A First Judicial District Court Judge ruled Friday morning that the “Prevent Sanctuary Cities” petition language was “excessively broad and general” and would confuse voters.
The ACLU of Nevada challenged the initiative petition in the fall, arguing the language was misleading to voters because it did not describe any actual effects this anti-immigrant policy would have had on Nevada communities.
Even the term “sanctuary cities” is deceptive, pejorative, and lacks a legal definition.
ACLU of Nevada Legal Director Amy Rose said:
“We are happy the judge recognized the misleading nature of this initiative petition, which if allowed to move forward would have confused voters.”
ACLU of Nevada Executive Director Tod Story Said:
“If this discriminatory, unnecessary, and misleading initiative had gone forward it would have mislead voters and ultimately split families apart and imperiled public safety. We appreciate the judge’s thoughtful decision in invalidating this pointless petition.”