The Nevada Constitution

Jeff Dunham

Political Science 100
Professor: Mark Peplowski
November 14th, 2013

The United States has a federal style of government that was created by the foundations of the U.S Constitution in which rule of law is used to manage society and the country. The way government oversees there own activities is through the distribution of authority within the different branches of government, called separation of powers. Separation of Power is a way for each branch of government to have enough power to not over dominate over another and thus keep an eye on each other. This process is used to moderate branches of government through a structure called checks and balance. The state and national level use the same structure to govern themselves; the differences and similarities between both of them come down to the way the rule of law is used in the democratic process. An example of this would be through comparing those differences and similarities between the political power that Nevada’s governor and the Presidents hold; along with the political power.
The title of governor provides leadership in the state by representing its interest within the Federal Government. The responsibilities for governor, as stated in the Nevada State Constitution under Article 5 sections 8 through 9 are to appointing leaders, fill vacancies, commissioning people to different departments, and holding memberships on several important boards and commissions. He is also responsible for ceremonial occasions. Other responsibilities are recommending legislation for the state’s budget and calling special sessions when state business cannot wait for following biennial meetings. His last duty is to be in charge of the military forces in Nevada’s National Guard. The governor holds this authority until the President calls on these forces to war. The governor also has other powers specified Under The Nevada Constitution Article Five Section Thirteen the governor has the ability to grant pardons, reduce sentences, pardon fines, and forfeitures. Aside from the responsibilities as a governor, he also has additional responsibilities that require working along side other elected body of officials which comprise the Executive office. They are The Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer and Controller. Authors Don W. Driggs & Leonard E.Goodall mention in their book, Nevada Politics and Government: Conservatism in an Open Society that the governor must share executive power with other elected officials to keep proper checks and balances. The balance is kept by having a diverse body of officials from different parties to work alongside the governor (Driggs and Leonard 92). Although Driggs and Goodall illustrate a good point on the necessities of a proper functioning executive staff that is not always the case since the way these officials get elected are through the citizens of Nevada, not the Governor. The governor doesn't have any say on who gets to work along side him. At times they may all end up coming from the same political party as he and still think differently on agendas. However the governor does have the authority to appoint the heads of departments and members of over boards and commissions. The staff that he appoints can be a support for his political agendas. Since the governor’s position carries so many responsibilities, citizens have been critical of the management of office. The Governor must make harsh decisions for the good of every citizen he represents so at times the right thing is not always welcomed with much praise. The Governor is not the only one to be commented for his work under such an important public image; there is also the President.
The President of the United States provides leadership and represents the people of the US. He is known for his important decision making and diplomacy throughout history. The President has been most noted of his decision making have been at times of great importance to the nation and abroad. The decisions the President makes can sometimes have an impact on the U.S and abroad because the United States is looked upon as a leader to other countries and this role can have a great deal of impact on how other countries view us and how well the President is viewed as a representative of the country. Aside from being a key figure to represent the country he has other requirements to fill under different titles. Requirements and titles are listed On the United States Constitution under Article 2. The President’s responsibilities are to execute and enforce federal law, veto acts of congress, make treaties, grant pardons at a federal level, appoint federal executive department heads, name diplomats, convene houses, and act as a diplomat. Under the title of Chief of State the President entertains foreign leaders, promotes righteous causes, bestows medals on military heroes, and recognizes outstanding citizens. As the role of legislative leader the President recommends law, and gives the State of the Union Address. When in the title of Chief Diplomat he consults with foreign leaders, performs ceremonial duties with foreign leaders and makes decisions for our country regarding foreign affairs. Last, while in the role of Commander-In-Chief, the President is responsible for raising, training, supervising, and deploying all the states’ militia. The President did not start off with so many responsibilities. In fact, when the Constitution was formed, the President had minimal tasks to attend to; but throughout time he was assigned more duties as critical occasions rose up in the nation. Fred Greenstein a professor of politics Emeritus at Princeton University makes a comment about how the powers of the President developed in the article entitled "Change and Continuity in the Modern Presidency". In the article Greenstein says, that “a glimpse of when the Presidents power began to take its form is evident was not under the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.” Greenstein says that “it wasn’t so much of a change of power that was happening, but in the way some Presidents would use that power. But under FDR "the Presidency began to undergo not a shift but rather a metamorphosis"(Greenstein). The article goes on to point out there were four instances where the President power began to “morph” as he Greenstein says. “First, the President tried to seek convincing for his personal campaigns through the an effort to convince legislatures to commit to his agendas and utilizing his veto power. Second, "a President that normally exercised few unilateral powers" (Greestein). Changed into a president that creates policy "through executive orders and other actions not formally ratified by Congress" (Greestein). Third, the executive office is comprised of officials that work together in support of the President’s policies. Fourth, throughout all these new practices of changed presidential responsibility the Presidents role was individualized. "Presidents are expected to be symbols of reassurance, possessing extraordinary 'nonpolitical' personal qualities that were traditionally associated with long deceased 'hero Presidents” (Greestein). As can be seen the Presidents power morphed because the needs changed. Depending on the circumstances, the powers of the president will morph to fit those needs. The Presidents powers are more flexible now than they in the past when the Constitution was formed as demonstrated in the four points by Greenstein's article. Although the President has the opportunity to wield all this power, his powers are compromised by the U.S. Congress in that they are the ones who grant or prohibit its use.
