Efforts to repeal a tax on large businesses or ban so-called “sanctuary city” policies through a vote of the people won’t be moving forward this year.

But a measure that will swiftly ramp up requirements for utility companies to use renewable energy appears to have a solid chance of qualifying for the ballot.

Groups seeking to place questions on the statewide ballot had to submit the required number of Nevada voter signatures on petitions by the close of business on Tuesday. To qualify for the ballot, petitioners needed signatures from registered voters equal to 10 percent of the voter turnout in the last general election.

That means at least 112,544 valid signatures were needed, including 28,136 in each of the four congressional districts. That’s a higher threshold than petitioners would face following, say, the low-turnout midterm elections of 2014.

Once the signatures are submitted, counties have 13 working days to certify whether the petition has met the requirements.

Here’s an overview of proposed ballot measures and where they stand on their journey to becoming law.

MEASURES THAT WON’T QUALIFY

Ban on sanctuary cities

Formal name: Prevent Sanctuary Cities Initiative

Type of measure: Voter initiated constitutional amendment, meaning it would need to garner signatures from 10 percent of voters who cast ballots during the 2016 election, and be approved in the 2018 and 2020 general elections to be added to the constitution.

Group sponsoring: Prevent Sanctuary Cities Initiative PAC

Summary of what it does: If approved, the initiative would prohibit establishment of “sanctuary” jurisdictions in Nevada, broadly defined to be any state or local government that declines to cooperate with the federal government in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. There are currently no such jurisdictions in Nevada.

Primary funders: The only contributors to the Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC are the campaign account of Republican state Senate Leader Michael Roberson and one of his associated PACs, the “All for Nevada PAC.” It has raised $12,500 since being formed, and spent $12,000 on legal fees paid to the firm of McDonald Carano.

Financial impact: The Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division determined that the measure wouldn’t have any fiscal impact to state and local governments, but was unable to determine if it would have a future effect and concluded “the actual financial impact to state or local government cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.”

Status: The measure faced a court challenge from the ACLU and was ordered to be rewritten for a clearer description of effect on the petition. Final, judge-approved language wasn’t submitted to the state until June 14, making it virtually impossible to gather the required number of signatures by the June 19 deadline. Roberson said late last month that that supporters of the measure have their eyes on 2020 because of the delays from the court challenge.

Commerce Tax Repeal

Formal name: Referendum on Provisions Related to the Commerce Tax from Senate Bill 483 of the 2015 Legislative Session

Type of measure: Referendum

Group sponsoring: Repeal the Commerce Tax Inc. (formerly R.I.P. Commerce Tax), a PAC run by Republican Controller Ron Knecht. Republican Las Vegas City Councilman Bob Beers, who’s running for state treasurer, is also an officer for the group.

Summary of what it does: The measure would repeal parts of a bill passed in 2015 that created the Commerce Tax, a levy on businesses that make at least $4 million in Nevada revenue each year. Repealing it would unbalance the budget, making it necessary for the Legislature to cut spending, raise other taxes or draw down its reserves to restore equilibrium.

Primary funders: Repeal the Commerce Tax Inc. has reported no contributions or expenditures since 2016. It received $25,000 from the conservative business group Keystone and spent money on the law firm of its lawyer, Craig Mueller, who defended the measure in court. 

Financial impact: The Commerce Tax brings the state about $195 million a year, but businesses are allowed to write off part of their Modified Business Tax (payroll tax) burden if they pay the Commerce Tax. State analysts estimate that the state would lose $161.1 million in the upcoming fiscal year, and $97 million each year after that by repealing the tax.

Status: Knecht said he abandoned any serious effort to qualify the measure for the ballot after an unnamed potential donor failed to follow through with funding that would have helped support the effort. He called the measure “a dead letter” on Tuesday and said no petitions would be submitted by the June 19 deadline, but vowed to continue working to repeal the tax through the Legislature or possibly through the ballot in the future.

MEASURES THAT HAVE YET TO QUALIFY

Renewable energy ballot measure

Formal name: The Renewable Energy Promotion Initiative

Type of measure: Voter-initiated constitutional amendment, meaning that it needs to be approved by voters in both 2018 and 2020 before it takes effect.

Group sponsoring: Nevadans for a Clean Energy Future PAC

Summary of what it does: If approved, the measure would increase Nevada’s renewable energy portfolio from 25 percent renewables by 2025 to 50 percent by 2030. Lawmakers approved a similar policy during the 2017 legislative session but it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval.

Primary funders: Nevadans for a Clean Energy Future has received all of its funding — $2.1 million — from NextGen, the environmental advocacy nonprofit and political action committee created by Democratic megadonor and former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer.

