Nevada Creation of a State Intermediate Appellate Court, Question 1 (2014)

Question 1 Type Constitutional amendment Origin Nevada State Legislature Topic State judiciary Status Approved a

2014 measures November 4 Question 1 a Question 2 d Question 3 d Polls Expenditures

The Nevada Creation of a State Intermediate Appellate Court, Question 1 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in the state of Nevada as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure, which was referred to as SJR 14 in the legislature, asked voters whether to amend the Nevada Constitution in order to create an Intermediate Appellate Court, also known as a court of appeals.

As a result of the measure's approval, all appeals will still be filed with the Nevada Supreme Court, which will then be allowed to assign certain cases to the intermediate court. The intermediate court will operate in already existing space in the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas, in an attempt to decrease costs.

Election results

Below are the official, certified election results:

Nevada Question 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		287,183	53.78%
No		246,836	46.22%

Election results via: Nevada Secretary of State

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot question appeared as follows:

“

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to create a Court of Appeals that would decide appeals of District Court decisions in certain civil and criminal cases?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

EXPLANATION—This ballot measure proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to create a Court of Appeals consisting of three judges. The Nevada Supreme Court would establish the types of District Court decisions to be heard by the Court of Appeals and also determine when a Court of Appeals decision may be reviewed by the Nevada Supreme Court. A “Yes” vote would create a Court of Appeals within the existing court system. A “No” vote would retain the existing court system. DIGEST—Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution establishes the court system of the State of Nevada, which currently consists of the Nevada Supreme Court, District Courts, Justices of the Peace, and Municipal Courts. The Nevada Supreme Court is the only appellate court in Nevada that hears and decides all appeals from final judgments entered by Nevada’s District Courts. This ballot measure would create a Court of Appeals to decide some of the appeals currently decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would establish the types of District Court decisions to be heard by the Court of Appeals and also determine when a Court of Appeals decision may be reviewed by the Supreme Court. This ballot measure would create, generate, or increase public revenue because existing law would require candidates for judgeships on the Court of Appeals to pay fees to run for judicial office. It also would create, generate, or increase public revenue because, if a party appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court, the Nevada Constitution would require the party to pay a fee for filing the appeal. The Court of Appeals would consist of three judges, but this ballot measure would authorize the Legislature to increase the number of judges. The Governor would appoint the initial three judges from nominees provided by the Commission on Judicial Selection. The initial three judges would be appointed to two-year terms. Thereafter, Court of Appeals judges would be elected to six-year terms at the general election. Additionally, the Supreme Court would assign, as needed, one or more Court of Appeals judges to serve part-time as supplemental District Court judges. If this ballot measure is approved by the voters, Senate Bill No. 463 of the 2013 Legislative Session would carry out the constitutional provisions creating the Court of Appeals.

”

Constitutional changes

On approval, Question 1 amended Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution.

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JOINTLY, That a new section, designated Section 3A, be added to Article 6 of the Nevada constitution to read as follows:

Sec. 3A. 1. The court of appeals consists of three judges or such greater number as the Legislature may provide by law. If the number of judges is so increased, the Supreme Court must provide by rule for the assignment of each appeal to a panel of three judges for decision.

2. After the initial terms, each judge of the court of appeals must be elected by the qualified electors of this State at the general election for a term of 6 years beginning on the first Monday of January next after the election. The initial three judges of the court of appeals must be appointed by the Governor from among three nominees selected for each individual seat by the permanent Commission on Judicial Selection described in subsection 3 of section 20 of this Article. After the expiration of 30 days from the date on which the permanent Commission on Judicial Selection has delivered to the Governor its list of nominees for the initial judges, if the Governor has not made the appointments required by this Section, the Governor shall make no other appointment to any public office until the Governor has appointed a judge from the list submitted. The term of the initial judges is 2 years beginning on the first Monday of January next after the effective date of this Section, and an initial judge may succeed himself. If there is an increase in the number of judges, each additional judge must be elected by the qualified electors of this State at the first general election following the increase for a term of 6 years beginning on the first Monday of January next after the election.

3. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall appoint one of the judges of the court of appeals to be chief judge. The chief judge serves a term of 4 years, except that the term of the initial chief judge is 2 years. The chief judge may succeed himself. The chief judge may resign the position of chief judge without resigning from the court of appeals.

4. The Supreme Court shall provide by rule for the assignment of one or more judges of the court of appeals to devote a part of their time to serve as supplemental district judges, where needed.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 1 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 1. The judicial power of this State shall be is vested in a court system, comprising a Supreme Court, a court of appeals, district courts , and justices of the peace. The Legislature may also establish, as part of the system, courts for municipal purposes only in incorporated cities and towns.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 4 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 4. 1. The Supreme Court shall and the court of appeals have appellate jurisdiction in all civil cases arising in district courts, and also on questions of law alone in all criminal cases in which the offense charged is within the original jurisdiction of the district courts. The Supreme Court shall fix by rule the jurisdiction of the court of appeals and shall provide for the review, where appropriate, of appeals decided by the court of appeals. The court shall also Supreme Court and the court of appeals have power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto , and habeas corpus and also all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate their jurisdiction. Each of the justices shall have power to justice of the Supreme Court and judge of the court of appeals may issue writs of habeas corpus to any part of the State, upon petition by, or on behalf of, any person held in actual custody , in this State and may make such writs returnable , before himself the issuing justice or judge or the Supreme Court, court of which the justice or judge is a member, or before any district court in the State or before any judge of said courts. a district court.

2. In case of the disability or disqualification, for any cause, of the Chief Justice or one of the associate justices a justice of the Supreme Court, or any two of them, the Governor is authorized and empowered to may designate any a judge of the court of appeals or a district judge or judges to sit in the place or places of such the disqualified or disabled justice. or justices, and said judge or judges so designated shall receive their The judge designated by the Governor is entitled to receive his actual expense of travel and otherwise while sitting in the Supreme Court.

3. In the case of the disability or disqualification, for any cause, of a judge of the court of appeals, the Governor may designate a district judge to sit in the place of the disabled or disqualified judge. The judge whom the Governor designates is entitled to receive his actual expense of travel and otherwise while sitting in the court of appeals.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 7 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 7. The times of holding the Supreme Court , the court of appeals and the district courts shall must be as fixed by law. The terms of the Supreme Court shall must be held at the seat of government unless the Legislature otherwise provides by law, except that the Supreme Court may hear oral argument at other places in the State. The terms of the court of appeals must be held at the place provided by law. The terms of the district courts shall must be held at the county seats of their respective counties unless the Legislature otherwise provides by law.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 8 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 8. 1. The Legislature shall determine the number of justices of the peace to be elected in each city and township of the State , and shall fix by law their qualifications, their terms of office and the limits of their civil and criminal jurisdiction, according to the amount incontroversy, the nature of the case, the penalty provided , or any combination of these.

2. The provisions of this section affecting the number, qualifications, terms of office and jurisdiction of justices of the peace become effective on the first Monday of January, 1979.

3. The Legislature shall also prescribe by law the manner, and determine the cases, in which appeals may be taken from justices and other courts. The Supreme Court, the court of appeals, the district courts , and such other courts , as the Legislature shall designate, shall be designates are courts of record.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 11 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 11. The justices of the Supreme Court, the judges of the court of appeals and the district judges shall be are ineligible to any office, other than a judicial office, during the term for which they shall have been elected or appointed . ; and all All elections or appointments of any such judges by the people, Legislature , or otherwise , during said period , to any office other than judicial , shall be are void.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 15 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 15. The justices of the Supreme Court , the judges of the court of appeals and the district judges shall are each entitled to receive for their services a compensation to be fixed by law and paid in the manner provided by law, which shall must not be increased or diminished during the term for which they shall have been elected, unless a vacancy occurs, in which case the successor of the former incumbent shall is entitled to receive only such salary as may beprovided by law at the time of his election or appointment . ; and provision shall A provision must be made by law for setting apart from each year’s revenue a sufficient amount of money , to pay such compensation.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 20 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 20. 1. When a vacancy occurs before the expiration of any term of office in the Supreme Court or the court of appeals or among the district judges, the Governor shall appoint a justice or judge from among three nominees selected for such individual vacancy by the Commission on Judicial Selection.