The governor’s powers are similar to the President’s power with some limitations. Both President and governor take care that the laws are properly executed and commissioned, and both have the ability to appoint the heads of departments and member of over boards and commissions. Also, the President is able too appoint executive officials into his cabinet unlike the elected officials that the governor gets appointed for him by the people. Also, the President is able to appoint Judges to the Supreme Court and the Judges of Nevada go through an election process through general elections. Also the President and the Governor, have the ability to grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses. Although the governor only has to ability to grant these offenses in the state of Nevada. The President has the ability to grant these same offenses in a much bigger scales that involve offenses to the United States as a whole. Also both the President and Governor have the ability to convene houses in special session, either in times of disagreements, or crisis. The President can convene Congress that is made up of the senate and the house of representatives. The Governor can convene the legislature that is made up of the Lower House Nevada Assembly and the Upper house Nevada Senate. The only exception to these meetings is that when the President convenes Congress together, they are not limited to the subject matter that will be discussed; even-though they may have been brought together for another reason. Whereas Nevada is required to converse about the subject matter that was the reason they were brought together. In the sense of military, the President has more broad military leadership under the title of Chief Executive over the nation’s Army and Navy. He can call upon the states militias when in times of war. The Governor of Nevada is the commander in chief of Nevada’s state militias and can use them in times of internal conflict. However, the difference between both titles is that the President can call upon Nevada’s state militia during times of war. As far as receiving ambassadors and other public ministers for representatives; the Governor does not receive, instead he acts a representative for the states cause, but because the governor is the representative of the state he takes on a role of an ambassador for the state when receiving other governors and foreign diplomats. The Nevada Governor has similar power to the President of the United States and can do much of the same proposals, although the President has more power in the sense that he or she can do a lot broad things, but needs approval for most of the action; but the Governor is able to do a lot more with less because he does not have to seek much approval from the legislature in some of his state duties. By comparing the President’s power to the Governor’s power we can see that there are a lot of similarities between the two within their own jurisdictions. The similarities don’t just stop there within the many powers in the government. There are also similarities in the different ways of electing judges. By explaining each one we can see that there are pros and cons in each system. Since the time that Nevada became a state its judges have been elected. Nevada is among the minority of states that still elect all their judges. According to the Manuscript by William Eric Davis entitled, “The Battle Born Silver State” The way the state of Nevada handles the process of electing Judges is by ways of running unaffiliated towards a political party. The process for Nevada of electing judges involves a bipartisan group of lawyers that choose candidates off of a list only used when a vacancy appears on a court before an expiration of terms and when a vacancy opens up due to death, resignation, or removal. The way this system functions in Nevada is by having an unbiased body group of lawyers interview potential candidates from a poll of lists, then three names are forwarded to the governor who decides one of those candidates to go forward and take on the open seat. Hhoever the governor has the opportunity to reject the candidate and if no one is selected then the committee who submitted the names picks instead. If the process happens in this manner then when the upcoming general elections come by and with a completion of a years of service passes on by then the picked candidate must face a retention race in order to keep his seat. The candidate must win enough yes votes in order to keep his seat. The manner of choosing candidates comes from the system known as the Missouri plan. On the states that don't rely on this system it is sometimes refereed to as the, “Merritt Plan”. Now the Missouri plan in itself has been adopted by more than 30 states. For the states that use the Missouri Plan of electing Judges is a little different. There are Seventeen States have adopted this plan. The Missouri Plan consists of an alternative way to vote on seats in a judiciary. According to the Your Missouri Court Web Site, the election process works in this manner; this works by having panel of neutral lawyers that interview potential candidates. The panel judges these candidates based on their skills sets. After the interview process is done the lawyers then pick three out of the potential candidates to go on ahead and be named a Judge by the Governor. The governor then has a period of time, sixty days, to select a candidate. The Governor doesn’t always have to select a Candidate of his choosing, if he refuses all of them in one list of candidates he always has another list. If that one doesn’t work then the committee who was in charge of the selection process chooses one for him.
