Nevada Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption, Question 4 (2016)

Nevada Question 4

Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
Taxes and Healthcare
Status
a Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment| Origin
Citizens

* * *

2016 measures

November 8
Question 1 a
Question 2 a
Question 3 a
Question 4 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Nevada Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption Initiative, also known as Question 4, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Nevada as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was approved.

| A "yes" vote supported this amendment to require the Nevada Legislature to exempt from sales and use tax durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for human use by a licensed health care provider.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this amendment to require the legislature to exempt certain types of medical equipment from the sales and use tax.[1]

|

Examples of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment include oxygen tanks and concentrators, ventilators, CPAP machines, nebulizers, drug infusion devises, feeding pumps, infant apnea monitors, hospital beds, bath and shower aids, wheelchairs, walkers, canes, and crutches.[2]

In Nevada, initiated constitutional amendments need to be approved in two even-numbered election years, meaning the measure needed to be approved in 2016 and would need to be approved again in 2018 to amend the Nevada Constitution. The measure was approved again in 2018. See also: Nevada Question 4, Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption Amendment (2018)

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 3 Text of measure
* 3.1 Ballot title
* 3.2 Ballot summary
* 3.3 Constitutional changes
* 3.4 Fiscal impact statement
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.2 Arguments
* 4.2.1 Official arguments
* 5 Opposition
* 5.1 Opponents
* 5.2 Arguments
* 5.2.1 Official arguments
* 6 Campaign finance
* 6.1 Support
* 6.2 Methodology
* 6.3 Reporting dates
* 7 Polls
* 8 Media editorials
* 8.1 Support
* 8.2 Opposition
* 9 Background
* 9.1 Sales tax in Nevada
* 9.2 Medical equipment exemptions
* 9.3 Question 13
* 9.4 Legislature
* 10 Path to the ballot
* 11 State profile
* 11.1 Presidential voting pattern
* 12 Recent news
* 13 See also
* 14 External links
* 14.1 General
* 14.2 Support
* 15 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Question 4

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  768,871|  71.8%
No| 301,963| 28.2%

Election results from Nevada Secretary of State

## Overview[edit]

Following the failure of Senate Bill 334, which would have exempted from sales and use taxes certain medical equipment, in the Nevada Legislature, Doug Bennett and allies formed the Alliance to Stop Taxes on the Sick and Dying PAC to push for Question 4. The group raised $388,226, as of November 2, 2016. There was no registered opposition to the measure.

Nevadans approved a similar measure, known as Question 13, in 1996. Question 13 exempted orthotic appliances, casts, bandages, and other supports from sales and use taxes.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title was as follows:[1]

“  | Shall Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Legislature to provide by law for the exemption of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for use by a licensed health care provider from any tax upon the sale, storage, use, or consumption of tangible personal property?

Yes 

No [3]

| ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The ballot summary was as follows:[1]

“  | This ballot measure proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to require the Legislature to pass a law that allows for the exemption of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for human use by a licensed health care provider acting within his or her scope of practice from any tax on the sale, storage, use, or consumption of tangible personal property. The proposed amendment does not create an exemption of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment from these taxes, but rather requires the Legislature to establish by law for such an exemption. Pursuant to Article 19, Section 2, of the Nevada Constitution, approval of this measure is required at two consecutive general elections before taking effect.

A “Yes” vote would amend Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution so that the Legislature would be required to pass a law exempting durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for human use by a licensed health care provider from taxation related to the sale, storage, use, or consumption of the equipment.

A “No” vote would retain the provisions of Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution in their current form. These provisions do not require the Legislature to pass a law exempting durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for human use by a licensed health care provider from taxation related to the sale, storage, use, or consumption of the equipment.[3]

| ”

|
|

### Constitutional changes[edit]

See also: Article 10, Nevada Constitution

The measure added a Section 7 to Article 10 of the Constitution of Nevada:[1]

Section 7. The legislature shall provide by law for the exemption of durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for human use by a licensed provider of health care acting within his or her scope of practice from any tax upon the sale, storage, use or consumption of tangible personal property.[3]

### Fiscal impact statement[edit]

The Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau provided a fiscal impact statement for Question 4 in which the division stated that the financial impact of Question 4 on the state could not be determined. The statement was as follows:[1]