Financial impact: The Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division cannot determine how the constitutional provisions of the bill will be implemented by the Legislature and how state agencies will be responsible for administering any related laws, and therefore cannot determine the financial impact. The financial impact statement notes that passage of the initiative may have an effect on the cost of electricity sold in Nevada.

Status: Supporters turned in more than 230,000 signatures to elections officials this week, which is more than double the required amount. That gives them an ample cushion for when clerks inevitably disqualify some of the signatures and makes it likely the measure will qualify for the ballot.

MEASURES GUARANTEED TO APPEAR ON BALLOT

Question 1: Marsy’s Law

Formal name: Marsy’s Law

Type of measure: Legislatively referred constitutional amendment

Sponsors: Republican Sen. Michael Roberson, Republican former Sen. Becky Harris, and Independent Sen. Patricia Farley; the measure is also supported by billionaire and victims’ rights advocate Henry Nicholas.

Summary of what it does: It would amend Nevada’s Constitution to expand the legal rights of victims of crime, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings and restitution. Similar measures have passed in California, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota and Ohio. The measure is named after Nicholas’ sister Marsalee, who was shot to death by her boyfriend in 1983.

How did qualify for the ballot: The measure was twice passed by the Legislature and now heads to a vote of the people for final approval. In 2015, the Assembly unanimously approved the measure and the Senate approved it 15-6, with Democrats Kelvin Atkinson, Aaron Ford, David Parks, Tick Segerblom, Pat Spearman and Joyce Woodhouse in opposition. It unanimously passed both houses in 2017, with those senators previously opposed voting in support.

Primary funders: Nicholas has donated $645,000 to Marsy’s Law for Nevada and is the PAC’s sole funder. An advertising company, Silver Lining Advertising, contributed $1,500 in in-kind contributions.

Financial impact: The Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division has yet to publish a final financial impact statement for the measure but is required to submit one to the secretary of state’s office by July 1.

Status: Will become part of the Constitution if it passes a statewide vote this year.

Question 2: Pink tax

Formal name: Sales Tax Exemption for Feminine Hygiene Products Measure

Type of measure: Legislatively referred state statute

Sponsors: Democratic Sens. Yvanna Cancela and Joyce Woodhouse and Assemblywomen Sandra Jauregui, Daniele Monroe-Moreno and Ellen Spiegel

Summary of what it does: The measure would create a state and local sales tax exemption for feminine hygiene products, specifically sanitary napkins and tampons.

How did qualify for the ballot: The measure was proposed as SB415 during the legislative session, passed by both houses (21-0 in the Senate and 39-2 in the Assembly, with Republicans Jim Marchant and Richard McArthur opposed and Republican Ira Hansen excused) and approved by the governor. However, the measure cannot become law without a vote of the people because of the voter-approved Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955. Because that law was approved by a vote of the people, any changes to it cannot be made without another vote of the people.

Primary funders: None

Financial impact: The Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division has yet to publish a final financial impact statement for the measure but is required to submit one to the secretary of state’s office by July 1. But local governments, in fiscal notes attached the bill, said that the measure would reduce the amount of sales tax they collect but that an exact number would be impossible to determine. Other agencies said that they could not determine the impact on revenue.

Status: Will become law if it passes a statewide vote this year.

Question 3: Energy choice

Formal name: Nevada Legislature to Minimize Regulations on the Energy Market and Eliminate Legal Energy Monopolies, or The Energy Choice Initiative

Type of measure: Constitutional amendment

Group sponsoring: Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices PAC

How did qualify for the ballot: Supporters of the initiative turned in more than 100,000 signatures to qualify the proposed constitutional amendment for the ballot in 2016.

Summary of what it does: If approved, the initiative would require Nevada lawmakers to dismantle its existing electric monopoly structure — where NV Energy controls the generation, transmission and retail sale of electricity to the vast majority of the state — to a competitive retail market, where multiple businesses would be able to offer electric service, by 2023.

Primary funders: It’s been almost entirely bankrolled by two corporations — the Las Vegas Sands and Switch, which have poured a combined $23.4 million into PACs supporting the ballot question since 2015.

Financial impact: It’s still unclear just how much the ballot initiative will cost, given uncertainties about electric markets five years into the future and other unknown transition costs. The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada estimated that transition costs would total around $101 million, with another $4 billion of NV Energy’s “stranded assets” that it would likely need to sell off if the ballot measure passes. Backers of the initiative have disputed those findings and submitted an alternative study indicating the utility would see a large surplus by selling off its power plants and power purchase agreements.

Status: The proposal passed by a whopping 72 to 28 percent in the 2016 general election. As with other proposed constitutional amendments, it needs to pass again in 2018 to become part of the state’s Constitution.

