Nevada Voter Residency Requirements Amendment, Question 1 (2008)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 13:41, 16 November 2011 by TylerM (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

The Nevada Voter Residency Requirements Amendment, also known as Question 1, was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment on November 4, 2008 ballot in Nevada, where it was defeated.

Election results

Question 1 (Voter Residency Requirements)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No481,26052.59%
Yes 433,847 47.41%

Official results via: Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau - Research Division

Background

This measure would have brought Nevada law into compliance with a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said that residency requirements that exceed the amount of time required to complete election-related administrative procedures violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court stated that 30 days is a reasonable time period for residency requirements.

The question came to the ballot as Assembly Joint Resolution No. 10 of the 73rd Legislative Session

Specific Provisions

If passed, the measure would have:

  • Eliminated an unconstitutional requirement that a person must reside in Nevada for 6 months prior to an election in order to be eligible to vote in that election, lowering the residency requirement to 30 days.

The official ballot question for the measure read:

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to eliminate an unconstitutional requirement that a person must reside in Nevada for 6 months prior to an election in order to be eligible to vote in that election?

Supporters

Editorial Supporters:

  • The Las Vegas Sun[1]

Opponents

Opponents argued that the current provision is important for ensuring that Nevada voters have been in the state long enough to get to know the issues and the candidates. Although opponents acknowledged that the provision may be unenforceable today, they note that it may be enforceable in the future should the U.S. Supreme Court reverse itself. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not change course, repeal is still unnecessary, they argued, because the 6-month residency requirement is not being applied.

See also

External links

References