An estimated 30 percent of Nevadans live with a disability related to cognitive, visual or auditory function. 

Advocates say that Question 2 on the 2024 ballot would update that antiquated language — that has been in the state’s governing charter since Nevada’s statehood in 1864 — to be more inclusive toward people with disabilities and their spectrum of needs.

Summary of what it does: This ballot question would remove the terms “insane,” “deaf” and “dumb” from the Nevada Constitution, broadening the language so it applies to a wider range of people with disabilities. 

“Insane” would be replaced with “persons with significant mental illness”; “blind” to “persons who are blind or visually impaired”; and  “deaf and dumb” to “persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.” 

It would also replace the term “institutions” with “entities,” distancing itself from the term “institutionalized.”

How did we get here: For the Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, the amendment must first pass the Assembly and Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions.

The amendment was introduced to the 2021 legislative session as AJR1, and passed unanimously in both chambers during the 2021 and 2023 legislative sessions, securing its place on the 2024 ballot.

What have other states done? Other states have brought forward similar ballot questions or legal changes updating antiquated language related to people with disabilities in recent years. Michigan in 2014 approved legislation that removed the terms “mentally retarded” and “mental retardation” from state statutes. North Dakota also has a proposed constitutional amendment on its 2024 ballot that would replace the terms “insane,” “deaf” and “dumb” with more inclusive language. 

Argument for passing Question 2: Question 2 received broad support from legislators and disability advocacy groups who said that the measure would help advance the rights of people with disabilities. 

State Sen. Robin Titus (R-Wellington), who sponsored the bill in 2021, said during a legislative hearing last year that different terminologies were used when the state Constitution was written nearly 160 years ago, but it was now an appropriate time to “to give these words a more critical look.” 

“We must do a better job in making sure we do not discriminate and stigmatize persons with disabilities or mental illness in our laws,” she said during a May 2023 legislative hearing. “A first step is to ensure none of this discriminative or derogatory language is in our Constitution.”

Arguments against passing Question 2: There were no arguments against the measure presented during either legislative session. It twice passed unanimously in the Assembly and Senate. 

In a summary of the ballot question prepared by the secretary of state’s office, a section titled “Arguments Against Passage” says that amending the state Constitution “should be a rare occurrence” and that the language was acceptable at the time.

“The Nevada Constitution is a historical document, and we should not expect it to keep pace with the ever-changing nature of language,” it reads.

Primary funders:  There were no political action committees registered to support or oppose the measure.

Financial impact: The resolution’s fiscal note says that the Legislature has been unable to determine the measure’s financial impact.

Intern Kelsea Frobes contributed reporting to this story.