Churchill County

Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

Sample ballots

Sample ballots available for places in Churchill County. Check the municipality, precinct or ballot style shown on each document to find the ballot that applies to you.

• County sample ballot booklet
  0 contests matched to our directory
  Read contests and choices

  Reviewed transcription. Check the precinct or ballot style below; choices can differ by address. See the linked original for the complete ballot and voting instructions.

  Readable text from the official sample ballot booklet. The original PDF controls; confirm your ballot and eligibility with the election office. Ballot Style 00 CHURCHILL COUNTY NEVADA VOTER INFORMATION and SAMPLE BALLOT General Election Tuesday, November 3, 2026 NOTICE: TO RECEIVE A SAMPLE BALLOT IN LARGE TYPE, CALL: (775) 423-6028GENERAL ELECTION INFORMATION MAIL-IN BALLOTS: All active voters in Churchill County will receive a mail ballot, un- less they have previously opted out. You may mark and return your mail ballot via mail, drop box, or hand delivery to the Clerk’s Office. Check the status of your mail in ballot at myballot.nv.gov. IN-PERSON VOTING: In-person voting will also be available during Early Voting or on Election Day. We suggest those who wish to vote in person but received a mail ballot to bring their mail ballot with them to speed up the check-in process. If you do not have your mail ballot to surrender, you will be asked to sign an affirmation stating that you have not and will not vote your mail ballot. If you wish to opt out of receiving a mail ballot for future elections, please contact the Clerk’s Office or visit www.nvsos.gov/votersearch. If you do not receive a mail-in ballot or need a replacement ballot, please contact the Clerk’s Office. After October 20, 2026, all replacement ballots must be picked up in person at the Clerk’s Office or you will need to vote in person. Voter Registration Deadlines Visit vote.nv.gov or contact the Clerk’s Office to register to vote or make updates to your existing voter record. The deadline to register in person or by mail is October 6, 2026. After this deadline, you may update your registration online or when you vote in person. If you need to contact the Clerk’s Office: Phone: (775) 423-6028 Website: www.churchillcountynv.gov E-mail: elections@churchillcountynv.gov ASSISTANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR VOTERS IF NEEDED. Ask an election worker for assistance: ■ If you need help reading the ballot or operating the voting machine. ■ If you think you have received an incorrect ballot style. Do not cast the ballot. Reasonable accommodations will be made to help any voter requesting assistance at a polling place. (NRS 293.565(11)) Nevada residents with a disability can mark their ballot electronically by going to www.nvEASE.gov. WARNING: A person who is entitled to vote shall not vote or attempt to vote more than once in the same election. Any person who votes or attempts to vote twice at the same election is guilty of a Category D Felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. (NRS 293.780)Mail-In Ballot Option Voters must mark their ballot and return it by mail in the postage pre-paid envelope or deliver it, in person, to the Clerk’s Office or a drop box. You, or any person you authorize, may deliver your ballot in person to the Clerk’s office or any drop box by 7:00 p.m. on Election Day. If returning your ballot by mail, ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received in the Clerk’s Office on or before the 4th day after Election Day. MAIL BALLOT DROP OFF • Churchill County Clerk’s Office 155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 110, Fallon, NV 89406 • City of Fallon Clerk’s Office 55 W. Williams Avenue, Fallon, NV 89406 • Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe Administration Office 565 Rio Vista West, Fallon, NV 89406 FAILURE TO SIGN THE RETURN ENVELOPE WILL RESULT IN YOUR COUNTY ELECTION OFFICIAL CONTACTING YOU FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. In-Person Options EARLY VOTING • Churchill County Commissioner Chambers – 155 N. Taylor Street, Fallon, NV Saturday, October 17 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday, October 19 – Friday, October 23 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, October 24 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday, October 26 – Friday, October 30 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. • Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Community Learning Center 8955 Mission Road, Fallon, NV Saturday, October 17 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Friday, October 23 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. ELECTION DAY • Fallon Convention Center – 100 Campus Way, Fallon, NV