Supreme Court
OF
NeEvADA
(0) 1947TA RR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
EDUCATION FREEDOM PAC, No. 84735
Appellant,
Vs. ‘
BEVERLY ROGERS, AN INDIVIDUAL: ~=—RPILEB
RORY REID, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND
BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE, IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS NEVADA
SECRETARY OF STATE,
Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order enjoining an
initiative petition’s circulation and placement on the ballot. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; Charles M. McGee, Senior Judge.
Appellant Education Freedom PAC (EFP) seeks to place an
initiative on the ballot that would establish education freedom accounts for parents to use on their child’s education if their child is educated outside of the public school system. The initiative does not include a funding provision and instead provides that the additions proposed to NRS Chapter 394 would not become effective unless the Legislature funds them. Respondents Beverly Rogers and Rory Reid (collectively referred to as Rogers) filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the initiative petition. The district court granted the requested relief, invalidating the initiative petition and enjoining EFP from circulating it for signatures and enjoining the Secretary of State from placing it on the ballot on the basis that the initiative created an unfunded mandate in violation of Article 19, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution.
Article 19, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution “does not
permit the proposal of any statute or statutory amendment which makes an
22-2877
Supreme Court
OF
Nevapa
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.” See also Nev. Const. art. 19, § 2(1) (stating that the people’s power to legislate by initiative petition is “subject to the limitations of Section 6 of this Article”). In applying Article 19, Section 6, we have recognized that an initiative that “make[s] an appropriation or requires an expenditure of money” is void if it does not also provide for the necessary revenue to fund the appropriation or expenditure. Rogers v. Heller, 117 Nev. 169, 173, 18 P.3d 1034, 1036 (2001). If, like here, the district court resolves the challenge to an initiative petition in the absence of any factual dispute, our review is de novo. Helton v. Nev. Voters First PAC, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, 512 P.3d 309 (2022),
We recently affirmed a district court order invalidating an initiative petition proposed by EFP that also proposed an educationfreedom-account program without a funding provision, but that petition sought to do so through an amendment to the Nevada Constitution. Education Freedom PAC v. Reid (Education Freedom I), 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 47, 512 P.38d 296 (2022). We explained in that opinion that one cannot escape the funding requirement in Article 19, Section 6 by leaving it up to the Legislature to determine how to fund the expenditures required by changes proposed in an initiative petition. Id.
With the initiative petition at issue here, EFP proposes a
statutory scheme that requires the expenditure of money but leaves to the Legislature whether and how to fund that expenditure, The petition creates a program for education freedom accounts that will require appropriations
and expenditures for the program to exist. Yet, the petition does not include
(0) (947A eee
any funding provisions. The initiative process does not permit petition proponents to propose statutes that may never take effect because they rely on the Legislature to enact legislation effectuating them. Thus, we conclude the district court properly determined that the initiative petition was void for failing to comply with Article 19, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution.!
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
[ST
aria ST OW.
Parraguirre
pon rh 5 Wg
Hardesty Stiglich
lad Ji WG Zio Ji
Cadish Silver
Fehon NAD J. L x J.
Pickering Herndon
ce: Chief Judge, The First Judicial District Court
Hon. Charles M. McGee, Senior Judge
Hutchison & Steffen, LLC/Reno
Attorney General/Carson City
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP
First District Court Clerk
1Tn light of our conclusion here, we need not reach the other two issues addressed in the district court’s order.
Supreme Court
OF
NEVADA 3
(0) 19474 ESeo