Difference between revisions of "Nevada mining tax measure to be heard by Supreme Court this summer"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==='''[[BC2010#April|April 1, 2010]]'''===
 
==='''[[BC2010#April|April 1, 2010]]'''===
  
'''CARSON CITY, [[Nevada]]:''' This June the [[Judgepedia:Nevada Supreme Court|Nevada Supreme Court]] will hear oral arguments regarding the [[Nevada Mining Tax Measure (2010)|Nevada Mining Tax Measure]] ballot language following an appeal by the [http://www.nevadamining.org/ Nevada Mining Association]. On March 23 Carson City Judge Wilson Jr. denied a block requested by the association but agreed that the initiative language should be reworded. The language, said the judge, should clarify that the recommended change could triple the proceeds tax on mines retroactively in 2008 from $92 million to $284 million. However, the mining association argues that the initiative petition violates the single subject rule by including two subjects: changing the [[Nevada Constitution]] and changing the tax rate.<ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/31/supreme-court-speed-mining-association-appeal/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Supreme Court to speed up mining association appeal," March 31, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://silverpinyon.com/government-a-politics/nevada-government-a-politics/400-ballot-initiative-on-mining-tax-heading-to-supreme-court ''Silver Pinyon Journal'',"Ballot initiative on mining tax heads to Supreme Court," April 1, 2010]</ref>
+
'''CARSON CITY, [[Nevada]]:''' This June the [[Judgepedia:Nevada Supreme Court|Nevada Supreme Court]] will hear oral arguments regarding the [[Nevada Mining Tax Measure (2010)|Nevada Mining Tax Measure]] ballot language following an appeal by the [http://www.nevadamining.org/ Nevada Mining Association]. On March 23 Carson City Judge Wilson Jr. denied a block requested by the association but agreed that the initiative language should be reworded. The language, said the judge, should clarify that the recommended change could triple the proceeds tax on mines retroactively in 2008 from $92 million to $284 million. However, the mining association argues that the initiative petition violates the single subject rule by including two subjects: changing the [[Nevada Constitution]] and changing the tax rate.<ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/31/supreme-court-speed-mining-association-appeal/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Supreme Court to speed up mining association appeal," March 31, 2010]</ref><ref>[http://silverpinyon.com/government-a-politics/nevada-government-a-politics/400-ballot-initiative-on-mining-tax-heading-to-supreme-court ''Silver Pinyon Journal'',"Ballot initiative on mining tax heads to Supreme Court," April 1, 2010]</ref> The March ruling by the lower court required that supporters refile the petition and start over on signature collections. The measure proposes remove the statutory deductions allowed to mining companies by current state law. In order to qualify the measure for the [[Nevada 2010 ballot measures|November 2010 ballot]] supporters are required to collect a minimum of 97,002 [[Nevada signature requirements|valid signatures]] by [[BC2010#May|May 17, 2010]].
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==

Revision as of 11:16, 1 April 2010

April 1, 2010

CARSON CITY, Nevada: This June the Nevada Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the Nevada Mining Tax Measure ballot language following an appeal by the Nevada Mining Association. On March 23 Carson City Judge Wilson Jr. denied a block requested by the association but agreed that the initiative language should be reworded. The language, said the judge, should clarify that the recommended change could triple the proceeds tax on mines retroactively in 2008 from $92 million to $284 million. However, the mining association argues that the initiative petition violates the single subject rule by including two subjects: changing the Nevada Constitution and changing the tax rate.[1][2] The March ruling by the lower court required that supporters refile the petition and start over on signature collections. The measure proposes remove the statutory deductions allowed to mining companies by current state law. In order to qualify the measure for the November 2010 ballot supporters are required to collect a minimum of 97,002 valid signatures by May 17, 2010.

See also

Ballotpedia News

References

  1. Las Vegas Sun,"Supreme Court to speed up mining association appeal," March 31, 2010
  2. Silver Pinyon Journal,"Ballot initiative on mining tax heads to Supreme Court," April 1, 2010