that require licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks. But private dealers who may be selling online, in-person, at gun expos or in any other private transaction, are exempt from those laws.
Question 1 would require that an unlicensed person, wishing to sell or in any way transfer a firearm to another person, must conduct the transaction through a licensed gun dealer who runs a background check.
The licensed dealer would be allowed to charge a “reasonable fee” for the service. Representatives at Ace Hardware in Overton said that current federal background checks involve the efforts of three different employees to check and double-check their accuracy. In addition, all paperwork of the transaction has to be kept on file at the dealer for a period of 25 years, they said. Currently the cost of a federal background check is a $25 fee. In addition, an administrative fee for the employee time and data storage is currently around $35 for a normal transfer; though Ace Hardware staff were hesitant to give a solid figure for what these proposed private transfers would cost, as it is still unclear what might be involved in that process.
In Question 1, some temporary transfers of firearms would be exempted from the background check. These include transfers by law enforcement agencies and executors of estates upon the death of the firearm’s owner. The measure also exempts transfers between immediate family members defined as spouses and domestic partners, as well as parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews; whether whole or half blood, adoption or step-relation
The ballot measure also applies to all temporary transfers (or borrowing) of firearms with a few exemptions. These exemptions include transfers while hunting with a license in a permitted area, at lawfully organized shooting competitions, at public performances using firearms and temporary transfers made while in the presence of the transferor.
Those found in violation of the law would be charged with a “gross misdemeanor,” which could result in a $2,000 fine, up to one year in prison or both, depending on the results of a trial.
PRO: Those in favor of the measure say that it will close a loophole in Nevada law by requiring the universal background checks. They say it is a reasonable requirement since over 97% of Nevadans live within 10 miles of a licensed gun dealer. They add that the measure would reduce gun violence; keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and the mentally ill; and make cities and neighborhoods safer.
Proponents include Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson, Henderson Mayor Andy Hafen, Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve, Nevada State Education Association, Asian Chamber of Commerce, Latin Chamber of Commerce, Las Vegas Fraternal Order of Police and more.
CON: Those who oppose the initiative say it will do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Criminals will continue to break the law and acquire firearms as they do now through the black market and other illicit sources, they say.
Instead, opponents claim that Question 1 will merely make things more difficult for law abiding gun owners who would have to go through multiple, onerous expensive and time consuming background checks. Failure to submit to these new rules would then make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, opponents say.
Opponents include Governor Brian Sandoval, Attorney General Adam Laxalt, U.S. Senate candidate Joe Heck, U.S. Congressman Cresent Hardy, Sheriffs from 15 Nevada counties, the National Rifle Association and more.
Question 2: Legalized Recreational Use of Marijuana
Shall the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to allow a person, 21 years old or older, to purchase, cultivate, possess, or consume a certain amount of marijuana or concentrated marijuana, as well as manufacture, possess, use, transport, purchase, distribute, or sell marijuana paraphernalia; impose a 15 percent excise tax on wholesale sales of marijuana; require the regulation and licensing of marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, distributors, suppliers, and retailers; and provide for certain criminal penalties?
Currently, the possession or use of marijuana for recreational purposes is illegal, though its regulated use for medical purposes is permitted.
Question 2 would allow adults, aged 21 or older to possess, consume and cultivate some marijuana for recreational purposes. It would also create a 15 percent excise tax, with revenue from the tax being spent on enforcing the measure and on schools in the state.
The measure would also authorize and regulate marijuana retail stores, cultivation facilities, manufacturing facilities, testing facilities and distributors; putting all such enterprises under tight regulation.
A limit would be placed on how many licensed retail stores would be allowed in each county, depending on the county’s population. In the case of Clark County, up to 80 such stores would be allowed to receive permits and licenses.
The initiative would also establish new penalties for cultivating marijuana within public view, smoking in a public place or moving vehicle, and providing marijuana to persons less than 21 years of age.
PRO: Supporters argue that the measure would eliminate the criminal drug trade and the underground market in marijuana sales. In addition, they say that it would provide tax revenue for improving K-12 schools as well as bolster Nevada’s tourism sector. They also claim that the proposition would create thousands of new jobs and support local businesses.
Proponents include Senate Minority Leader Aaron Ford, Senator “Tick” Segerblom, Assemblywoman Olivia Diaz, Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, Culinary Workers Union Local 226 and more.
CON: Opponents say that Question 2 would be detrimental to the health of adolescents and young adults, possibly exposing them to legalized pot at an early age. It would decrease the social stigma surrounding a gateway drug, they say.
They also claim that the measure would increase road fatalities, ER visits and calls to poison control centers.
The initiative would also provide a corporate handout to big marijuana businesses waiting to move into the state, rather than an opportunity for average Nevadans, opponents say.
Opponents include Governor Brian Sandoval, Lt. Governor Mark Hutchison, US. Senator Dean Heller, Attorney General Adam Laxalt, Senate Candidate Joe Heck, U.S. Congressman Cresent Hardy, County Commissioner Mary Beth Scow, Nevada Resort Association, Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Office of the First Presidency, and more.
Question 3: Deregulate Energy Markets
Shall Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the establishment of an open, competitive retail electric energy market that prohibits the granting of monopolies and exclusive franchises for the generation of electricity?
