The initiative would change only four words in the state Constitution that have been criticized by advocates for people with disabilities.
It is estimated that 30 percent of Nevadans live with a visual, hearing, or cognitive disability.
Advocates say Question 2 on the 2024 ballot would update that outdated language to be more inclusive towards people with disabilities and their range of needs.
This language has been in the state government’s charter since Nevada acquired statehood in 1864.
What it does: Question 2 would remove the terms “insane,” “blind,” “deaf,” and “dumb” from the Nevada Constitution, expanding that language to encompass a wider range of people with disabilities.
“Insane” would be replaced by “individuals with significant mental illnesses”; “blind” by “individuals who are blind or have visual impairments”; and “deaf and dumb” by “individuals who are deaf or have hearing impairments.”
The initiative would also replace the term “institutions” with “entities,” moving away from the term “institutionalized.”
How we got here: For the Legislature to establish a constitutional amendment on the ballot, the state Assembly and Senate must approve the change in two consecutive legislative sessions.
The amendment was introduced in the 2021 legislative session and was unanimously approved in both chambers during the 2021 and 2023 sessions, ensuring its place on the 2024 ballot.
Arguments in favor: Question 2 received widespread support from lawmakers and advocacy groups for the rights of people with disabilities, who said the initiative would help promote the rights of these individuals.
Republican State Senator Robin Titus, who sponsored the bill in 2021, said that nearly 160 years ago, when the state Constitution was drafted, different terminologies were used, but that this was the appropriate time to “take a more critical look at those words.”
“We must strive harder to ensure that we do not discriminate or stigmatize people with disabilities or mental illnesses in our laws,” Titus said. “A first step is to make sure that none of this discriminatory or derogatory language is in our Constitution.”
Arguments against: No arguments were presented against in either of the two legislatures. The initiative was unanimously approved twice in the Assembly and Senate.
In a summary of Question 2 provided by the secretary of state’s office, a section titled “Arguments against approval” states that amending the state Constitution “should be a rare occurrence” and that the language used was acceptable at that time.
“The Nevada Constitution is a historic document and we should not expect it to keep pace with the ever-changing nature of language,” the document states.
Our intern program participant, Kelsea Forbes, contributed information for this article.
Click here to read the first part of the series: Question 1 on the 2024 Nevada ballot – How would it affect the Board of Regents?
