- Quickdraw McLaw
- 18 Comments
- 98 Views
Same drill as yesterday: feel free to weigh in on Ballot Questions 4, 5, and 6.
TATE QUESTION NUM. 4 Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
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?
STATE QUESTION NUM. 5 Amendment to Title 24 of the Nevada Revised Statutes
Shall Chapter 293 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended to automatically register an eligible person to vote or update the person’s existing voter registration information if the person applies to the Department of Motor Vehicles for the issuance or renewal of or change of address for any type of driver’s license or identification card, unless the person affirmatively declines in writing to apply to register to vote or have his or her voter registration information update?
STATE QUESTION NUM. 6
Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Shall Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to require, beginning in calendar year 2022, that all providers of electric utility services who sell electricity to retail customers for consumption in Nevada generate or acquire incrementally larger percentages of electricity from renewable energy resources so that by calendar year 2030 not less than 50 percent of the total amount of electricity sold by each provider to its retail customers in Nevada comes from renewable energy resources?
Just say no.
Meh. Meh. Probably. For Q6, it needs to be done worldwide (see UN report and just about any other peer-reviewed study on the topic), but requiring it by 2030 would probably leave the state with an over supply of power plants. Still probably voting yes so that electric cars and other similar technologies are actually a clean option rather than just displacing emissions from your car to carbon-emitting power plants that power the grid.
NO on 5. This is Obama – Harry Reed nonsense. We are Nevada. We are not California. We don't need any more idiot democrats, dead people and illegal aliens voting in this state. We need voters who are living, citizens and residents of Nevada. All voters should present identification to vote.
Thanks Archie Bunker.
Thank you 8:47 for the thoughtful, reasoned comment.
I'm glad you just straight up admit that you think people who vote differently than you (democrats) shouldn't be allowed to vote. It really obviates any need to try an engage you on the extremely dubious merits of your argument.
I wouldn't have a problem with the proposal if it was limited to only those transactions where the DMV "customer" presented a Real ID Act issued drivers license, a certified government issued birth certificate or a U.S. Passport and that voter registration is then also compared to the applicable governmental databases, e.g. criminal justice database, in order to screen out individuals stripped of their voting rights (Felons). I don't know if other classes of individuals such as persons in need of protection (Guardianship) are also deprived of voting rights.
Those additional steps would likely enhance the integrity of the voter rolls and would go a long way towards eliminating the possibility multiple registrations.
The main problem with the various proposals to require a photo ID to vote does almost nothing to address whether the person has the legal right ti cast a vote (citizenship, lost right due to legal impediments, etc.) It does establish that the voter is who they claim to be, but nothing more. A better step which could be adopted (they already do it at DMV) is linking a biometric with the registration (electronic finger print). When the person went to vote, they could then take a biometric sample like was done at the DMV and have the computer do an instant comparison with the stored sample. Such a step would both establish identity and be easier to update by linking to other established databases.
I have never seen evidence that increased voter roll integrity has any significant effect on vote integrity. If this system registers (1) people who cannot lawfully vote and (2) people who can lawfully vote and who otherwise would not register, and a significant number of people from group (2) vote while only a nominal number of people from group (1) vote, how is the fact that the voter rolls are messy really relevant?
Guardianship doesn't remove voting rights unless specifically ordered.
@1:39; To see the importance of eliminating all (or as mant as possible of category (1) individuals, you need only look at recent history, there are a several races that have been decided by very small margins. For example, the Reid-Ensign senate race of 1998, Reid defeated Ensign in the general election by 428 votes (out of a total of 435,864 votes cast). In 2002, South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson defeated John Thune by 528 votes (out of a total of 334,438 cast).
Locally, in recent memory, there are several races that ended in a tie and had to be decided by the drawing of cards. In those instances, even the casting of a single category (1) vote made a difference in that race.
I am all for increasing voter participation to include the greatest number of eligible voters. I am, however, very much against expanding to include ineligible voters.
To paraphrase an American Express slogan, citizenship/membership has its privileges…
Voting NO on Question 4 and 6. Again, why are we amending the state constitution regarding electricity, utilities, and sales taxes. These are questions that need to be answered by are duly elected and paid for legislatures. That is their job and they need to do it. These issues can be addressed by state statutes, not the constitution. Furthermore, California had a statute requiring 50% renewable energy, but that is not good enough. Now they have to go 100% renewable by 2045. For a state the size of a country and that is broke. Oh, and they did that by way of state statute, not their constitution. Crazy!
“They need to do it.” But do they do it? If representation isn’t working, go directly to the people?
In fairness, an RPS increase was passed by the legislature last session but it was vetoed by Gov Sandoval, mainly because of uncertainty surrounding Question 3. If Laxalt wins, you can be sure that any legislative RPS increase will be vetoed.
Deep thoughts on climate change: “I mean, you have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years. Dr. John Trump. And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture.”
1:46 here, this is why I'm voting for Q6.
So what happens if we are not 50% renewables by the deadline? What happens if we have to pay higher utility rates in an attempt to get to 50%? Just about everybody has to pay for electricity and with higher rates to achieve 50% renewable sources, it becomes a regressive tax on the lower income earners. I think most people would like us to receive our electricity from renewable resources, but allowing the market to work its way through achieving that is a more reasonable path and fairer to low income individuals and families. We are at about 20% rate right now and electric providers are moving toward renewable resources and will get there, but legislating it will be unfair to rate payers now.
That's just it – the market won't work its way through achieving any significant progress. We're dealing with carbon emissions which are negative externalities. The only way to really price the externality/carbon emission it is through government intervention. That's tragedy of the commons econ 201. I understand it will affect lower income earners, but so did Hurricane Michael and so will the future scorching Las Vegas summers.
And we're not at a real 20% right now. The RPS says 20% right now but there are a bunch of multipliers and other special credits that water down the percentage of generation that actually comes from renewable sources.
I came here hoping for Hof estate plan speculation. Can you imagine dealing with that estate?