People's Legislature v. Miller (Ballot Issue)

 respondent Secretary of State' or circulating the draft petition for voter
signatures, appellants filed an action in the district court against the
Secretary of State. In the district court, appellants sought a change in the
traditional interpretation of the single-subject rule applicable to
legislation found in Article 4, Section 17 of the Nevada Constitution, a
change that would render Senate Bill 224, passed in 2005 and enacting,
among other things, NRS 295.009's single-subject rule applicable to
initiative petitions, and Assembly Bill 81, passed in 2011 and clarifying
additional requirements for initiative petitions, invalid. Appellants
alternatively requested declaratory relief that their draft petition
prospectively satisfied all Nevada laws, including NRS 295.009's initiative
petition single-subject rule.
Respondents Nevada Resort Association, Nevada Mining
Association, Retail Association of Nevada, and the Nevada Legislature all
moved to intervene, which the district court permitted. Thereafter, the
Legislature and the Secretary of State moved for summary judgment. The
district court granted the Legislature's and the Secretary of State's
motions for summary judgment, applying the established legislative
single-subject rule, concluding that both Senate Bill 224 and Assembly Bill
'The proponent of an initiative petition must file the initiative with
the Secretary of State before beginning circulation. Nev. Const. art. 19, §
2(3); NRS 295.015(1). The purpose of the filing requirement is to ensure
that a true and accurate copy of the proposed initiative is available for
examination by public officials and citizens before it is presented to the
voters for their signatures. See Nevadans for Nev. v. Beers, 122 Nev. 930,
943, 142 P.3d 339, 347 (2006). Once the proposed initiative is filed with
the Secretary, only that version may be presented to the voters for their
signatures. See id. at 943-49; 142 13 .3d at 348-52.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A es.
81 were constitutional, and determining that appellants' request for
declaratory relief was not ripe for judicial determination.
Declaratory relief is permitted in an appropriate case, even
when another adequate remedy exists. NRCP 57. Declaratory relief is
available to
[a]ny person interested under a deed, written
contract or other writings constituting a contract,
or whose rights, status or other legal relations are
affected by a statute, municipal ordinance,
contract or franchise, may have determined any
question of construction or validity arising under
the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or
franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status
or other legal relations thereunder.
NRS 30.040(1). Under NRS 30.080, the court may refuse to enter a
declaratory judgment if the judgment "would not terminate the
uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding." This court has
also concluded that declaratory relief is only available when
(1) a justiciable controversy exists between
persons with adverse interests, (2) the party
seeking declaratory relief has a legally protectable
interest in the controversy, and (3) the issue is ripe
for judicial determination. However, whether a
determination in an action for declaratory
judgment is proper is a matter for the district
court's discretion and will not be disturbed on
appeal unless the district court abused that
discretion.
Cnty. of Clark v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 752, 961 P.2d 754, 756(1998)
(emphases added) (citations omitted).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1907A .oCis(D
NRS 295.015 required appellants to file their petition with the
Secretary of State. 2 Appellants have not filed their petition with the
Secretary of State. So long as a legislative proposal, in this case a draft
initiative, remains subject to change, its validity is not justiciable and not
ripe for adjudication. We, therefore, decline to consider the relief sought
and decline to address the constitutionality of Senate Bill 224 and
Assembly Bill 81 in the context of a draft petition, as doing so would result
in an advisory opinion. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602,
245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) ("This court's duty is not to render advisory
opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable
judgment.")
Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in determining that appellants' request for declaratory relief
was neither justiciable nor ripe for adjudication. For this same reason,
however, we conclude that the district court's findings that Senate Bill 224
and Assembly Bill 81 are constitutional were premature. Accordingly, we
2The complaint filed by appellants challenged the application of
Senate Bill 224's single-subject rule. It did not challenge the amendment
to NRS 295.061, the statute concerning the procedures for judicial review
of an initiative or referendum.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A e
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN
PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
, C.J.
Hardesty
J.
Parraguirre
, J.
Saitta
Gibbons
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge
Law Offices of Kermitt L. Waters
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP/Las Vegas
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Carson City
Legislative Counsel Bureau Legal Division
Griffin Rowe
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A e