There is a draw back towards the committee picking a candidate. The drawback is that the candidate chosen has to deal all year long with the fact that he, or she must contend with having to be reelected in the next general elections and that if the candidate fails to keep his seat in retention elections the process of selecting a candidate will start all over again. The Missouri Plan is meant to keep an unbiased view and keep politics out of its selection process. The last method of picking vacancies is through the U.S. National System. The United States Court website articulates that the process of appointing judges is done so by the nominations of the President and confirmations by the United States Senate. The names of potential candidates are often recommended by the president’s staff as well as senators and members of the House.
The National system does this through the Senate Judiciary Committee judgeship recommendations to Congress. The Judicial Conference surveys the needs of the court every other year to see if an opening will be needed. Although the U.S courts method of picking Judges is very similar to both systems. In one instance it emulates the Nevada system in that the President recommends a candidate, but the senate ultimately have the last word on the nominee to see if he, or she is worthy. And it emulates the Missouri System in that both parties are free to criticize and review the candidate’s record against other nominees.
Ultimately similarities within the Nevada system of electing Judges and the Missouri system come down to the individual process within these systems. The Nevada and Missouri Plans are good and bad, but both are also time consuming. The Nevada Plan is bad because it is not rigorous enough when filling a vacancy and has been accused in the past of “good old boy network,” according to Eric William Davis. “Where many of the officials in office know each other personally and use their positions to help each other achieve professional, political or personal goals”. Also because they run unaffiliated, voters do not really know much of their background (Davis 28). This leads to lots of possibly picking candidates that are against the morals of the electorates. Then the Missouri plan is bad because it’s too rigorous and slow. In an article published by the Columbia Daily Tribune entitled, “Missouri Plan has turned too secretive”; William Eckhart, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City law school talks about how Missourians’ are worried about judges being picked in secrecy. The article reads,
“An increasing number of Missourians are reasonably concerned that the Missouri Plan for selecting judges has become a tool for partisan special-interest groups to pack our highest courts with like-minded judges. These Missourians point to the fact that the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys, a very politically active organization that represents less than 10 percent of the 30,000-member Missouri Bar, controls at least three of the seats on the seven-member commission that nominates judges to the Supreme Court” (Eckhart). Eckhart goes on to say that Missourians point out that the commission does there nominating in secrecy away from the public eye. The Missouri plan, in the beginning, started off with good intentions that were meant to prevent such dealings to occur. But ultimately there, good intentions turned out to be the opposite effect. It leads to a taking advantage of the system by the very means of what was meant to be fair and balanced.
When it comes down to the process of replacing judges in the systems the pros and cons can be significant. The Missouri plan uses the same system of electing judges as it does replacing a judge. The replacement process starts off the same as electing a judge by having a committee of dominated lawyers that choose candidates for potential jurors through a series of Interviews that then pick three names to go on ahead to be submitted to the governor to chose from. Using this process of electing and replacing a judge is a good thing because during process of replacement the governor, or committee who does the decision on who gets elected will have a more informed view of the candidates and how they can fit the role that is vacant. In the Nevada’s answer to replacement is also good because if the appointee loses the approval of not being elected then the Nevada system uses the same selecting process as the Missouri plan; only difference is that it’s within 30 days and the Governor must appoint someone as judge before being able to appoint anyone else in any other office, even if the time limit expires. Even though other states with the Missouri Plan to select judges is being looked at as, “secretive” it’s good in the sense for Nevada because it is less time consuming and the electorate are able to see the candidate's track record through the general elections.