Question 4: Medical device tax

Formal name: Medical Patient Tax Relief Act

Type of measure: Initiative petition to amend the Nevada State Constitution

Group sponsoring: The Alliance to Stop Taxes on the Sick and Dying

Summary of what it does: The measure would exempt so-called durable medical equipment — things such as oxygen tanks, ventilators and wheelchairs — from taxation. Prosthetics, orthotics and some other medical supplies are already exempt from taxation under Nevada law.

How did qualify for the ballot: A group of medical equipment suppliers submitted more than 100,000 signatures in 2016 to qualify it for the ballot.

Primary funders: The PAC supporting the initiative received roughly $391,000 from medical equipment seller Bennett Medical Services and its owner Doug Bennett, who spearheaded the effort to get the measure on the ballot. It also received $10,000 from home respiratory services provider Apria.

Financial impact: The current sales and use tax rate is 6.85 percent. If passed, the types of medical equipment outlined in the initiative petition would be exempt from taxation, reducing the amount of revenue collected by the state and local governments, including school districts. The Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division was unable to determine the amount of sales that would be subject to exemption.

Status: The measure passed by 72 to 28 percent in the 2016 election and needs to be approved by voters once more to amend the constitution.

Question 5: Automatic voter registration

Formal name: The Automatic Voter Registration Initiative

Type of measure: Statutory initiative petition

Group sponsoring: Nevadans for Modern and Secure Elections PAC, affiliated with the Washington, D.C.-based voter advocacy organization iVote. The latter organization was started by Jeremy Bird, who led President Barack Obama’s voter turnout campaign. It is financially supported by the Nevada Election Administration Committee.

How did qualify for the ballot: Supporters collected more than 125,000 signatures to qualify it for the ballot in 2016. Statutory initiative petitions first come before the Legislature for approval, which it did in 2017. Lawmakers approved the measure on party lines in both the Senate and Assembly, but it was vetoed by the governor. Now, it heads to the 2018 ballot box for voters to decide whether to make the measure law.

Summary of what it does: The measure would change the Department of Motor Vehicles voter registration process from an opt-in system to an opt-out system. People would be automatically registered to vote when they apply for driver’s licenses or identification cards unless they choose not to do so.

Primary funders: The Nevada Election Administration Committee has received $742,800 from iVote to support this measure here in Nevada. Nationally, iVotes’ top contributors include Democratic super PAC American Bridge 21st Century, family farm advocacy group Farm Aid and the private investment firm Centerbridge Partners, according to Open Secrets.

Financial impact: The DMV has estimated that implementing the measure could cost anywhere from no money to $4.8 million. Best-case scenario: The DMV works with county clerks and registrars to develop a system to electronically transfer voter registration information collected by the DMV. Worst case scenario: The secretary of state’s office would work with the DMV, county clerks and county registrars to develop a statewide voter registration database compliant with the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002. The DMV also estimates that it will need $53,000 for a one-year supply of updated voter registration forms, with half that cost borne by the State Highway Fund and the other half borne by the state general fund. Counties have also estimated that implementing the measure will cost between $3,000 per county for smaller counties to about $40,000 in Clark County.

Status: Will become law if it passes a statewide vote this year.

MEASURES TRYING TO QUALIFY FOR THE 2020 BALLOT

Ranked choice voting initiative

Formal name: The Greater Choice - Greater Voice Initiative

Type of measure: Statutory initiative petition.

Group sponsoring: Nevadans for Election Reform

Summary of what it does: The proposal would implement ranked choice voting in Nevada for all but the presidential elections. Ranked choice voting allows voters to choose choose the candidate they most want, then the their second-choice and so on until all candidates are ranked. The candidates that received the least votes are eliminated from the race until the one that gets a majority of votes is declared the winner.

Primary funders: Nevadans for Election Reform has received $3,500 from FairVote Action Fund Inc. — an advocacy group that supports ranked choice voting — and $2,183.63 from other unlisted, small-dollar donors.

Financial impact: The exact cost savings to the state of not holding primary elections cannot be determined with any reasonable certainty because the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division cannot estimate the number of candidates that will run for each elective office and how many people will cast ballots in those elections. However, the division said that eliminating the 2016 primary election would have eliminated $6 million in costs to the counties. But implementing this proposal would also result in one-time and ongoing expenditures for state and local governments — things like the costs of increase ballot printing and newspaper publication costs to the computer programming changes needed for voting machines — though the division could not estimate those potential costs.

Status: Nov. 13 is the deadline for the initiative to collect signatures in order to be able to go before the 2019 legislature and to get on the 2020 ballot. Under state law, once the signatures are certified, the initiative goes to the Legislature next year, which could pass the proposal as a bill that’s sent to the governor to sign into law. If the Legislature does not act, the initiative goes on the 2020 ballot for voters to decide the matter.