Tuesday, November 3, 2026 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Community Learning Center 8955 Mission Road, Fallon, NV Tuesday, November 3, 2026 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.Frequently Asked Questions – Voting By Mail What can I do to ensure my mail-in ballot arrives on time? To reduce the risk of a late postmark date: • Bring your ballot to an official ballot drop box (polling place, county election office, or official drop box) by Election Day. • Mail your ballot early – at least a week before Election Day. • Drop it off at a USPS retail counter and ask for a manual postmark. How do you prevent election fraud when people are voting by mail? The voter who was mailed the ballot must sign the return envelope. The signature will be compared to the signature we have on record to verify it matches. If there is an issue with a signature, the voter will be contacted and they will have the opportunity to cure the discrepancy. What if a deceased family member receives a ballot in the mail? Our office works with the State of Nevada’s Office of Vital Statistics to update our voter registration records daily, but there are still opportunities for us to have an active voter registration record for a deceased person. Therefore, they would be mailed a ballot. If your household receives a ballot for a deceased family member, please contact our office to find out how to cancel the deceased voter’s registration record. I received a ballot for someone who no longer lives here. What should I do with it? Although our office diligently works to ensure our voter registration database is current, we are not always notified when a voter moves. If you receive a ballot for someone who no longer lives at your address, please write “no longer at this address” and return it to the post office. I received a ballot but have a condition that limits my ability to sign the envelope. How do I make sure my ballot will count? Nevada residents with a disability can mark their ballot electronically by going to www.nvEASE.gov. Alternately, you may receive assistance marking and signing your ballot from any person you authorize. In order for yourballottobecounted,thepersonthatassistsyouinmarkingorsigningyour ballot must provide their name, signature, and address on the return envelope. Please contact our office to find out more about receiving assistance. If I need a replacement ballot, what do I do with the original ballot? Before processing a replacement ballot, our office voids the original ballot. This is a required security measure within our voter registration system. Only one ballot can be accepted for each voter. If a voter returns a second voted ballot, our system will notify us that a ballot has already been received for this voter and our office will notify the District Attorney’s office of the attempt to vote twice.***VOTING INSTRUCTIONS *** Insert your activation card, arrow side up, in the card reader at the base of the tablet to activate your ballot. No voterinformation or ballot choices are stored on the activation card or the unit itself. Change the font size and screen contrast as needed. Tap your choice to vote. Tap the advance to the next contest/question button to If there are more candidates than will fit on the screen, scroll through the candidate names by touching the "scrollup" or "scroll down" buttons FontSize Contrast A SCROLL UP A V SCROLL DOWN V Once you are satisfied with your selections, tap "Print Ballot". -- Print Ballot -] ' I Warning: Allow the ballot to fully print on both sides before taking it out of the printer. Place your printed ballot in the privacy sleeve, bring it to the ballot box and insert into the slot. Give the card andsleeve back to an Election Officer. •STATEWIDE PARTISAN OFFICES SECRETARY OF STATE Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE AGUILAR, FRANCISCO “CISCO” Democratic O BARNHILL, BRAD LEE  Independent American Party O KENNEDY, JOHN T.  Libertarian O MARCHANT, JIM  Republican O NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES  O STATE TREASURER Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE JOHNSON, DREW  Republican O MATHIS-COLEMAN, TYA  Democratic O NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES  O STATE CONTROLLER Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE MACDOUGALL, MICHAEL  Democratic O MATTHEWS, ANDY  Republican O NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES  O FEDERAL PARTISAN OFFICES UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, DISTRICT 2 Two (2) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE BENITEZ-THOMPSON, TERESA F. Democratic O CHAPMAN, LYNN  Independent American Party O FLIPPO, DAVID  Republican O STATEWIDE PARTISAN OFFICES GOVERNOR Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE FORD, AARON D.  