Nevada It's Time for Gaming's Fair Share and Eliminate Property Tax Initiative (2008)
|Not on Ballot|
| This measure did not or |
will not appear on a ballot
The It's Time for Gaming's Fair Share and Eliminate Property Tax Initiative did not appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in the state of Nevada. The measure sought to raise taxes on Nevada's biggest casinos to about 22 percent and also would have eliminated all property taxes on primary residences in Nevada.
This measure was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. In order to become law, it would have needed to be approved by voters in two consecutive general elections.
The initiative, along with a similar measure, was rejected by the courts Feb. 15, 2008, for violating the single-subject rule. The ruling was in response to a challenge from the Nevada Resort Association.
Details of the proposal
Under the proposal, tax rates on monthly gaming revenue over $1 million would have gone up to equal an average of the maximum gaming tax rates in other states that allowed commercial gaming.
The proposal instructed that the additional tax revenue be used to reimburse county governments for the lost property tax revenue, with remaining revenue being allocated to teachers' pay hikes (20%), highway construction and road improvements (35%), alternative energy projects and water needs (25%), salaries and staff of elected district court and Supreme Court judges (10%), and the state's Millenium Scholarship Program (5%).
This initiative was filed by Las Vegas attorney Kermitt Waters.
Bill Bible, head of the Nevada Resort Association, praised the court's decision to reject this initiative, saying, "Had this initiative gone forward and become law it would have had disastrous consequences for Nevada's main industry and economic driver." 
Carson District Judge Bill Maddox rejected this initiative as well as a similar initiative, also filed by Kermitt Waters, on Feb. 15, 2008. The Nevada Resort Association challenged both initiatives, claiming that they violated the single-subject rule.
Judge Maddox agreed and added that the proposals would have been an improper delegation of lawmakers' authority to tax and spend.
- Procedures for qualifying an initiative in Nevada
- Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada
- Campaign finance requirements for Nevada ballot measures
- Nevada 2008 ballot measures
- Petition drive deadlines in 2008
- Nevada signature requirements