The U.S. National Plan is mostly good because even-tough the criteria screening a candidate is through the U.S Bar Association that is a voluntary organization that has its own criteria of of evaluating candidates through their members. They are accredited for improving the legal profession, and eliminating bias throughout the U.S and abroad. The national system of electing judges can lead to favoritism when a candidate is being nominated through Congress and the Department of Justice that is skepticism in the Nevada system of electing judges. But the advantage that the national system has over the other two is that the members of congress are able to debate over the nominated candidates and also to be able to look at their track records, unlike the Missouri where citizens are worried about it being to secretive and the Nevada system of picking favorites. Although all plans seem to have its flaws the main thing to consider is that the decisions are always left to the citizens and they are the ultimate Judge. The Candidates also have a responsibility to take into consideration which is what the electorates want out of them and how their decisions affect citizens lives. Also these responsibilities applies to the governor and members of the federal government whenever he or she has a word in the decision making, or process. They can always end up in the same spot as the candidates that are contending for an open seat by making a bad decision that costs them their career.
Sometimes too many similarities between systems are not a good thing for seeing things get done. Another type of systems that can conflict each other and make it hard to get anything done is in the case of Nevada’s Legislature being constrained by Nevada’s form of Direct Democracy. The Nevada State Legislature is composed of the Senate and the Assembly. The Legislature is limited to a paid sixty day regular session in a biennial meeting, and can never go over 120 days. Direct democracy is composed of four different process in the State of Nevada; it’s composed of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall & Statue of Affirmation. According to the writings of Eric William Davis in the Initiative process can either be direct and indirect; Nevada is bound by an indirect approach. Initiative process starts off by voters posing concerns on ballot initiatives they feel need to be addressed. Next, the initiative is circulated for signatures by the electorate; before being submitted to a vote by the people; after this approval it can then be placed on the ballot for registered voters. The way the process of the Indirect Initiative works is by bypassing the legislature thorough its own public legislative process. This process is then screened by the State Secretary who checks the initiative for the correct number of signatures, discrepancies or consistency of tone in language and for any initiatives that go against the rules that do not comply with the Constitution.
Eric William Davis states the second step of direct democracy's Referendum. The Referendum is a right granted to Nevada voters to replace unjust laws on a ballot by measures of repeal. A law that is approved by the voters cannot be repealed by anyone else but them, and most certainly not by the legislature. The only way it can be repealed is by another direct vote of the people. In order for the referendum to take place it needs to pass a review by the Nevada Secretary of State and Nevada state courts, in order to go on the ballot. After a law has passed the review it then goes on the ballot to be voted on. After the ballot is voted it on the governor has a choice of passing the vote as either binding, or advisory. “The binding method is often used by the legislature to avoid criticism for passing an unpopular law. The advisory method is used as a means to measure public support or to gauge the number of voters who are motivated enough about the issue to possibly show up and vote against legislators who supported the presumably unpopular law. Thus, the process provides political cover for the legislators and provides guidance to them on how to vote on a binding version or an ordinary statute. The binding version of the referendum process is often used as a way for the legislature to let voters decide a particularly controversial question. A simple majority vote of citizens decides the issue which, again, tilts Nevada government toward majority interests” (Davis 19).
Another process is the Recall. Much like the referendum on removing measures from ballots this is the process of removing public officials from office before they can finish their term. Williamson notes that first a petition of “twenty five percent of signatures must be collected” (Davis 20). These signatures have to be within the same district and must be citizens who voted for that seat in the last General Elections. Second, “Unless the official refuses to resign within five days after the petition has been filed and signatures validated as registered voters, a special recall election is held within 30 days. In this election, the voters can decide to retain the official or replace him or her with another candidate on the ballot. Whichever candidate gets the most votes, even if it is the candidate against whom the recall was enacted, will serve the remainder of the term. In effect, the voters recall an official by giving another candidate the most votes in a recall election” (Davis 21).