Democratic O FORD, DANIELLE  No Political Party O LOMBARDO, JOSEPH  Republican O NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES  O LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE ANTHONY, STAVROS  Republican O HANSEN, JANINE  Independent American Party O JAUREGUI, SANDRA  Democratic O NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES  OCOUNTY PARTISAN OFFICES COUNTY CLERK/TREASURER Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE ROTHERY, LINDA  Republican O COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE MALLORY, ART  Republican O PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE GETTO, ROBERT “BOB”  Republican O COUNTY RECORDER Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE HESSEY, TASHA  Republican O STATEWIDE NONPARTISAN OFFICES JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, SEAT B Six (6) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE PICKERING, KRISTINA  Nonpartisan O NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES  O JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT, SEAT D Six (6) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE HERNDON, DOUGLAS  Nonpartisan O NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES  O STATEWIDE PARTISAN OFFICES ATTORNEY GENERAL Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE CANNIZZARO, NICOLE JEANETTE Democratic O GUZMÁN FRALICK, ADRIANA  Republican O NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES  O STATE DISTRICT PARTISAN OFFICES STATE SENATE, DISTRICT 17 Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE BALLATORE, LYNNE  Democratic O TITUS, ROBIN L.  Republican O STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 38 Two (2) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE KOENIG, GREGORY S.  Republican O COUNTY PARTISAN OFFICES COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 2 Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE GETTO, MYLES R.  Republican O COUNTY ASSESSOR Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE MONDHINK-FELTON, DENISE L.  Republican ODISTRICT NONPARTISAN OFFICES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DISTRICT 10 Six (6) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE STOCKARD, THOMAS  Nonpartisan O COUNTY NONPARTISAN OFFICES SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE Four (4) Year Term VOTE FOR NO MORE THAN FOUR BLAKEY, CELESTIA  Nonpartisan O BOONE, KEITH W.  Nonpartisan O CASEY-GETTO, AMBER  Nonpartisan O MCFADDEN, JOE  Nonpartisan O PARSONS, W. DERILD  Nonpartisan O SHERIFF Four (4) Year Term • VOTE FOR ONE DAVIS, MICHAEL J.  Nonpartisan O OROZCO, LEE D.  Nonpartisan OSTATE QUESTION: NO. 1 – NO. 5 There will be no statewide questions 1–5 on the 2026 General Election ballot. There were a number of ballot initiatives circulated, but none of them gained enough valid signatures to qualify for the General Election ballot. Statewide Question 6 and Question 7 will be on the General Election ballot for the second time. Both ballot questionspassedduringthe2024GeneralElectionandmustbevotedonforasecondtime.Iftheypassagainduring the 2026 General Election, they will amend the Nevada Constitution. The following pages include information about each ballot measure, including the arguments “for” and “against.” STATEWIDE BALLOT QUESTIONS STATE QUESTION NO. 6 Amendment to the Nevada Constitution Initiative Petition C-05-2023 CONDENSATION (Ballot Question) Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy? YES O NO O STATE QUESTION NO. 7 Amendment to the Nevada Constitution Initiative Petition C-02-2023 CONDENSATION (Ballot Question) Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to require voters to either present photo identification to verify their identity when voting in-person or to provide certain personal information to verify their identity when voting by mail ballot? YES O NO OCHURCHILL COUNTY BALLOT QUESTIONS CHURCHILL COUNTY QUESTION NO. 1 CONDENSATION (Ballot Question) Shall Churchill County be authorized to levy an additional property tax rate for major fire equipment and apparatus purchases for the Fallon Churchill County Volunteer Fire Department in the amount of up to $0.03 per $100 assessed valuation for a period of up to six years commencing July 1, 2027, and ending June 30, 2033? The cost for the owner of a new $100,000 home is estimated to be up to $10.50 per year. If this question is approved by the voters, any property tax levied will be outside of the caps on a taxpayer’s liability for property (ad valorem) taxes established by the Legislature in the 2026 session. YES O NO OSTATE QUESTION NO. 6 Amendment to the Nevada Constitution Initiative Petition C-05-2023 CONDENSATION (Ballot Question) Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy? Yes  No  EXPLANATION & DIGEST EXPLANATION— This initiative, if approved by the voters, amends the Nevada Constitution