2. The term of office of any justice or judge so appointed expires on the first Monday of January following the next general election.

3. Each nomination for the Supreme Court shall or the court of appeals must be made by the permanent Commission, composed of:

(a) The Chief Justice or an associate justice designated by him;

(b) Three members of the State Bar of Nevada, a public corporation created by statute, appointed by its Board of Governors; and

(c) Three persons, not members of the legal profession, appointed by the Governor.

4. Each nomination for the district court shall must be made by a temporary commission composed of:

(a) The permanent Commission;

(b) A member of the State Bar of Nevada resident in the judicial district in which the vacancy occurs, appointed by the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Nevada; and

(c) A resident of such judicial district, not a member of the legal profession, appointed by

the Governor.

5. If at any time the State Bar of Nevada ceases to exist as a public corporation or ceases to include all attorneys admitted to practice before the courts of this State, the Legislature shall provide by law, or if it fails to do so the Supreme Court shall provide by rule, for the appointment of attorneys at law to the positions designated in this Section to be occupied by members of the State Bar of Nevada.

6. The term of office of each appointive member of the permanent Commission, except the first members, is 4 years. Each appointing authority shall appoint one of the members first appointed for a term of 2 years. If a vacancy occurs, the appointing authority shall fill the vacancy for the unexpired term. The additional members of a temporary commission shall must be appointed when a vacancy occurs, and their terms shall expire when the nominations for such vacancy have been transmitted to the Governor.

7. An appointing authority shall not appoint to the permanent Commission more than:

(a) One resident of any county.

(b) Two members of the same political party. No member of the permanent Commission may be a member of a the Commission on Judicial Discipline.

8. After the expiration of 30 days from the date on which the Commission on Judicial Selection has delivered to him its list of nominees for any vacancy, if the Governor has not made the appointment required by this Section, he shall make no other appointment to any public office until he has appointed a justice or judge from the list submitted. If a commission on judicial selection is established by another section of this Constitution to nominate persons to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court, such commission shall serve as the permanent Commission established by subsection 3 of this Section.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 21 of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec. 21. 1. A justice of the Supreme Court, a judge of the court of appeals, a district judge, a justice of the peace or a municipal judge may, in addition to the provision of Article 7 for impeachment, be censured, retired, removed or otherwise disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Discipline. Pursuant to rules governing appeals adopted by the Supreme Court, a justice or judge may appeal from the action of the Commission to the Supreme Court, which mayreverse such action or take any alternative action provided in this subsection.

2. The Commission is composed of:

(a) Two justices or judges appointed by the Supreme Court;

(b) Two members of the State Bar of Nevada, a public corporation created by statute, appointed by its Board of Governors; and

(c) Three persons, not members of the legal profession, appointed by the Governor. The Commission shall elect a Chairman from among its three lay members.

3. If at any time the State Bar of Nevada ceases to exist as a public corporation or ceases to include all attorneys admitted to practice before the courts of this State, the Legislature shall provide by law, or if it fails to do so the Supreme Court shall provide by rule, for the appointment of attorneys at law to the positions designated in this Section to be occupied by members of the State Bar of Nevada.

4. The term of office of each appointive member of the Commission, except the first members, is 4 years. Each appointing authority shall appoint one of the members first appointed for a term of 2 years. If a vacancy occurs, the appointing authority shall fill the vacancy for the unexpired term. An appointing authority shall not appoint more than one resident of any county. The Governor shall not appoint more than two members of the same political party. No membermay be a member of a commission on judicial selection.

5. The Legislature shall establish:

(a) In addition to censure, retirement and removal, the other forms of disciplinary action that the Commission may impose;

(b) The grounds for censure and other disciplinary action that the Commission may impose, including, but not limited to, violations of the provisions of the Code of JudicialConduct;

(c) The standards for the investigation of matters relating to the fitness of a justice or judge; and

(d) The confidentiality or nonconfidentiality, as appropriate, of proceedings before the Commission, except that, in any event, a decision to censure, retire or remove a justice or judge must be made public.

6. The Supreme Court shall adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct.

7. The Commission shall adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its hearings and any other procedural rules it deems necessary to carry out its duties.

