Jackson Vs. Fair Maps Nev. Pac (Ballot Issue)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 24, 2020
• Docket: 80563
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

REV. LEONARD JACKSON, No. 80563 Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. FAIR MAPS NEVADA PAC, FILED Respondent/Cross-Appellant, and JUL 2 4 2020 BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE, IN HER EUZABEThr A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS NEVADA BY S•V DEPUg.C4LIZ1 1 -1 SECRETARY OF STATE, Res • ondent.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a district court order granting declaratory relief in a ballot initiative matter. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge. Reverend Leonard Jackson contends that the district court lacked "jurisdiction" to "rewrite Fair Maps Nevada PAC's description of effect. We are not persuaded by Jackson's argument, as he has presented no authority that actually supports his position, see Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (requiring parties to support arguments with salient authority), nor has he explained how construing NRS 295.061(3) in such a manner would further any public policy goals, see Tam v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. 792, 800, 358 P.3d 234, 240 (2015) (recognizing that we construe statutes in accordance with "reason and public policy" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Jackson next contends that Fair Maps rewritten description of effect is still misleading. We disagree. While a description of effect must not be deceptive or misleading, Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

101 1947A antee, „10 -077lege Nev. Jobs, 129 Nev. 35, 42, 293 P.3d 874, 879 (2013), Jackson's fixation on the description's use of "could" instead of "wilr requires an improperly "hyper-technicar analysis of the description, id. at 49, 293 P.3d at 883-84. We are likewise unpersuaded that the district court failed to make sufficient factual findings. The only shortcoming Jackson alleges pertains to an issue that appeared in the original description of effect but that is absent from the amended description. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order insofar as Jackson challenges it. On cross-appeal, Fair Maps argues that the district court erred in determining that its original description of effect was misleading. In light of our above-mentioned determinations, however, this issue is moot, and we therefore dismiss Fair Maps cross-appeal. Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) ("This coures duty is not to render advisory opinions . . . ."). In so doing, we note that Fair Maps has not indicated that it would prefer to proceed with its original petition instead of its amended petition. In light of the foregoing, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

p,. . ek2A, 1R.9 , C.J. Pickering

Hardesty

,M4G4-1) , J. Parraguirre Stiglich

, J. , J. Cadish

2 cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Benson Law LLC Attorney General/Carson City McDonald Carano LLP/Reno Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 Oil I947A ctirep