to create a constitutional right to abortion. This right to abortion would apply from the start of a person’s pregnancy up until the start of “fetal viability,” unless thepregnant person needs medical caretoprotect that person’s lifeor health,inwhichcasethe right applies throughout the pregnancy. “Fetal viability” means “the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient's treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” The initiative makes clear that the State of Nevada, including county and city governments in Nevada, generally cannot not interfere with this right. But a state, county, or city government can interfere with the right if there is a “compelling state interest” in doing so. A “compelling state interest” exists only if the government uses the least restrictive means to protect or improve the pregnant person’s life or health in ways that follow clinical standards of practice. Lastly, this proposed right to abortion does not require or force any individual in Nevada to have an abortion. Instead, it creates a right that allows an individual to make their own decision. A “Yes” vote would create a new section of the Nevada Constitution to establish a person’s constitutional right to abortion, so that a person can make decisions about matters relating to abortion and reproductive healthcare, without interference from state or local governments. A “No” vote would keep the Nevada Constitution in its current form and would not impact the availability of abortion as a statutory right under Nevada law. DIGEST—Existing law states that abortions are legal in Nevada and must occur within 24 weeks after the start of the pregnancy. An exception currently exists to allow an abortion after 24 weeks if a physician reasonably believes that an abortion is necessary to preserve the pregnant person’s life or health. Existing law also requires that abortions performed after the 24th week of pregnancy be performed in a hospital licensed by the State of Nevada. If approved by the voters, this ballot measure would add a new section to Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution with the following information.Section 1 of this amendment to the Nevada Constitution would create a “fundamental right to abortion.” This means that the Nevada Constitution would make abortion a legal option for all individuals, not just Nevadans, that is protected by the Nevada Constitution. The proposed amendment also includes the right to have an abortion procedure done by a qualified healthcare professional. The amendment proposes that the right to an abortion would extend until “fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.” “Fetal viability” means “the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of thepatient's treating healthcarepractitioner,there is asignificant likelihood ofthefetus’ sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures.” If the abortion would be necessaryto protect the pregnant person’s life or health, the proposed amendment allows an abortion procedure to be carried out after the start of fetal viability. The proposed amendment would also generally prevent the State of Nevada or any of its political subdivisions (e.g., the Nevada Legislature, county and city governments) from interfering with the constitutional right to abortion. State and local governments can interfere with this right only if they have a “compelling state interest” in doing so. A “compelling state interest” exists only if the government uses the least restrictive means to protect or improve the pregnant person’s life or health in ways that follow clinical standards of practice. Section 2 of the proposed constitutional amendment states that if any part of the amendment is challenged in court, then the rest of the amendment is not affected and remains in force. This section ensures that the right to abortion is protected to the greatest extent possible in the event of future lawsuits. ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE Decisions about abortion should be left to women and qualified healthcare professionals, who take a pledge to act in their patients’ best interest. When it comes to something as personal and complicated as pregnancy, politicians are never more qualified to make healthcare decisions than women and their doctors. That’s whyit is so important to vote YES on this amendment. People across Nevada are voting YES because: • YES protects doctors so that they will never have to risk jail time just to treat the patient in front of them1 . • Extreme abortion bans are already in place across the country – from Texas2 to Florida3 to right next door in Utah and Arizona – and theyare havingdangerous effects. A 10-year-old girl from Ohio who was raped had to travel to Indiana to get the abortion she needed4 , and in Texas, one woman who miscarried lost liters of blood and had to go on a breathing machine before doctors could legally help her5 . YES protects the right to abortion in our state for good, so these tragic stories can never happen here. 1 Pierson, Brenden. “Texas AG Threatens to Prosecute Doctors in Emergency Abortion | Reuters.” Reuters,***.reuters.com/legal/texas-judge-allows-woman-get-emergency-abortion-despite-state-ban-2023-12-07/.Accessed 25 July 2024. 