Nevada Creation of a State Intermediate Appellate Court, Question 1 (2014)
- 1 Text of measure
- 2 Support
- 3 Background
- 4 Media editorial positions
- 5 Path to the ballot
- 6 Similar measures
- 7 See also
- 8 External links
- 9 References
If SJR 14 is approved, all appeals would still be filed with the Nevada Supreme Court, which would then be allowed to assign certain cases to the intermediate court. If the intermediate court is created, it would operate in already existing space in the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas, in an attempt to decrease costs.
Text of measure
The ballot question will appear as follows:
|“||Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to create a Court of Appeals that would decide appeals of District Court decisions in certain civil and criminal cases?||”|
The ballot summary reads as follows:
|“||EXPLANATION—This ballot measure proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to create a Court of Appeals consisting of three judges. The Nevada Supreme Court would establish the types of District Courtdecisions to be heard by the Court of Appeals and also determine when a Court of Appeals decision may be reviewed by the Nevada Supreme Court.
A “Yes” vote would create a Court of Appeals within the existing court system.
A “No” vote would retain the existing court system.
DIGEST—Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution establishes the court system of the State of Nevada, which currently consists of the Nevada Supreme Court, District Courts, Justices of the Peace, and Municipal Courts. The Nevada Supreme Court is the only appellate court in Nevada that hears and decides all appeals from final judgments entered by Nevada’s District Courts. This ballot measure would create a Court of Appeals to decide some of the appeals currently decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would establish the types of District Court decisions to be heard by the Court of Appeals and also determine when a Court of Appeals decision may be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This ballot measure would create, generate, or increase public revenue because existing law would require candidates for judgeships on the Court of Appeals to pay fees to run for judicial office. It also would create, generate, or increase public revenue because, if a party appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court, the Nevada Constitution would require the party to pay a fee for filing the appeal.
The Court of Appeals would consist of three judges, but this ballot measure would authorize theLegislature to increase the number of judges. The Governor would appoint the initial three judges from nominees provided by the Commission on Judicial Selection. The initial threejudges would be appointed to two-year terms. Thereafter, Court of Appeals judges would be elected to six-year terms at the general election. Additionally, the Supreme Court would assign, as needed, one or more Court of Appeals judges to serve part-time as supplemental District Court judges.
If this ballot measure is approved by the voters, Senate Bill No. 463 of the 2013 Legislative Session would carry out the constitutional provisions creating the Court of Appeals. 
The fiscal note reads as follows:
The Administrative Office of the Courts has indicated that this ballot measure creating a Court of Appeals would require operating expenses of approximately $800,000 in FY 2015, relating to judicial selection, salaries, and other expenses for the administration of a Court of Appeals. However, the Legislature, in Assembly Bill No. 474 of the 2013 Legislative Session, approvedfunding to the Interim Finance Contingency Account for the initial implementation of a Court of Appeals in FY 2015, contingent upon the passage of this ballot measure. Therefore, no additional funding beyond that which has already been approved would be necessary for the operation of a Court of Appeals in FY 2015.
The Administrative Office of the Courts has indicated that ongoing costs for administration of a Court of Appeals, if approved by the voters, would be approximately $1.5 million per year. It is not known at this time, however, whether the Legislature and the Governor would choose to provide this funding from the State General Fund or from other sources.
Representatives of the Nevada Supreme Court have indicated that a Court of Appeals initially would be housed in existing court facilities in northern and southern Nevada, which would avoid the need for capital expenditures to establish a Court of Appeals. Thus, no immediate financial impact upon State government for capital costs is anticipated.
After the initial two-year terms of the three judges appointed to a Court of Appeals, candidates for future judgeships will be required by existing law to pay filing fees to the Office of the Secretary of State in order to seek judicial office. This will result in an increase in revenue to the State General Fund beginning in FY 2016, but the amount of the increase cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty because the number of candidates cannot be predicted. 
Arguments in favor
Supporters of this measure propose that an intermediate court would allow for expedited decisions on appealed issues, increase the efficiency of the Nevada legal system and free up the Nevada Supreme Court to investigate important cases more carefully.
Nevada voters rejected a state intermediate appellate court in 2010 when Question 2 was defeated by a 53 percent majority.
Media editorial positions
- The Reno Gazette-Journal said,
|“||Nevada has the hardest working justices in the country, but that enormous workload has consequences. The court cleared 2,373 cases last year but still had nearly 1,900 cases pending. That means delays, and delays are the mortal enemies of justice. Delays affect those caught up in the criminal justice system; they also affect businesses, which dislike the uncertainty that delays cause for their operations.
A state with a population of 2.8 million, and rising, simply cannot afford to operate without an appeals court anymore.
Vote yes on Question 1 .
—Reno Gazette-Journal, 
- The Moapa Valley Progress said,
|“||There are better ways to approach the prblem [sic] of an over-extended Supreme Court. Our society has become entirely too litigious, with too many attorneys bringing too many frivilous [sic] lawsuits; swamping legal resources and grinding down the wheels of justice. That is really at the core of the problem here. Providing an ever increasing stream of new courts and justices will not fix this ever growing appetite for litigation. Throwing more money at the problem won’t fix it.
What is needed in the state is meaningful tort reform to discourage frivolous lawsuits and hold attorneys accountable and financially liable. Perhaps that is what the voters of Nevada have been trying to say to the legislature for the past 40 years in repeatedly deciding NO on this amendment. Meaningful tort reform is admittedly the harder path for the legislature. But it would bring the best outcome for the taxpayers of the state; much better than a vastly more expensive appellate court. We would recommend that Nevada’s voters hang tough on this issue yet again and vote NO on Question 1.
—Moapa Valley Progress, 
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Nevada Constitution
According to Article 16, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution, an amendment proposed by the legislature must be approved by a majority in both the House and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions. If twice approved by the legislature, the amendment then goes to the ballot where voters decide whether or not to ultimately pass it.
April 14, 2011 Senate vote
|Nevada SJR 14 Senate Vote|
May 20, 2013 Senate vote
|Nevada SJR 14* Senate Vote|
May 13, 2011 Assembly vote
|Nevada SJR 14 Assembly Vote|
May 28, 2013 Assembly vote
|Nevada SJR 14* Assembly Vote|
- Nevada Legislature, "SJR 14," accessed October 30, 2013
- Kring and Chung, "Will 2014 Finally Be the Year that Nevada Gets a Court of Appeal?" accessed March 18, 2014
- Nevada Secretary of State, "Question No. 1," accessed September 18, 2014
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Reno Gazette-Journal, "Editorial: Question 3 isn't answer to Nevada's tax woes," October 23, 2014
- Moapa Valley Progress, "EDITORIAL: A Brief Guide to NV Ballot Questions," October 22, 2014
- LegiScan, "Nevada Senate Joint Resolution 14," accessed March 18, 2014
- Open States, "SJR 14: Nevada 2011 Regular Session," accessed May 13, 2014
- Nevada Legislature, "SJR14* of the 76th (2011) Session," accessed May 13, 2014
|state ballot measure article is a stub. You can help people learn by expanding it.|
State of Nevada
Carson City (capital)
|State executive officers||
Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | State Treasurer | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Director of Agriculture | Director of Conservation and Natural Resources | Director of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation | Chairman of Public Utilities Commission |