In 1956 Nevada voters affirmed a referendum upholding the 1955 Sales and Use Tax Act establishing a two percent sales tax. Because the statute’s affirmation removed the law from the legislature’s purview, the only way it can be altered is by a vote of the people. Subsequently, the legislature has referred nearly three dozen questions to the ballot proposing to amend provisions of the 1955 legislation. While voters have rejected most of these proposals, voters have supported exemptions that provide diffuse benefits and that target sympathetic social groups, as well as a requirement that exemptions have a demonstrable social or economic benefit. In addition to bolstering the findings of prior research that direct democracy is used to advance conservative fiscal policies, this research details how Nevada’s direct democracy institutions have limited the legislature’s taxation authority by requiring that voters decide who is and is not deserving of a tax break.
BowersMichael W.DamoreDavid F.2025. The Sagebrush State. 7th ed. University of Nevada Press.
2.
BowlerShaunDobbsReaganNicholsonStphen. 2020. “Direct Democracy and Political Decision Making.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.
3.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1994. “Economic Conditions and Voting on Ballot Propositions.” American Politics Quarterly22, no. 1: 27–40.
4.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1998. Demanding Choices: Opinion, Voting and Direct Democracy. University of Michigan Press.
5.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 2004. “Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy: Not All Initiatives Are Created Equally.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly4, no. 3: 345–63.
6.
BowlerShaunDonovanToddHappTrudi. 1992. “Ballot Propositions and Information Costs: Direct Democracy and the Fatigued Voter.” Western Political Quarterly5, no. 2: 559–68.
7.
BowlerShaunNicholsonStephen P.2019. “Information Cues and Rational Ignorance.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice Volume 1, edited by CongletonR. D.GrofmanB.VoigtS., 381–94. Oxford University Press.
8.
BowlerShaunNicholsonStephen P.SeguraGary M.2006. “Earthquakes and Aftershocks: Race, Direct Democracy, and Partisan Change.” American Journal of Political Science50, no. 1: 146–59.
9.
BurnettCraig M.GarrettElizabethMcCubbinsMathew D.2010. “The Dilemma of Direct Democracy.” Election Law Journal9, no. 4: 305–324.
10.
CampbellAngusConversePhilip. E.MillerWarren E.StokesDonald. 1960. The American Voter. John Wiley and Sons.
11.
CegavskeBarbara K., and the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. 2018. Political History of Nevada. 12th ed. State of Nevada.
12.
ChildersMattBinderMike. 2012. “Engaged by the Initiative? How the Use of Citizen Initiatives Increases Voter Turnout.” Political Research Quarterly65, no. 1: 93–103.
13.
ConoverPamela Johnston. 1988. “The Role of Social Groups in Political Thinking.” British Journal of Political Science18, no. 1: 51–75.
14.
DamoreDavid F.BowlerShaunNicholsonStephen P.2012. “Agenda Setting by Direct Democracy: Comparing the Initiative and Referendum.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly12, no. 4: 367–93.
15.
DamoreDavid F.NicholsonStephen P.2013. “Mobilizing Interests: Group Participation in Direct Democracy Elections.” Political Behavior36, no. 3: 535–52.
16.
DriggsDon W.GoodallLeonard E.1996. Nevada Politics and Government: Conservatism in an Open Society. University of Nebraska Press.
17.
FerraioloKathleen. 2007. “Preserving the Initiative: State Legislative Response to Direct Democracy.” Polity39, no. 4: 425–48.
18.
FerraioloKathleen. 2010. “State Legislative Responses to Direct Democracy and the Politics of Partial Compliance.” American Review of Politics31, 41–64.
19.
FerraioloKathleen. 2023. “The Intersection of Direct Democracy and Representative Government: State Legislators’ Response to Ballot Measures.” Polity55, no. 2: 248–74.
20.
FiskeSusan T.CuddyAmy J. C.GlickPeterXuJun. 2002. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82, no. 6: 878–902.
21.
GerberElisabeth R.1996a. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science40, no. 1: 99–128.
22.
GerberElisabeth R.1996b. “Legislatures, Initiatives, and Representation: The Effects of State Legislative Institutions on Policy.” Political Research Quarterly49, no. 2: 263–86.
23.
GerberElisabeth R.1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton University.
24.
GerberElisabeth R.LupiaArthurMcCubbinsMatthew D.KiewietD. Roderick. 2000. Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy. Prentice-Hall.
25.
JohnsonBrad A. M.DamoreDavid F.2025. “The 2023 Nevada Budget: Record Surpluses, Cautious Optimism, and Bipartisan Support for K-12 Education and State Employees.” California Journal of Politics and Policy17, no. 1: 1–16.
26.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88, no. 1: 63–76.
27.
MatsusakaJohn G.2016. “Ballot Order Effects in Direct Democracy Elections.” Public Choice167, no. 3/4: 257–76.
28.
MatsusakaJohn G.2018. “Public Policy and the Initiative and Referendum: A Survey with Some New Evidence.” Public Choice174, no. 1/2: 107–143.
29.
NelsonThomas E.KinderDonald R.1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics58, no. 4: 1055–1078.
30.
Nevada Department of Taxation. 2024. 2021-2022 Tax Expenditure Report. State of Nevada.
31.
Nevada Taxpayers Association. 1956. “Nevada’s Sales and Use Tax: Who Pays It? How Much Will It Produce?” Report No. 2, February.
32.
NicholsStephen M.1998. “State Referendum Voting, Ballot Roll-Off, and the Effect of New Electoral Technology.” State and Local Government Review2: 106–117.
33.
NicholsonStephen P.2003. “The Political Environment and Ballot Initiative Proposition Awareness.” American Journal of Political Science47, no. 3: 403–410.
34.
NicholsonStephen P.2005. Voting the Agenda. Princeton University Press.
35.
NicholsonStephen P.2011. “Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence.” Journal of Politics73, no. 4: 1165–77.
36.
OstranderGilman M.1966. Nevada: The Great Rotten Borough, 1859–1964. Alfred A. Knopf.
37.
SearsDavid O.CitrinJack. 1982. Tax Revolt. Harvard University Press.
38.
SmithDaniel A.1998. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. Routledge.
39.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline J.2004. Educated by Initiative: The Effects of Direct Democracy on Citizens and Political Organizations in the American States. University of Michigan Press.
40.
SmithDaniel A.TolbertCaroline J.2007. “The Instrumental and Educative Effect of Ballot Measures: Research on Direct Democracy in the American States.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly7, no. 4: 415–45.
41.
SnidermanPaul M.BrodyRichard A.TetlockPhilip E.1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
42.
YushkovAudreyWalczakJaredLougheadKatherine. 2025. “2025 State Tax Competitiveness Index.” The Tax Foundation.