2 Weber, Paul J., and Jamie Stengle. “Texas Governor Defends Abortion Law with No Rape Exceptions.” AP News, AP News, 8 Sept. 2021, apnews.com/article/health-texas-dallas-laws-greg-abbott- 3717a0258b598eba06bb1baf90b645f4. 3 Fischer, David, and Stephany Matat. “Florida’s 6-Week Abortion Ban Takes Effect as Doctors Worry Women Will Lose Access to Health Care.” AP News, AP News, 1 May 2024, apnews.com/article/florida-abortion-ban-9509a806453e1eab50d118aaecffa2f1. 4 Helmore, Edward. “10-Year-Old Rape Victim Forced to Travel from Ohio to Indiana for Abortion.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 July 2022, ***.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/ohio-indianaabortion-rape-victim. 5 Tanner, Lindsey. “Abortion Laws Spark Profound Changes in Other Medical Care.” AP News, AP News, 16 July 2022, apnews.com/article/abortion-science-health-medication-lupuse4042947e4cc0c45e38837d394199033.• YES establishes a permanent layer of protection6 so that no matter who holds office in our state, extreme abortion bans7 cannot become law in Nevada. YES keeps families – not politicians – in charge of their own healthcare decisions, so that women can make these personal decisions in consultation with their doctors and those they love and trust. We should trust women and doctors to make the right decisions for their own situations without government getting involved. If this amendment fails, future generations could have fewer rights and freedoms than their parents and grandparents8. Vote YES to keep politicians out of our personal, private decisions. Question 6 has no fiscal or environmental impact. The above argument was submitted by the Ballot Question Committee composed of citizens in favor of this question as provided for in NRS 293.252. Committee members: Lindsey Harmon (Chair), Denise Lopez, and Bradley Schrager. This argument can also be found at www.nvsos.gov. REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE Do you want courts and judges making decisions about pregnancy instead of women and doctors?1 Vote NO to stop courts from invading your personal, private medical decisions. Vote NO to protect our current abortion laws.2 There literally cannot be “any reasonable degree of certainty ”3 what laws will change or how much you will have to pay to fund abortion with Question 6. Vote NO. Do you want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions through all 9-months of pregnancy? Do you want to write a blank check to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions?4 Last year, California spent $200 million5 6 From constitutional amendment text: “All individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion… The right established by this section shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon…” 7 Lieb, David A., and Geoff Mulvihill. “Missouri Lawmakers Propose Allowing Homicide Charges for Women Who Have Abortions.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 8 Dec. 2023, ***.pbs.org/newshour/politics/missouri-lawmakers-propose-allowing-homicide-charges-for-women-whohave-abortions. 8 Pfannenstiel, Kyle. “Idaho Is Losing Ob-Gyns after Strict Abortion Ban. but Health Exceptions Unlikely This Year. • Idaho Capital Sun.” Idaho Capital Sun, 5 Apr. 2024, idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/05/idaho-is-losingob-gyns-after-strict-abortion-ban-but-health- exceptions-unlikely-this-year/. 1 Silver State Hope Fund vs. The State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Dept. of Health and Human Services, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, (Case NO. A-23-876702-W), Eighth Judicial District Court Clark County, Nevada (lawsuit financed by the ACLU to force Nevada taxpayers to pay for more abortions as a result of the “yes” vote for Question 1 on the 2022 Ballot). 2 The Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau (Aug. 1, 2024) https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showpublisheddocument/14294/638581076670730000. 3 The Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau (Aug. 1, 2024) https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showpublisheddocument/14294/638581076670730000 (this nonpartisan government body analyzed the language of Question 6 and concluded that “it is it not known how the Legislature may revise existing laws if they are determined to not comply with these provisions, the financial effect upon the State or local governments cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty). 