8. No justice or judge may by virtue of this Section be:

(a) Removed except for willful misconduct, willful or persistent failure to perform the duties of his office or habitual intemperance; or

(b) Retired except for advanced age which interferes with the proper performance of his judicial duties, or for mental or physical disability which prevents the proper performance of his judicial duties and which is likely to be permanent in nature.

9. Any matter relating to the fitness of a justice or judge may be brought to the attention of the Commission by any person or on the motion of the Commission. The Commission shall, after preliminary investigation, dismiss the matter or order a hearing to be held before it. If a hearing is ordered, a statement of the matter shall must be served upon the justice or judge against whom the proceeding is brought. The Commission in its discretion may suspend a justice or judge from the exercise of his office pending the determination of the proceedings before the Commission. Any justice or judge whose removal is sought is liable to indictment and punishment according to law. A justice or judge retired for disability in accordance with this Section is entitled thereafter to receive such compensation as the Legislature may provide.

10. If a proceeding is brought against a justice of the Supreme Court, no justice of the Supreme Court may sit on the Commission for that proceeding. If a proceeding is brought against a judge of the court of appeals, no judge of the court of appeals may sit on the Commission for that proceeding. If a proceeding is brought against a district judge, no district judge from the same judicial district may sit on the Commission for that proceeding. If a proceeding is brought against a justice of the peace, no justice of the peace from the same township may sit on the Commission for that proceeding. If a proceeding is brought against a municipal judge, no municipal judge from the same city may sit on the Commission for that proceeding. If an appeal is taken from an action of the Commission to the Supreme Court, any justice who sat on the Commission for that proceeding is disqualified from participating in the consideration or decision of the appeal. When any member of the Commission is disqualified by this subsection, the Supreme Court shall appoint a substitute from among the eligible judges.

11. The Commission may:

(a) Designate for each hearing an attorney or attorneys at law to act as counsel to conduct the proceeding;

(b) Summon witnesses to appear and testify under oath and compel the production of books, papers, documents and records;

(c) Grant immunity from prosecution or punishment when the Commission deems it necessary and proper in order to compel the giving of testimony under oath and the production of books, papers, documents and records; and

(d) Exercise such further powers as the Legislature may from time to time confer upon it.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 3 of Article 7 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec: Sec. 3. For any reasonable cause to be entered on the journals of each House, which may , or may not be sufficient grounds for impeachment, the Chief Justice and associate justices of the Supreme Court, the judges of the court of appeals and the judges of the district courts shall must be removed from office on the vote of two thirds of the members elected to each branch of the Legislature. , and the The justice or judge complained of , shall must be served with a copy of the complaint against him, and shall have an opportunity of being heard in person or by counsel in his defense. , provided, that no No member of either branch of the Legislature shall be is eligible to fill the vacancy occasioned by such removal.

And be it further RESOLVED, That Section 8 of Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to read as follows:

Sec: Sec. 8. The Legislature shall provide for the speedy publication of all statute laws of a general nature , and such decisions of the Supreme Court , and the court of appeals as it may deem expedient. ; and all All laws and judicial decisions shall must be free for publication by any person. ; provided, that no No judgment of the Supreme Court or the court of appeals shall take effect and be operative until the opinion of the court in such case shall be is filed with the clerk of said court.

Fiscal note

The fiscal note was as follows:

“

Financial Impact—Yes The Administrative Office of the Courts has indicated that this ballot measure creating a Court of Appeals would require operating expenses of approximately $800,000 in FY 2015, relating to judicial selection, salaries, and other expenses for the administration of a Court of Appeals. However, the Legislature, in Assembly Bill No. 474 of the 2013 Legislative Session, approved funding to the Interim Finance Contingency Account for the initial implementation of a Court of Appeals in FY 2015, contingent upon the passage of this ballot measure. Therefore, no additional funding beyond that which has already been approved would be necessary for the operation of a Court of Appeals in FY 2015. The Administrative Office of the Courts has indicated that ongoing costs for administration of a Court of Appeals, if approved by the voters, would be approximately $1.5 million per year. It is not known at this time, however, whether the Legislature and the Governor would choose to provide this funding from the State General Fund or from other sources. Representatives of the Nevada Supreme Court have indicated that a Court of Appeals initially would be housed in existing court facilities in northern and southern Nevada, which would avoid the need for capital expenditures to establish a Court of Appeals. Thus, no immediate financial impact upon State government for capital costs is anticipated. After the initial two-year terms of the three judges appointed to a Court of Appeals, candidates for future judgeships will be required by existing law to pay filing fees to the Office of the Secretary of State in order to seek judicial office. This will result in an increase in revenue to the State General Fund beginning in FY 2016, but the amount of the increase cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty because the number of candidates cannot be predicted.

