## Facts

- PEST Committee organized to sponsor a Nevada statewide ballot initiative titled “Prevent Employers from Seizing Tips.”
- Nevada law required initiative petitions to (1) embrace a single subject and related matters and (2) include a description of the initiative’s effect in 200 words or less.
- Nevada law also authorized pre-election judicial challenges to proposed initiatives for noncompliance with these requirements.
- Initiative opponents challenged the PEST initiative in litigation, including a federal equal-protection theory, and the matter proceeded in federal court.
- PEST Committee brought a federal constitutional challenge to the statutory scheme itself, alleging the requirements and pre-election review process chilled and restrained core political speech and petition activity.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Nevada Secretary of State and upheld the statutes; PEST appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Nevada’s single-subject rule, 200-word description-of-effect requirement, and pre-election challenge procedure impose a severe burden on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights that triggers strict scrutiny, or instead are reasonable, nondiscriminatory election regulations reviewed under a balancing approach.
2. Whether the challenged requirements are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
3. Whether pre-election judicial review of initiative compliance constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint or otherwise impermissibly chills protected political activity.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Secretary of State.
- The court treated the provisions as content-neutral, procedural regulations governing the mechanics of qualifying initiatives for the ballot.
- Applying the Anderson–Burdick framework, the court concluded the scheme imposed no severe burden on protected rights and was justified by the State’s regulatory interests.
- The court rejected vagueness and overbreadth challenges, concluding the statutes provided adequate standards and did not invite arbitrary enforcement.
- The court rejected the claim that pre-election review operated as an unconstitutional prior restraint, characterizing it as permissible ballot-qualification review rather than censorship of advocacy.

## Legal Principles

- State regulations governing ballot-initiative procedures are evaluated under the Anderson–Burdick balancing framework, with strict scrutiny reserved for severe burdens on First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- Content-neutral rules aimed at clarity and orderly administration—such as single-subject limits and concise effect summaries—generally impose limited burdens and are permissible if supported by important state interests (e.g., avoiding voter confusion and logrolling).
- A statute is not void for vagueness when it provides sufficient notice of what is required and contains standards that limit arbitrary enforcement.
- Pre-election judicial review of initiative-petition compliance, when directed at neutral procedural requirements and not suppressing advocacy, does not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Nevada’s initiative-petition single-subject and 200-word effect-description requirements and its pre-election challenge procedure, holding they are content-neutral election regulations that impose only limited burdens, are not unconstitutionally vague, and do not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.


Pest Comm. v. Miller, 626 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2010)