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE MEDICAL PATIENT TAX RELIEF ACT INITIATIVE

FINANCIAL IMPACT – CANNOT BE DETERMINED

OVERVIEW

The Medical Patient Tax Relief Act Initiative (Initiative) proposes to amend Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution by adding a new section, designated Section 7, that would require the Legislature to provide by law for an exemption from the sales and use tax for durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for human use by a licensed provider of health care acting within his or her scope of practice.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE

Pursuant to Article 19, Section 4 of the Nevada Constitution, an initiative proposing to amend the Nevada Constitution must be approved by the voters at two successive general elections in order to become a part of the Constitution. If this Initiative is approved by voters at the November 2016 and November 2018 General Elections, the provisions of the Initiative would become effective on the fourth Thursday of November 2018 (November 27, 2018), when the votes are canvassed by the Supreme Court pursuant to NRS 293.395.

Under current law, the statewide sales and use tax rate is 6.85 percent. Four separate tax rates make up this combined rate:

* The State rate (2 percent), which is deposited in the State General Fund;

* The Local School Support Tax rate (2.6 percent), which is distributed among the state’s school districts and to the State Distributive School Account;

* The Basic City-County Relief Tax rate (0.5 percent), which is distributed among counties, cities, and other local government entities through the Consolidated Tax Distribution (CTX) mechanism; and

* The Supplemental City-County Relief Tax rate (1.75 percent), which is distributed among counties, cities, and other local government entities through the CTX mechanism.

In addition, in twelve of Nevada’s seventeen counties (Carson City, Churchill, Clark, Douglas, Lander, Lincoln, Lyon, Nye, Pershing, Storey, Washoe, and White Pine), additional local sales and use tax rates are levied for specific purposes through legislative authority or by voter approval. The revenue from these tax rates is distributed to the entity or for the purpose for which the rate is levied.

If voters approve the Initiative at the November 2016 and November 2018 General Elections, the Legislature and Governor would need to approve legislation to implement the sales and use tax exemptions specified within the Initiative before these exemptions could become effective. The legislation providing an exemption from the sales and use tax for durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment and mobility enhancing equipment prescribed for human use by a licensed provider of health care acting within his or her scope of practice will reduce the amount of sales and use tax revenue that is received by the state and local governments, including school districts, currently entitled to receive sales and use tax revenue from any of the rates imposed, beginning on the effective date of the legislation.

However, the Fiscal Analysis Division cannot determine when the Legislature and Governor will approve the legislation necessary to enact these exemptions or the effective date of the legislation that is approved. Additionally, the Fiscal Analysis Division cannot determine how the terms specified within the Initiative would be defined in the legislation, nor can it estimate the amount of sales that would be subject to the exemption. Thus, the revenue loss to the affected state and local governments cannot be determined by the Fiscal Analysis Division with any reasonable degree of certainty.

The Department of Taxation has indicated that the implementation and administration of the exemptions specified within the Initiative can be performed using current resources, resulting in no additional financial impact upon state government.

Prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau – September 29, 2015

|

## Support[edit]

Yes on 4, also known as the Alliance to Stop Taxes on the Sick and Dying, led the campaign in support of Question 4.[4] Douglas Bennett, owner of Bennett Medical Services, filed the initiative.[5] Bennett said he was taking matters into his own hands, as prior efforts in the legislature to exempt certain medical equipment had failed.[6]

### Supporters[edit]

* Elko City Council[7]

### Arguments[edit]

#### Official arguments[edit]

Josh Hicks and Doug Bennett of the Alliance to Stop Taxes on the Sick and Dying PAC, along with Dr. Joseph Kenneth Romeo, wrote the argument in support of the measure found in the state's voter guide. Their argument was as follows:[1]

A YES vote on Question 4 helps sick, injured, and dying patients and their families. It stops the Department of Taxation from imposing unnecessary sales taxes on medical equipment prescribed by physicians, such as wheelchairs, infant apnea monitors, and oxygen delivery devices. It will bring Nevada in line with the vast majority of states which do not tax this type of equipment for home use.

A YES vote would relieve the sales tax burden on medical equipment used by patients who require oxygen devices to live, such as those with cancer, asthma, and cardiac disease; babies who need protection from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome; children with cystic fibrosis on home ventilators; and hospice patients in their last weeks of life. Current Nevada law already exempts medicine and prosthetics because we have recognized how vital this relief is for our most vulnerable populations. Question 4 simply seeks to extend this protection to critical medical equipment.