”

Background

Prior to Question 1's approval, Nevada's court system consisted of Justices of the Peace, District Courts and the state supreme court. All appeals from lower courts went directly to the supreme court. Nevada voters rejected a state intermediate appellate court in 2010 when Question 2 was defeated by a 53 percent majority.

Support

Supporters

• Vote Yes Question 1: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Arguments in favor

Arguments in favor of Question 1 included:

• Supporters of this measure proposed that an intermediate court would allow for expedited decisions on appealed issues, increase the efficiency of the Nevada legal system and free up the Nevada Supreme Court to investigate important cases more carefully.
• Nevada is one of only 10 states that do not have an appellate court, making the state's supreme court one of the busiest and most congested in the country.
• According to the American Bar Association, state supreme court justices should have no more than 100 annual cases. However, Nevada's case load averaged 333 per justice in 2013.
• The supporting group Vote Yes Question 1 released a list of "Top Reasons to Vote Yes on Question 1." Below is a sampling of the reasons:

“	A new Court of Appeals would be housed in existing courtrooms and offices in northern and southern Nevada. No additional courthouse construction is needed to establish a Court of Appeals. The resulting fiscal impact is minimal to the state’s General Fund. Given how busy the Nevada Supreme Court is -- handling 2,500 cases per year which is the highest per justice filings in the nation -- justice is too often delayed. The innocent must wait to be cleared, child custody decisions are painfully slow to produce, criminal cases are stacked-up, business litigation remains unresolved, and the result is that Nevadans are being denied justice. 56 percent of all appeals require more than six months to be heard with 29 percent taking more than one year. The establishment of a Court of Appeals would help attract more businesses to Nevada as the new court would provide for speedier resolution of general business disputes and provide much needed legal clarity to the Nevada business community. More certainty for businesses means more jobs for Nevadans. In 2013, legislation placing the question of creating a Court of Appeals before Nevada voters this November was unanimously approved by the state Senate and the state Assembly, regardless of political party affiliation.	”
—Vote Yes Question 1

SJR 14 2011 "Yes" votes

The following members of the Nevada State Assembly voted in favor of placing this measure on the ballot in 2011.

Note: A yes vote on SJR 14 merely referred the question to voters and did not necessarily mean these legislators approved of the stipulations laid out in Question 1.

Assembly

• Paul Aizley (D-41)
• Elliot Anderson (D-15)
• Kelvin Atkinson (D-17)
• Teresa Benitez-Thompson (D-27)
• Steven Brooks (D-19)
• Irene Bustamante Adams (D-42)
• Maggie Carlton (D-14)
• Richard Carrillo (D-18)
• Marcus Conklin (D-37)
• Richard Daly (D-31)
• Olivia Diaz (D-11)
• Marilyn Dondero Loop (D-5)
• Lucy Flores (D-28)
• Jason Frierson (D-8)
• Pete Goicoechea (R-35)
• Tom Grady (R-38)
• Cresent Hardy (R-20)
• Pat Hickey (R-25)
• Joseph Hogan (D-10)
• William Horne (D-34)
• Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-1)
• April Mastroluca (D-29)
• Richard McArthur (R-4)
• Harvey Munford (D-6)
• Dina Neal (D-7)
• John Oceguera (D-16)
• James Ohrenschall (D-12)
• Peggy Pierce (D-3)
• Tick Segerblom (D-9)
• Debbie Smith (D-30)
• Lynn Stewart (R-22)
• Melissa Woodbury (R-23)

