Revises provisions relating to the legislative process. (BDR C-22)
Summary
AJR4 is a proposed Nevada constitutional amendment that would change how appropriations are handled in the legislative process. It would prohibit the Legislature from appropriating state money to political organizations, including political parties and political action committees, and would also bar appropriations to nonprofit organizations from being included in any bill that is required to fund part of the state budget for the next biennium.
The resolution also would give the Governor a line-item veto over appropriations in any bill containing one or more appropriations. Under the proposal, the Governor could strike specific appropriations without vetoing the entire bill, must explain the strikes within 48 hours, and the Legislature could override the vetoed items by the same two-thirds vote used for ordinary veto overrides. The resolution would take effect upon passage as a proposed constitutional amendment, not as an ordinary statute.
Impact
If approved by voters, AJR4 would amend the Nevada Constitution and directly alter Article 4, Sections 19 and 35. It would restrict the use of state funds for political organizations and limit certain nonprofit appropriations in budget bills, while also expanding executive authority by creating a constitutional line-item veto for appropriation bills. These changes would affect the Legislature’s budgeting authority, the Governor’s veto powers, and the eligibility of political organizations and some nonprofits to receive appropriated funds.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the resolution appears framed as a government-process and budget-integrity measure, suggesting a reform-oriented intent rather than a partisan policy program. Because no discussion or vote history is provided, sentiment cannot be measured beyond the proposal’s stated purpose.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern separation of powers and the scope of budget control. Supporters would likely favor the prohibition on appropriations to political organizations and the restriction on nonprofit appropriations in biennial budget bills as safeguards against misuse of public funds. Opponents may object that the proposal limits legislative discretion over appropriations, could disadvantage nonprofits that rely on state funding, and shifts significant budgetary leverage to the Governor through a line-item veto. The line-item veto provision is likely the most consequential and potentially controversial feature because it changes the balance between the legislative and executive branches.