Before the Court en banc (Justice Pickering recused). Opinion by Justice Parraguirre.
This case addresses the constitutionality of Nevada Senate Bill No. 358, 72d Leg. (Nev. 2003). The bill relates to rezoning land in certain areas adjacent to Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area (“Red Rock”), including 2,500 acres owned by Respondent. The case was proceeding in federal court and, upon finding no clearly controlling precedent on the state constitutional issues, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified four questions to the Nevada Supreme Court. The questions are: (1) does S.B. 358 violate Art. 4, Sec. 20 of the Nevada Constitution because it is a “local or special law” that “regulat[es] county … business”?; (2) does S.B. 358 violate Art. 4, Sec. 21 of the Nevada Constitution because a general law could have been made “applicable”?; (3) does S.B. 358 violate Art. 4, Sec. 25 of the Nevada Constitution by establishing a “system of County . . . Government” that is not “uniform through the State”?; and (4) if S.B. 358 would otherwise violate Art. 4, Secs. 20, 21, or 25 of the Nevada Constitution, does it fall within an applicable exception and so remain valid? With respect to the first question, the Court establishes two criteria for determining whether a law regulates or affects county business: (1) whether the challenged law governs a single item or project rather than multiple items or projects; and (2) whether the law’s effect is temporary rather than permanent. The Court concludes that S.B. 358 is a local law operating over a particular locality that regulates Clark County’s business by permanently divesting the County of its zoning power over the adjacent lands to Red Rock, and therefore violates the Nevada Constitution. Regarding the second question, the Court states that a law that is either local or special may be upheld where: (1) it does not come within any of the cases enumerated in Art. 4, Sec. 20 of the Nevada Constitution; and (2) a general law could not have been made applicable. The Court concludes that S.B. 358 is a local law and falls within one of Section 20’s enumerated cases and therefore is unconstitutional. With respect to the third question, the Court found that Section 25 of the Nevada Constitution is violated because S.B. 358 divests Clark County of its exclusive control over zoning of lands adjacent to Red Rock. Addressing the last question, the Court concludes that S.B. 358 does not fall within any recognized exception to the Nevada Constitution and thereby remains invalid. Thus, the first three certified questions were answered in the affirmative and the last certified question answered in the negative. (Lisa Wiltshire, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