Senate

• Shirley Breeden (D-Clark County, No. 5)
• Greg Brower (R-Washoe County, No. 3)
• Allison Copening (D-Clark County, No. 6)
• Mo Denis (D-Clark County, No. 2)
• Joseph Hardy (R-Clark County, No. 12)
• Steven Horsford (D-Clark County, No. 4)
• Ruben Kihuen (D-Clark County, No. 10)
• John Jay Lee (D-Clark County, No. 1)
• Sheila Leslie (D-Washoe County, No. 1)
• Mark Manendo (D-Clark County, No. 7)
• Mike McGinness (R-Central Nevada Senatorial District]]
• David Parks (D-Clark County, No. 7)
• Dean Rhoads (R-Rural Nevada Senatorial District)
• Michael Roberson (R-Clark County, No. 5)
• Michael Schneider (Nevada) (D-Clark County, No. 11)
• Valerie Wiener (D-Clark County, No. 3)

SJR 14 2013 "Yes" votes

The following members of the Nevada State Assembly voted in favor of placing this measure on the ballot in 2013.

Note: A yes vote on SJR 14 merely referred the question to voters and did not necessarily mean these legislators approved of the stipulations laid out in Question 1.

Assembly

• Paul Aizley (D-41)
• Paul Anderson (R-13)
• Elliot Anderson (D-15)
• Teresa Benitez-Thompson (D-27)
• David Bobzien (D-24)
• Irene Bustamante Adams (D-42)
• Maggie Carlton (D-14)
• Richard Carrillo (D-18)
• Lesley Cohen (D-29)
• Richard Daly (D-31)
• Olivia Diaz (D-11)
• Marilyn Dondero Loop (D-5)
• Wesley Duncan (R-37)
• Andy Eisen (D-21)
• John Ellison (R-33)
• Michele Fiore (R-4)
• Lucy Flores (D-28)
• Jason Frierson (D-8)
• Tom Grady (R-38)
• John Hambrick (R-2)
• Ira Hansen (R-32)
• Cresent Hardy (R-19)
• James Healey (D-35)
• Pat Hickey (R-25)
• William Horne (D-34)
• Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-1)
• Randy Kirner (R-26)
• Pete Livermore (R-40)
• Andrew Martin (D-9)
• Harvey Munford (D-6)
• Dina Neal (D-7)
• James Ohrenschall (D-12)
• James Oscarson (R-36)
• Ellen Spiegel (D-20)
• Michael Sprinkle (D-30)
• Lynn Stewart (R-22)
• Heidi Swank (D-16)
• Tyrone Thompson (D-17)
• Jim Wheeler (R-39)

Senate

• Kelvin Atkinson (D-4)
• Greg Brower (R-15)
• Barbara Cegavske (R-8)
• Mo Denis (D-2)
• Aaron Ford (D-11)
• Pete Goicoechea (R-19)
• Don Gustavson (R-14)
• Scott Hammond (R-18)
• Joseph Hardy (R-12)
• Mark Hutchison (R-6)
• Justin Jones (D-9)
• Ben Kieckhefer (R-16)
• Ruben Kihuen (D-10)
• Mark Manendo (D-21)
• David Parks (D-7)
• Michael Roberson (R-20)
• Tick Segerblom (D-3)
• James Settelmeyer (R-17)
• Debbie Smith (D-13)
• Patricia Spearman (D-1)
• Joyce Woodhouse (D-5)

Opposition

Arguments

Arguments in opposition to Question 1 included:

• Opponents contend adding a new appellate court would add more costs to the court system, estimating that a new appellate court would cost approximately $1.5 million annually.
• Similar ballot measure questions went before voters four times in the past 40 years, with the most recent attempt occurring in 2010. Each time, this question was rejected by the voters.

SJR 14 2011 "No" votes

The following members of the Nevada State Assembly voted against placing this measure on the ballot in 2011.

Note: A no vote on SJR 14 meant that a legislator did not want to refer the question to voters and did not necessarily mean these legislators disapproved of the stipulations laid out in Question 1.

