Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




Nevada Eminent Domain Amendment, Question 4 (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nevada Constitution
Flag of Nevada.png
Articles
Preliminary ActionOrdinancePreamble1234567891011121314151617XVIII19Election Ordinance
Nevada Eminent Domain Amendment, Question 4 appeared on the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment where it was defeated.

The proposal prohibited the taking of private property if it was to be transferred to a private party.[1][2]

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results
Question 4 (Eminent Domain)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No440,24467.28%
Yes 214,086 32.72%

Source: Nevada Secretary of State - November 2 official results

Text of measure

Title

According to the Nevada Secretary of State's office, the ballot question read as follows:[3]

Shall Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution be repealed and shall Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to revise provisions relating to eminent domain proceedings?

Constitutional changes

See also: Nevada Question 4 (2010), constitutional text changes

If approved by voters, the proposed measure would have repealed Article 1, Section 22 and amended Section 8 of Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution.[4] The amended section can be read here.

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Nevada ballot measures, 2010

Opposition

  • The Reno Gazette-Journal was opposed to Question 4. "An initiative (PISTOL) sought, in clear and concise language, to put a stop to these transfers once and for all and to give property owners legal tools to use in the event their property was targeted for taking by the government. The initiative passed with over 60% voter approval in both 2006 and 2008. Voters understood the issues and chose to pass the initiative in two successive elections, so there is no reason to change anything here. They are seeking simply to sidestep the voters," said the editorial board.[5]

Path to the ballot

See also: Nevada legislatively-referred constitutional amendments

A majority vote was required (in two successive sessions) of the Nevada State Legislature to qualify the proposed measure for the 2010 ballot.

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Articles

External links

Additional reading

References