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 Money Lending and Stock Holding, Question 5 (1992)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Nevada Money Lending and Stock Holding Question, also known as Question 5, was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment on the November 3, 1992 election ballot in Nevada, where it was defeated.

Election results

Question 5 (Money Lending and Stock Holding)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No357,19076.5%
Yes 109,739 23.5%

Official results via: Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau - Research Division

Text of measure

The language that appeared on the ballot:

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the State of Nevada to lend money or its credit to any company, association or corporation, and to subscribe to or have an interest in the stock of companies, associations or corporations, but to retain the prohibition against donating money to private companies which are not formed for educational or charitable purposes?[1]

The language that appeared in the voter's guide:

EXPLANATION
The Nevada Constitution prohibits the State of Nevada from donating or loaning money or its credit to, or subscribing to or having an interest in the stock of any company, association or corporation, except corporations formed for educational or charitable purposes. The proposed amendment would retain the prohibition against donating money of the state to businesses that are not formed for educational or charitable purposes, but would allow the state to lend money or its credit to, and subscribe to and have an interest in the stock of any business. A "Yes" vote is a vote to amend the Nevada Constitution to expand the authority of the state to loan money or its credit to, or invest in businesses. A "No" vote is a vote to disapprove the proposed amendment.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact-No. The Proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution would expand the state's ability to invest public money in various private enterprises. The proposal would have no adverse fiscal impact.[1]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

External links

References