At this time, utility companies in Nevada are permitted to establish legal monopolies in their geographic service areas. Currently, NV Energy holds that monopoly with about 1.3 million customers. To keep the monopolies in check, the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUCN) is appointed to regulate utility prices and other energy policies and see that the interest of the ratepayer is considered and represented in the process.
Question 3 seeks to end the system of legal electricity monopoly and replace it with a deregulated system. The measure is worded to place a guarantee in the Nevada Constitution that energy customers have the right to choose their energy provider and generate their own electricity for resale.
Final details would depend upon legislation that would need to come before the State Legislature in Carson City. The Legislature would be required to pass laws by the middle of 2023 that would open energy markets up to competition.
PRO: Supporters claim that energy technology has vastly improved in recent years and Nevada law has not kept pace with those innovations. They say that an absence of a competitive energy market in the Silver State has denied Nevadans the freedom to lower their electricty costs and adopt clean energy.
Proponents of the measure include US Senator Harry Reid, Clean Energy Project (CEP), Switch, Tesla, MGM Resorts, Las Vegas Sands and more.
CON: Opponents say that deregulation of the energy markets would mean a loss of control by Nevada citizens. They point to other deregulation efforts that they say have all ended in disaster. They say that deregulation of the airlines industry has made air travel a nightmare. They point out that the deregulation of the banking system brought the housing and financial crisis which followed. And the deregulation of the energy markets in the west in the 1990s allowed the Enron disaster, they say.
In addition, opponents say that the big corporate backers of the measure want voters to believe that it’s about energy choices when it actually will only “help a handful of ultra-wealthy casino moguls get even richer at the expense of Nevada’s working families.”
Opponents include Nevada State AFL-CIO, Culinary Local 226, No Handouts to Billionaires Committee and more.
Question 4: Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption
Shall Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the exemption of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for use by a licensed health care provider from any tax upon the sale, storage, use, or consumption of tangible personal property?
This measure follows the same lines as Senate Bill 334, which would have exempted certain medical equipment from sales and use taxes. That bill failed at the State Legislature, so its proponents have brought it back to Nevada voters at-large as a ballot question.
Question 4 would require the State Legislature to pass a law allowing for the exemption of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed by a licensed health care provider from any sales or use tax. The measure does not create the tax exemption per se, but rather it requires the Legislature to establish the law for such an exemption.
PRO: Supporters say that a YES vote on Question 4 helps the sick, injured and dying patients and their families. It would relieve the sales tax burden on medical equipment used by patients who require oxygen devices to live, they say.
The proponents say that the measure would have very little impact on state tax revenue. It is estimated that the measure would represent about .025% of the annual state budget, they say. But it would have a significant impact on the patients and their families that use this equipment, they say.
Proponents include the Elko City Council and the Alliance to Stop Taxes on the Sick and Dying.
CON: The argument in opposition points to the fact that sales taxes in the state pay for a myriad of services Nevadans rely upon including schools, police, fire departments, libraries and parks. On the surface, exempting medical equipment from sales tax seems a worthy cause, the argument reads.
But the opposing argument also points to several problems. First, the proposition is vaguely worded without clear definitions on specific devices and who will or can benefit. Second, it decreases revenues from an already strained budget, meaning there will be a need for higher taxes to make up the difference. Thirdly, it uses the law to provide special privileges to special interest group at the expense of everyday taxpayers.
There is no registered opposition to the measure.
Clark County Question 5: Gas Tax Measure
Shall Clark County continue indexing fuel taxes to the rate of inflation, through December 31, 2026, the proceeds of which will be used solely for the purpose of improving public safety for roadway users and reducing traffic congestion by constructing and maintaining streets and highways in Clark County?
Question 5 would permit Clark County to continue to adjust motor vehicle and fuel taxes to an averaged annual rate of inflation not to exceed 7.8% over the period of ten years beginning January 1, 2017.
Proceeds of the tax may only be used for construction and maintenance of street and highway improvements within Clark County.
Voting NO would require Clark County to stop future indexing of fuel taxes and limit local governments from beginning any new street and highway improvement projects, maintenance of existing roadways and public safety enhancements that would have been financed through fuel revenue indexing.
PRO: The argument for the measure emphasizes the importance of road improvements to the economic well-being of the region. It points out that indexing will cost an estimated 2.8 cents per gallon in 2018. Based on a 25 mpg average, that’s less than one-tenth of 1 cent per mile.
In return, motorists will likely save money, the argument states. Poor roads impose hidden costs on families and businesses in excess fuel, vehicle repairs and other operating costs.
“Without passage of Question 5, we will not have the funding necessary to complete at least 186 vital road improvement projects,” the argument for passage states.
CON: The argument against passage states that the measure could mean ten separate tax increases, nearly doubling the gas tax related to indexing. This argument points out that the tax started at 52 cents per gallon in 2014 and may go up another 46.32 cents through July of 2026.
The argument points out that the tax cannot be used for any other purpose, even though traditional sources of revene for highway construction will continue to be an option.
“If voters approve additional increases with this question, those increases may stay in place until thirty years after the last increase,” the argument against passage states. “This is way too long for a tax to stay in place without the opportunity for leaders or voters to have the ability to review it and determine if it meets the needs of our community.”