For insured Nevadans, this tax is contributing to the increasing copays, deductibles, and premium costs that are crippling family finances across the state. For uninsured Nevadans the impact is even worse: Sales tax on medical equipment can reach thousands of dollars for severely disabled patients, and it forces people to forego essential equipment prescribed by their doctors because they simply cannot afford to pay.

Fortunately, while this would have a significant impact on the patients and their families, there would be very little impact to state tax revenue. The Department of Taxation, itself, has estimated that a tax exemption on this medical equipment represents approximately 0.025% of the annual state budget.

Almost all people will need some sort of medical equipment in their lifetimes. Voting YES on Question 4 is the compassionate, and eventually prudent, thing to do. Join over 100,000 Nevadans who signed the petition calling for the end to this tax. It will help hundreds of families today and may help yours tomorrow.

|

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

* Controller Ron Knecht (R)[8]

### Arguments[edit]

Controller Ron Knecht (R) said that while the amendment's goals were a "good idea," he did not support inserting the amendment into the state constitution. He elaborated:[9]

“  | While this may be a good idea, it raises many questions in context of the various things the state does and does not tax. But even if one concludes as a matter of sound tax policy that these items should be tax-exempt, the legislature already has the power to exempt them now. Once again, enshrining these provisions in the constitution would prevent timely reform of any parts of the proposal that may be found to merit change or repeal later.[3] | ”

|
|

#### Official arguments[edit]

Ann O’Connell wrote the argument against Question 4 found in the state's voter guide. Her argument was as follows:[1]

VOTE NO ON QUESTION 4!

Basic budget principles state that when expenses exceed revenues, debt is created. When the law requires state or local government agencies such as schools to be funded, the law expects a set amount of revenue to fund that agency. When a tax exemption reduces the amount of revenue expected, the agency has no choice but to request a replacement of the lost funding. To do that the agency must depend on the Governor and the Legislature to include the lost funding in the budget.

Sales taxes pay for a myriad of services Nevadans rely on including schools, police, fire departments, libraries, and parks, to name a few.

Question 4 seeks to exempt durable medical equipment from sales tax. On the surface, this exemption seems like a good thing, providing tax relief to those in need. However, this exemption is really a wolf in sheep’s clothing:

1\. It is vaguely worded without clear definitions of what specific devices will be exempt and who will benefit, leaving such determination to the Legislature;

2\. It decreases an unknown amount of revenue from an already strained budget, creating the need for higher taxes in the future; and

3\. It uses the law to provide special privileges to a special-interest group at the expense of everyday taxpayers.

Tax exemptions have consequences for the taxpayer; the same consequences as tax subsidies, tax breaks, tax abatements, and tax incentives. The Nevada Department of Taxation’s 2013-2014 Tax Expenditure Report states that Nevada has 243 such tax expenditures that cost taxpayers over $3.7 BILLION a biennium.

Who is footing the bill for all those exemptions? You, the local taxpayer.

You should be mindful of the most recent government “giveaways,” such as the approval of $1.3 BILLION in subsidies to Tesla, $215 MILLION in tax incentives to Faraday, and $7.8 Million in tax abatements to six different companies relocating to Nevada.

Ask yourself, is Question 4 just another “giveaway,” and is there any follow-up to see if promises made for these “giveaways” are promises kept?

The question also needs to be asked, isn’t this just another burden on Nevada taxpayers? If it isn’t, why in 2003 and again in 2015 did our governors go after a BILLION-plus dollars in tax increases?

When the wolf comes huffing and puffing at your door, reject it. Vote NO on Question 4!

|

## Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016 and Campaign finance requirements for Nevada ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:

Support: | $388,226.27
Opposition: | $0.00

One campaign committee was registered in support of Question 4 as of January 16, 2017. The contribution and expenditure totals below were current as of January 16, 2017.[10]

### Support[edit]

PAC  | Amount raised  | Amount spent

|
|

Alliance to Stop Taxes on the Sick and Dying  | $388,226.27  | $218,956.98
Total | $388,226.27 | $218,956.98

The following are the top donors who contributed to the Alliance to Stop Taxes on the Sick and Dying committee as of January 16, 2017:[10]

Donor  | Cash  | In-kind  | Total

|
|
|

Bennett Medical Services | $270,101.27 | $111,125.00 | $381,226.27
Apria | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00
Preferred Homecare | $2,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,000.00

### Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

### Reporting dates[edit]

Nevada ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2016. The filing dates for reports were as follows:[11]

2016 campaign finance reporting dates

Date  | Report  | Period
1/15/2016 | Annual Report for 2015 | 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015
5/24/2016 | Report #1 | 1/1/2016 - 5/20/2016
6/10/2016 | Report #2 | 5/21/2016 - 6/9/2016
10/18/2016 | Report #3 | 6/10/2016 - 10/14/2016
11/04/2016 | Report #4 | 10/15/2016 - 11/3/2016
1/15/2017 | Annual Report for 2016 | 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016

## Polls[edit]

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

* Bendixen & Amandi International conducted a poll in late September 2016 and found 60 percent of respondents in support of Question 4.[12]

Nevada Question 4 (2016)

Poll | Support | Oppose| Undecided| Margin of error| Sample size
Bendixen & Amandi International
9/27/2016 - 9/29/2016 | 60.0%| 21.0%| 19.0%| +/-3.15| 800
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

## Media editorials[edit]

### Support[edit]

* Elko Daily said: "In this case, however, the sales tax on medical equipment including home oxygen delivery is one we can do without."[13]
* Lahontan Valley News said: "We agree and support Question 4.”[14]
* Las Vegas Sun said: "This is a chance to show compassion to those who likely need to catch a break. The Sun recommends a “Yes” on Question 4."[15]

### Opposition[edit]

* Las Vegas Review-Journal said: "While the measure is well intentioned, it is simply bad policy. Nevada should be looking to shorten the already long list of transactions that are currently exempt from the sales tax, rather than creating new permanent loopholes. Vote no on Question 4."[16]

## Background[edit]

### Sales tax in Nevada[edit]

As of 2018, the state sales tax in Nevada was 6.85 percent. Counties of Nevada were also permitted to enact an additional sales tax. The highest sales tax was in Washoe County, where the county levied a 1.415 percent tax in addition to the state's 6.85 percent tax for a total of 8.265 percent. Eureka County, Esmeralda County, Humboldt County, and Mineral County did not levy an additional county sales tax. The average local sales tax was 1.13 percent, making the average combined state-county sales tax 7.98 percent.[17]

### Medical equipment exemptions[edit]

Some other states in the intermountain west and southwest provide exemptions similar to the ones in Question 4. Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas, and Utah provide tax exemptions for durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, and mobility enhancing equipment. New Mexico provides tax exemptions for prosthetics, oxygen delivery equipment, and vision and hearing aids.[18]

### Question 13[edit]

See also: Nevada Sales and Use Tax Medical Supply Exemption, Question 13 (1996)

In 1996, Nevadans passed Question 13, which exempted from sales and uses taxes certain medical supplies. Over two-thirds voted in favor of the legislative referral. The supplies exempted included “orthotic appliances, ambulatory casts, other supports, splints, bandages, pads, compresses and dressings.”

The Nevada Association of Medical Products Suppliers cited Question 13’s success in 1996 as evidence that voters would approve Question 4. The group noted, "Our example is the Prosthetics and Orthotics ballot measure in the 1990s that passed by an overwhelming 80 percent. Obviously, the voting public does not want sick and injured patients paying sales and use tax for their prescribed medical equipment.”[19]

### Legislature[edit]

In 2015, Sen. Michael Roberson (R-20) introduced Senate Bill 334, which would have exempted from sales and use taxes “durable medical equipment, mobility-enhancing equipment, hearing aids, hearing aid accessories, and ophthalmic or ocular devices.”[20] He explained his reason for introducing the bill, contending, "People using such medical devices have had to change their lifestyles. It can be costly, and typically insurance companies do not cover the sales tax on the medical equipment. Not everyone has the money or insurance to afford these basic, necessary devices, let alone the sales tax.”[21]

The legislation passed in the Nevada Senate on April 21, 2015, with all 21 senators voting “yea.” However, SB 334 never exited the Assembly Ways and Means Committee for a vote.

Doug Bennett, the developer of Question 4, cited the legislature's failure to pass the bill as one factor motivating the initiative.[6]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Nevada signature requirements and Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada

Question 4 was an initiated constitutional amendment, which means it was put directly before voters after enough signatures were collected, submitted, and verified by the Nevada secretary of state. In Nevada, initiated constitutional amendments require voter approval in two consecutive elections, which means that voters saw this issue on the ballot again in 2018.

