Pest Committee v. Miller
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24554
9th Cir.2010Background
- Nevada's constitution vests power to propose statutes by initiative petition and to enact them at the polls, with legislative provisions to facilitate the process.
- Statutes set petition filing and signature verification timelines; 10% of last general election votes are required for signatures to qualify.
- In 2005 Nevada enacted Section 295.009 imposing single-subject and description-of-effect requirements on initiatives and referenda.
- Section 295.061 allowed pre-election challenges to petition compliance, with a quick 15-day filing window and priority over criminal matters.
- During 2008, multiple initiatives faced pre-election challenges; some petitions were withdrawn and revised in response to challenges, with ongoing litigation affecting ballot placement.
- PEST Committee, We the People, Citizens in Charge and others sued in federal court alleging First Amendment burdens from these provisions; district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether single-subject/description-of-effect burdens core political speech. | PEST contends strict scrutiny applies to the provisions. | Miller argues content-neutral, mechanical regulations deserving flexible balancing. | Not a direct core-speech burden; strict scrutiny not required |
| Whether pre-election challenge provision burdens First Amendment rights. | Pre-election challenges chill speech by delaying or blocking petitions. | Provision is procedural, not a new private right; maintains orderly process; not a core-speech burden. | Allows content-neutral, non-discriminatory review; does not impose severe burden |
| Whether single-subject/description-of-effect are vague or overbroad. | Terms are vague and allow arbitrary enforcement. | Statutory definitions provide understandable guidance; not substantially overbroad. | Not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad |
| Whether Nevada's overall statute scheme is constitutional under a flexible balancing approach. | Balancing should require strict scrutiny due to impact on initiative rights. | Flexible balancing appropriate for election regulations with legitimate state interests. | District court did not err; statute scheme satisfies First Amendment interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1999) (strict scrutiny when core political speech directly regulated)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1988) (petition circulation as core political speech)
- Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2006) (balancing framework for election-law restrictions)
- Campbell v. Buckley, 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir. 2000) (flexible balancing approach to content-neutral election regulations)
- Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F.3d 1491 (11th Cir. 1996) (state's initiative process regulation tolerable absent discriminatory enforcement)
- Nader v. Brewer, 531 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (role of election-law standards in related challenges)
- Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2006) (log-rolling and single-subject considerations in Nevada context)
- Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council of Las Vegas, 208 P.3d 436 (Nev. 2009) (state interests in election process and regulatory balance)