## Facts

- Nevada allows statewide initiatives if proponents gather signatures from registered voters equal to 10% of votes cast in the prior general election.
- Nevada previously required signatures equal to 10% of voters in 13 of 17 counties; that county-based distribution rule was invalidated as violating Equal Protection by over-weighting sparsely populated counties.
- Nevada replaced the county rule with an “All Districts Rule,” requiring proponents to obtain signatures equal to 10% of votes cast in the prior general election in each congressional district.
- Nevada had three congressional districts when the rule was enacted and later had four after reapportionment; congressional districts are required to be substantially equal in population.
- Initiative proponents and supporters challenged the All Districts Rule, alleging it diluted voting power, conflicted with one-person-one-vote principles, and increased the cost and difficulty of qualifying initiatives.
- The Nevada Secretary of State defended the rule as ensuring geographically broad support and preventing one region from controlling statewide ballot access.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of State; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring initiative proponents to meet a 10% signature threshold in each congressional district violates the Equal Protection Clause’s one-person-one-vote principle.
2. Whether the All Districts Rule impermissibly burdens core political speech and association in violation of the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Secretary of State.
- The court held the All Districts Rule does not violate Equal Protection because it applies equally across substantially equal-population congressional districts and does not give any group disproportionate power.
- The court held the All Districts Rule does not violate the First Amendment because the burden was not severe and was justified by important state interests under election-law balancing.

## Legal Principles

- A geographic-distribution requirement for initiative signatures is not unconstitutional vote dilution where the relevant districts are substantially equal in population and the rule applies uniformly.
- County-based distribution requirements may violate Equal Protection if they over-weight voters in sparsely populated areas compared to voters in populous areas.
- Regulations of the initiative process that affect petition circulation can implicate the First Amendment; courts weigh the character and magnitude of the burden against the state’s asserted interests (Anderson–Burdick framework).
- Content-neutral rules structuring ballot access may be upheld when burdens are not severe and the state shows important interests such as demonstrating statewide support and preserving the integrity of the initiative process.

## Conclusion

Nevada’s requirement that initiative proponents collect a specified percentage of signatures in each congressional district was upheld because it did not create population-based inequality and imposed a permissible, content-neutral ballot-access burden justified by the state’s interest in demonstrating geographically broad support.


Angle v. Miller, 673 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2012)