The following was the timeline of events leading to the measure going before voters in 2016:

* The Nevada Secretary of State received the petition on September 9, 2015.[2]
* A total of 55,234 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
* Supporters had until June 21, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
* Supporters submitted signatures on June 21, 2016, to the secretary of state's office.[22]
* On July 12, 2016, the Nevada Secretary of State certified the measure for the ballot.[5]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Bennett Medical Services[23] to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $110,125.00 was spent to collect the 55,234 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $1.99.

## State profile[edit]

Demographic data for Nevada

| Nevada| U.S.
Total population:| 2,883,758| 316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):| 109,781| 3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:| 69%| 73.6%
Black/African American:| 8.4%| 12.6%
Asian:| 7.7%| 5.1%
Native American:| 1.1%| 0.8%
Pacific Islander:| 0.6%| 0.2%
Two or more:| 4.4%| 3%
Hispanic/Latino:| 27.5%| 17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:| 85.1%| 86.7%
College graduation rate:| 23%| 29.8%
Income
Median household income:| $51,847| $53,889
Persons below poverty level:| 17.8%| 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Nevada.

* * *

**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

### Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in Nevada

Nevada voted for the Democratic candidate in four out of the six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

More Nevada coverage on Ballotpedia

* Elections in Nevada
* United States congressional delegations from Nevada
* Public policy in Nevada
* Endorsers in Nevada
* Nevada fact checks
* More...

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Nevada 2016 Medical Equipement Question 4. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Nevada Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption, Question 4 (2016) - Google News

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* 2016 ballot measures
* Nevada 2016 ballot measures
* Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada

## External links[edit]

### General[edit]

* Petition for the Medical Patient Tax Relief Act
* Nevada 2016 Ballot Questions Voter Guide

### Support[edit]

* Yes on 4
* Yes on 4 Facebook

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 State of Nevada, "Statewide Ballot Questions," accessed September 4, 2016
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Nevada Secretary of State, "Initiative Petition," accessed September 22, 2016
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
4. ↑ Yes on 4, "Homepage," accessed September 22, 2016
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Las Vegas Review-Journal, "3 new petitions approved for Nov. 8 ballot in Nevada," July 12, 2016
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Nevada Appeal, "Backers of proposed Nevada ballot measures submit signatures," June 22, 2016
7. ↑ Elko Daily, “City supports two state ballot questions,” October 13, 2016
8. ↑ Elko Daily Free Press, "Commentary: Three state ballot measures we oppose," October 27, 2016
9. ↑ Elko Daily Free Press, "Commentary: Three state ballot measures we oppose," October 27, 2016
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Nevada Secretary of State Campaign Finance Database,"Alliance to Stop Taxes on the Sick and Dying," accessed January 16, 2017
11. ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, "Important 2016 Campaign Finance Reporting Dates," accessed September 25, 2016
12. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Nevada Poll: Voters strongly support Questions 3 and 4," October 5, 2016
13. ↑ Elko Daily, "Editorial: Ballot has 5 questions, we have 4 answers," October 20, 2016
14. ↑ Lahontan Valley News, "Questions 3 & 4 deserve thumbs up," November 1, 2016
15. ↑ Las Vegas Sun, "Electric customers need options; Question 3 makes way for them," October 18, 2016
16. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Editorial: Ballot questions," October 21, 2016
17. ↑ Nevada Department of Taxation, "Sales and Use Tax Publications," accessed February 9, 2018
18. ↑ Guinn Center for Policy Priorities, “Fact Sheet: Medical Patient Tax Relief Act,” accessed September 22, 2016
19. ↑ Senior Spectrum Newspaper, “Durable Medical Equipment, Oxygen Providers,” December 2015
20. ↑ Nevada Legislature, “Senate Bill 334,” accessed September 22, 2016
21. ↑ Nevada Legislature, “Minutes of the Senate Committee on Revenue and Economic Development,” March 31, 2015
22. ↑ Daily Journal, "Three groups proposing Nevada ballot measures have submitted signatures that could qualify them for the November election," June 21, 2016
23. ↑ Bennett Medical Services provided in-kind signature gathering.

v • e

2016 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

v • e

Ballotpedia

About|

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Andrew Heath • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Jimmy McAllister • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Annelise Reinwald • Emma Soukup
Content Strategy: Josh Altic
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content|

Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Ethan Sorell • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora

v • e

State of Nevada
Carson City (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy