Nevada Special Session Amendment, Question 1 (2012)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Question 1
750px-Flag of Kansas.svg.png
Click here to read the latest news on ballot measures around the country
Quick stats
Type:legislatively-referred constitutional amendment
Constitution:Nevada Constitution
Referred by:Nevada Legislature
Topic:State legislatures measures
Status:On the ballot
Nevada Special Session Amendment, Question 1, was on the November 6, 2012 statewide ballot in Nevada as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure provided that the Nevada Legislature may convene a special legislative session upon a petition signed by two-thirds of the Legislators of each chamber, on "extraordinary occasions."[1]

Special sessions would be limited to 20 calendar days under the measure, unless that session is called to expel a legislator or impeach or remove the Nevada Governor. The impeachment provision would also include other constitutional officers and judicial officers. Another way those sessions could be extended is if a supermajority of 66% of members in both chambers approve of doing so.

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

The following are official election results:

Nevada Question 1
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 511,282 53.97%
No436,06546.03%

Results via the Nevada Secretary of State

Text of measure

Ballot language

The following is ballot language that appeared before voters:[2]

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to expressly provide that the Legislature may, on extraordinary occasions, convene a special legislative session upon a petition signed by two-thirds of the Legislators of each House; to limit the subject matter of bills passed at a special session; to limit the duration of a special session to 20 consecutive calendar days except for proceedings involving impeachment, removal or expulsion from office; and to require the Legislature to adjourn all sessions on their final day not later than midnight based on the actual time on the clock?

Yes

No[3]

Support

  • Some state lawmakers commented that the state's economy began deteriorating in 2008, but that nothing was done because no special session was called. According to State Assemblyman James Ohrenschall, "As it was, we had to wait until we came back into regular session in 2009" to address the foreclosure crisis and state's tumbling economy.[1]

Opposition

  • State Assemblyman Pat Hickey stated that the measure "becomes an excuse to do something we do not do in regular session...In effect, it would substitute for the fact that we have biennial sessions and not yearly ones."[1]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link


References