Attorneys also wrote that the petition’s description of effect (a 200-word summary of the measure included on signature-gathering forms) is “legally deficient” because it does not state that the petition will result in the expenditure of state funds by the commission. 

The ruling was issued Thursday evening and rejected all three claims raised against the initiative, and the judge concluded that changes to primary and general elections did not violate the single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.

The suit claims the proposed initiative violates three state constitutional requirements: the single-subject rule, addition of a cost without a funding source, and a deficient “description of effect.”

The letter outlines a number of concerns about the announced election process, including concerns that limiting in-person voting to one site per county would pose “certain risks and hardships” to voters not typically accustomed to voting by mail. It could lead to unwanted outcomes such as requiring voters in urban areas to risk going to “dangerously overcrowded polling places” or for rural voters to travel “unreasonable distances” to cast a ballot.

The order issued Thursday by the Nevada Supreme Court reverses a Clark County District Court’s decision and ends the possibility that Tarkanian, the son of legendary UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian, could again win damages from a political opponent over ads accusing him of setting up “13 fake charities that preyed on vulnerable seniors.”

In oral arguments before the justices on Monday, attorneys Marc Elias and Michael K. Wall made their final pitches to the nine members of the state highest court, as part of an appeal made by backers of the recalls challenging a Clark County District Court’s decision finding signatures for the recalls were insufficient for a special election.