Direct democracy, the process by which the people conduct direct law making through the circulation of petitions and (subject to the petition qualifying) subsequent ratification by the voters in an upcoming election, has often been a hub for electoral and legal controversy.2 In GNAR,3 the Nevada Supreme Court drew on U.S. Free Speech Constitutional law to save a couple of 2004 ballot campaigns, while making the ballot process for future petitions (at least logistically) a little bit easier. Below is a description of the GNAR opinion and its holding, along with a few comments regarding GNAR’s questionable lack of deference to the ballot-petition expertise of the Nevada Secretary of State.
Roehrs, Timothy W., "Summary of Heller v. Give Nev. A Raise, Inc." (2004). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 675.