Assembly

• John Ellison (R-33)
• John Hambrick (R-2)
• Ira Hansen (R-32)
• Randy Kirner (R-26)
• Kelly Kite (R-39)
• Pete Livermore (R-40)
• Mark Sherwood (R-21)

Senate

• Barbara Cegavske (R-Clark County, No. 8)
• Don Gustavson (R-Washoe County, No. 2)
• Elizabeth Halseth (R-Clark County, No. 9)
• Ben Kieckhefer (R-Washoe County, No. 4)
• James Settelmeyer (R-Capital Senatorial District)

SJR 14 2013 "No" votes

No members of the state assembly voted against placing this measure on the ballot in 2013.

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Nevada ballot measures, 2014

Support

• The Reno Gazette-Journal said,

“	Nevada has the hardest working justices in the country, but that enormous workload has consequences. The court cleared 2,373 cases last year but still had nearly 1,900 cases pending. That means delays, and delays are the mortal enemies of justice. Delays affect those caught up in the criminal justice system; they also affect businesses, which dislike the uncertainty that delays cause for their operations. A state with a population of 2.8 million, and rising, simply cannot afford to operate without an appeals court anymore. Vote yes on Question 1 .	”
—Reno Gazette-Journal

• The Las Vegas Review Journal said,

“	As voters will see firsthand on next month’s ballot, Nevada has added literally dozens of new District Court departments over the past 20-plus years and no doubt will need to add more in the years ahead as our population grows. More courts means more pressure on the Supreme Court. Imagine the Supreme Court as a trough, with several hoses — representing each District Court department — filling it. Then imagine doubling the number of hoses without enlarging the trough. This worsening overflow creates delays in adjudication that cost Nevada litigants far too much. The Supreme Court will never erase its case backlog without help. An appellate court is long overdue. The Review-Journal endorses a yes vote on Question 1.	”
—Las Vegas Review Journal

• The Las Vegas Sun said,

“	As it is, the cost of trying a case in court in Nevada is high because it takes such a long time to get a final decision. Justice delayed is not only justice denied, but also it’s an expensive brand of justice. The fact remains that Nevada is just one of a handful of states without an intermediate appellate court. It might have worked 150 years ago, when the state was founded, but it doesn't work today. Nevada needs a new appeals court. Voters should approve it. The Sun endorses a yes vote on Question 1.	”
—Las Vegas Sun

Opposition

• The Moapa Valley Progress said,

“	There are better ways to approach the prblem [sic] of an over-extended Supreme Court. Our society has become entirely too litigious, with too many attorneys bringing too many frivilous [sic] lawsuits; swamping legal resources and grinding down the wheels of justice. That is really at the core of the problem here. Providing an ever increasing stream of new courts and justices will not fix this ever growing appetite for litigation. Throwing more money at the problem won’t fix it. What is needed in the state is meaningful tort reform to discourage frivolous lawsuits and hold attorneys accountable and financially liable. Perhaps that is what the voters of Nevada have been trying to say to the legislature for the past 40 years in repeatedly deciding NO on this amendment. Meaningful tort reform is admittedly the harder path for the legislature. But it would bring the best outcome for the taxpayers of the state; much better than a vastly more expensive appellate court. We would recommend that Nevada’s voters hang tough on this issue yet again and vote NO on Question 1.	”
—Moapa Valley Progress

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Nevada Constitution

According to Article 16, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution, an amendment proposed by the legislature must be approved by a majority in both the House and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions. If twice approved by the legislature, the amendment then goes to the ballot where voters decide whether or not to ultimately pass it.

On May 24, 2014, SJR 14 completed this process, putting this intermediate appellate court question on the ballot.

Senate vote

April 14, 2011 Senate vote

Nevada SJR 14 Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		16	76.19%
No		5	23.81%

Senate vote

May 20, 2013 Senate vote

Nevada SJR 14* Senate Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		21	100%
No		0	0%

Assembly vote

May 13, 2011 Assembly vote

Nevada SJR 14 Assembly Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		32	80.00%
No		8	20.00%

Assembly vote

May 28, 2013 Assembly vote

Nevada SJR 14* Assembly Vote
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		40	100.00%
No		0	0%

Similar measures

• Nevada Appellate Court Amendment, Question 2 (2010)

See also

Suggest a link

• 2014 ballot measures
• Nevada 2014 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot

External links

• SJR 14