The last process in direct democracy is the Statute Affirmation. The starting of the process is the same, as the Initiative and Referendum, in having to collect voter signatures for a petition to be placed as a proposition on a ballot. The Statute Affirmation is good for affirming a stated law. This is an authority granted to the voters, so that the law remains intact and one does not ever have to worry about it being appealed, or amended by the legislator; only the people have this authority. This act of having it secure is only possible if there is at least twenty-five percent of voters who vote to affirm the law. If in the chance that the law is disapproved, then it is voided. on. Nevada’s direct democracy is a good alternative for citizens to obtain what they want. They don’t need to depend so much on the Legislative Branch on getting things accomplished having the authority that they have. By having the authority to overturn laws and removing public officials Nevada’s citizens are able to express their discontent through a democratic process which demonstrates the core values in each and every individual. But this power bestowed upon the people of Nevada can also be very damaging if not used wisely. For example in an article published by Yahoo.com where the author of the article, Courtney Frazer talks about the misuse of Direct Democracy and what can prevail from an excess of use in the system; particularly in the State of California. “In direct democracy, voters have directly modified the state's constitution in immense and diminutive issues; including which ways to spend, how to tax, and in who should be able to marry” (Frazer).
“There are more drawbacks than benefits in direct democracy. Advantages include citizens having the right to sign petitions and vote on referendums; however at the same time this can also be harmful. A lot of citizens don't take the time to educate themselves on policies having a vital impact on other citizens. A lot of these voters are also, selfishly voting on things they believe” (Frazer). In essence any system can be taken out of hand if not used properly. The miss-use of process in general can be seen in the way that Nevada’s legislature can be compromised by Nevada’s direct democracy.
For example if when a court rules on a law that has been passed through the amendment process and later on a ballot initiative gets overturned by the majority of voters. Another example of this is when there is the citizens’ measures on the ballot plus an alternative legislative measure. In instances when this is the case the one with the most votes gets turned into law. By approving a citizens measure over the a legislature measure can compromise the work of the Legislator, in the future, to work and think more in favor of what people desire rather than keeping interpretation of laws accurate and suggesting alternative initiatives based on the law. Because of this the legislator can feel restrained to pass initiatives submitted to him, or her directly, when knowing that he or she can be recalled from office if voters are not fully satisfied with whichever preposition gets passed. Also, he or she runs the risk, if in the future, decides to repeal or amend the Initiative through the referendum process. Furthermore Nevada in general with its growing diversified population may end up, in the near future, repealing more laws than keeping them. And this in turn can constrain the government of Nevada to do the will of the people more often than the will of the legislative body in charge of creating the laws.
The culture in Nevada has steadily shifted from a conservative state to a more liberal state because of the culture changes that was sweeping the state from an influx of growth between the years of 1990 to 2003. The statistics of this cultural trend can be seen in the last five Presidential elections. Victories ranged from one percent to a ten percent marginal victory and four of the five elections where victories of one to four percent. These statistics are according to online polling results on us liberals.com and realclearpolitics.com. Another glimpse of this cultural trend can be seen thorough the Initiatives passed and rejected by the voters. When the financial market had its downfall in the year of 2008 and states have had to make cuts on there budgets, Nevada's focus has gone towards economic issues in the sense of how best to save money in the state and how citizens can benefit from it. According to Nevada’s ballot measures published on the website Vote Smart, Nevada; in 2003 voted to preserve water by allocating bonds and to reduce property tax on single family homes. Later in 2004 Nevada passed ballots about funding public schools before any other cause would be funded, limiting attorney fees when dealing with health care lawsuits, raising the minimum wage and changing the language of voting rights for mentally ill people. In 2006, this trend continued to take shape by the measures that passed that had to do with funding K-12 schools, the protection of eminent domain, and increasing the minimum wage once more. From 2008 to 2012 the economical concern grew.
This is evident on a poll conducted by Impact Nevada and later publicized as an article by Ed Vogel. Impact Nevada is a collaboration of the Las Vegas Review Journal, Channel 8 News and Vegas PBS. The focus of this group coming together is to provide information of issues affecting Southern Nevadans. Also they focus on the perspectives of residents by reaching out for their opinions, presenting them to elected officials, measuring progress and holding officials accountable. The poll reads as follows,“Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the Impact Nevada poll favor tax increases, or a combination of state spending cuts and tax increases, to solve the budget problem.” The poll continues to add that “Poll respondents said they're OK with paying higher taxes if it means the state will keep class sizes small and pay teachers at least what they're making now. Only about one in 20 respondents would cut elementary school spending, and just one in 10 is willing to reduce higher education expenditures. More than half of state spending goes to education. They would rather see tuition increases at the state's colleges and universities than the elimination of more programs. They would rather charge fees to the parents of children involved in extra­curricular activities than eliminate these programs” (Vogel). It is evident that Nevada citizens want the best for everyone. And by everyone Citizens find that the neediest of them all are children and their education. They are willing to raise taxes on education than have them taken away and have children struggle and in essence have the parents struggle also. Nevada’s culture although being anti-tax they are more anti hurting education.
Vogel adds, “They also favor preserving programs like Medicaid, which provides health care to 270,000 residents, and food stamps, which 300,000 people depend on. What they would cut is up in the air. If they had to cut anything, then it would be President Barack Obama's new national health care law. Then again, they would cut that only if it increased state spending appreciably. Estimates are the health care program will tack on more than $100 million a year to state Medicaid costs.” (Vogel) This is another thing that Nevada cannot do without and like cutting taxes they will only get rid of it if need be. The poll goes on to describe that accepting tax hikes if very historic in its history. “What most surprised Marvin Longabaugh, president of Magellan Research, was that so many people will accept tax increases to balance the state's out-of-whack budget.” (Vogel). “For the first time in my history of polling in Nevada, a clear majority of people said they would be willing to have tax increases," said Longabaugh. "We are still an anti-tax state, but the majority of Nevadans are willing to endure a tax increase.”(Vogel) The poll concludes that “The problem for legislators will be figuring out which tax increases the majority will accept." (Vogel) A property tax increase would be the most abhorrent tax to residents. It drew less than 1 percent support. Impact Nevada found the tax increases most favored by respondents would be on gaming and mining. But neither of them received support of even 30 percent of the people polled. That many residents favor mining and gaming tax increases was expected, Longabaugh said, since most people wouldn't have to pay those taxes. Invariably people think the fairest tax is the one someone else pays.” (Vogel)
Cutting taxes hasn’t been a recent priority in the State of Nevada. The downfall of the economy in 2008 has made some Nevadan's think about which programs to cut and not cut in order to balance the budget. Some programs that Citizens would not want to cut were Education and Medicare; it's because cutting of those programs would affect everyone in the State. Almost all of the initiatives that did not pass dealt with increasing unnecessary taxes as can be seen in Nevada's General elections from the years of 2008 to recent. The propositions that did not pass not only reflect an anti-tax mentality and a where to cut costs, but to only accept tax hikes if it means to balance the budget. Also, the Initiatives that did not pass are what the article refers to, “Invariably people think the fairest tax is the one someone else pays.” Referring to the same votesmart.com again, in 2002 the issues that did not pass dealt with regulations of where tax exemptions should be allocated towards, how to regulate judge time in office when unable to finish his or her term and having a fair opportunity for everyone to take an equal share of being taxed. In 2004 Nevadans shot down ballots that dealt with spending more than needed on children is education, spending less on auto insurance premiums, personal liability for vexatious and frivolous litigation made by lawyers, and exempting tax from sale, or use of vehicles, ocular devices, farm machinery, fine art, engines and chassis. On the 2006 propositions dealt with the purchase of one ounce of medical Marijuana purposes, controlling of state funds on higher education, and compensation for legislators on regular and special elections. By 2010 the voters had a mentality of simply shooting down any initiative that dealt with raising government power and unnecessary spending. As noted, the state of Nevada returned to being more Conservative rather than switching to being liberal because of the budget deficit. The culture in Nevada is still very consistent in keeping power to a minimum and having people to hold that power in place. Through being healthy by keeping health care and raising a culture of intelligence by keeping education funded.
Nevada has had a rich history that is evident today with its modern wonders and modern adapting towards situations. The states official path started in 1864 by giving birth to a state that had a passion to be a state in the Union. Once Nevada became a part of the Union it joined the rest of the states in banning slavery and granting the right to vote for woman. While the state grew in population, so did the concern for people’s rights. In the upcoming years Nevada would ratified the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; then in 1912 it would provide citizens the opportunity for direct democracy by Initiative, Referendum, Recall and Statute Affirmation. As the population started to individualize themselves from the rest of the states, so would Nevada’s Governors be distinct within the state and how they would handle their responsibilities. The State of Nevada created their own source of economy through casinos and it began to catch the eye of other cities close by and worldwide. As a result it encountered an influx of population growth and a change of what it meant to be Nevadan. The culture of Nevada has had an impact on national elections as being a state to be contended by both Republicans and Democrats. With all this said, it can be shown that Nevada has been and will continue to be a state with change. A state that continues a path towards fair rules of law within its constitution and a state that continues to be a battle ground in politics. Nevada has built a persona for itself and its evident now with the popularity of Las Vegas and the way other cities and countries try to emulate the city. Las Vegas is unique as is the state of Nevada as a whole and no one can come close imitating this countries rich history. Hotels and casinos can be copied, but not the historical background that gave way to these ideas. Las Vegas is having a huge impact on the world, as being one of the biggest American metropolises known world-round. Not only its economy, but its higher education system has grown in what it can offer its residence. Some may say that all they see is a vast desert within the state, but not to Nevadans past, present and people that know the history; they can see that there is still a spirit of exploring, a sentiment worth trying and more Silver and Gold waiting to be discovered.

Works Cited
Davis, William Eric. The Battle Born Silver State. Las Vegas, NV: The College of Southern Nevada. 2012. [Monograph]. 28. 7 Oct.2013.
Driggs, Don W., and Leonard E. Goodall. Nevada Politics & Government: Conservatism in an Open society. Lincoln, NE. University of Nebraska Press,1996. 91-92. Web.2 Sept. 2013.
EckHardt, William. "Missouri Plan Has Turned Too Secretive." Columbia Daily Tribune
Columbia Tribune. 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 9 Sept. 2013.<http://www.columbiatribune.com/ opinion/op-ed/missouri-plan-has-turned-too-secretive/article_e4f72099-20ee-511f-9376-764e2ffbbf23.html>.
"Federal Courts in American Government." USCOURTSGOV RSS. Web. 26 Sept.
2013.<http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/FederalCourtsInAmericanGovernment.aspx>.
Frazier, Courtney. "California Vs. Direct Democracy." Yahoo Contributor Network. Yahoo,
17 July 2013. Web. 01 Oct. 2013. <http://voices.yahoo.com/ california-vs-direct-democracy-12230728.html?cat=37>.
Greenstein, F Fred I. "Change and Continuity in the Modern Presidency", The New American Political System, ed. Anthony King. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute,
1978. 45-85. Questia. 1994. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.questia.com/library/ 1537402/the-myth-of-the-modern-presidency>.
"Project Vote Smart." 2008 Nevada Ballot Measures -. Web. 07 Oct. 2013. <http:// votesmart.org/elections/ballot-measures/2008/NV#.Uk9OQD-hizU>.
"RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Nevada: Romney vs. Obama." RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Nevada: Romney vs. Obama. Web. 07 Oct. 2013 <http://www. realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html>.
"Scope of the Nonpartisan Court Plan." Nonpartisan Court Plan. Supreme Court of Missouri. n.d.
Web. 07 Oct. 2013. <http://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=297>.
Nevada Const. art. II; art. V, sec. 8, 9, 13 Print.
White, Deborah. "Nevada in 2012 Elections." About.com US Liberal Politics. About, n.d.
Web. 08 Oct. 2013.<http://usliberals.about.com/od/BattlegroundStates2012/a/ Nevada-In-2012-Elections.htm>.
Vogel, Ed. "Las Vegas Review-Journal." Impact Nevada: Many Favor Higher Taxes for
Nevada's Budget Problems: Poll. Review Journal, 04 Oct. 2010. Web. 08 Oct. 2013.
<http:// www.reviewjournal.com/news/impact-nevada-many-favor-higher-taxes-nevadas-
budget-problems-poll>.