4 The Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau (Aug. 1, 2024) https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showpublisheddocument/14294/638581076670730000 (concluding that the financial impact of a “yes” vote on Question 6 simply “cannot be determined”). 5 Gov. Gavin Newsom, “New Protections for People Who Need Abortion Care and Birth Control, Bill package builds upon more than $200 million in state funding to create abortion.ca.gov, cover uninsured care,” https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/27/new- protections-for-people-who-need-abortion-care-and-birthcontrol/.on an abortion- funding package to pay for abortions6 and even to create a website explaining how to have the state pay for an abortion “at no cost to you.”7 Don’t want that policy? Vote NO. Here's a list of people NOT mentioned in Question 6: • Women and girls – No specific protection. • Mothers and parents – No specific protection. • Doctors – No specific protection. A young mother in Las Vegas recently bled to death after taking abortion pills.8 Protect our current law, women and doctors, keep the courts out of our personal lives, and vote NO. Theaboverebuttal was submitted bytheBallot QuestionCommitteecomposedof citizens opposedtothis question as provided for in NRS 293.252. Committee members: Emily Mimnaugh (Chair) and Jason Guinasso. This argument can also be found at www.nvsos.gov. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE Vote NO to stop Question 6 from re-writing our State Constitution. Vote No to stop Question 6 from writing a blank check to fund unlimited, 9-month abortions using taxpayer money.1 Question 6 may force you the taxpayer to pay for abortions.2 The cost and fiscal impact of Question 6 cannot be determined:3 It may cost taxpayers MORE than $120-million-dollars every year.4 California Abortion Access: How to Pay for an Abortion, Official Website of the State of California, https://abortion.ca.gov/getting-an-abortion/how-to-pay-for-an-abortion/index.html. 7 California Abortion Access: How to Pay for an Abortion, Official Website of the State of California, https://abortion.ca.gov/getting-an-abortion/how-to-pay-for-an-abortion/index.html. 8 “Nevada woman’s death after taking abortion pills spurs lawsuit, safety fears,” Washington Times (Sept. 28,2023) https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/sep/28/nevada-womans-death-after-taking-abortionpills-sp/. 1 The total cost cannot be known, and a single abortion can cost “ $15,000 or more” according to the State of Nevada Division of (“DPBH”), “Abortion Information for Nevadans,” https://dpbh.nv.gov/Programs/MIP/AbortionInNevada/ (For a “later pregnancy” using “induction abortion” procedure to “induce labor and delivery,” the cost is “$8,000 to $15,000 or more” for each delivery, labor and abortion procedure) 2 The Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau (Aug. 1, 2024), https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showpublisheddocument/14294/638581076670730000 (this non-partisan government body analyzed the language of Question 6 and concluded that “it is it not known how the Legislature may revise existing laws if they are determined to not comply with these provisions, the financial effect upon the State or local governments cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty). 3 See Notes 1-2. 4 An abortion in Nevada can cost anywhere from “$500” for a chemical abortion to “$15,000 or more” for an induction abortion, according to the State of Nevada Division of (“DPBH”), “Abortion Information for Nevadans,” https://dpbh.nv.gov/Programs/MIP/AbortionInNevada/; The Nevada Independent, “Indy Explains: What happens to Nevada’s abortion laws if Roe is overturned?,” (May 2, 2022), https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/indy-explains-what-happens-to-nevadas-abortion-laws-if-roe-is-overturned (estimating that approximately 8,000 to 10,000 abortions were performed annually in Nevada between 2017 and 2019, with the predication that more would follow if Nevada became an abortion “refuge.”). 6Vote NO to protect our current abortion law. Abortion is legal in Nevada.5 Currently, doctors can do abortions— without restriction—up to 24 weeks (6 months).6 After that, it's also allowed to save the mom's life or health.7 Our current law is more pro-choice than Roe v. Wade.8 Only voters can change our state’s abortion law, and it hasn’t changed in decades.9 Unlike Nevada, other states have recently changed their abortion laws, and “litigation has exploded.”10 Vote NO to keep the courts out of private, personal decisions.11 If you like the current law, protect it: Vote NO. If you don’t like the current law, vote NO so it’s not even harder to fix.12 Question 6 has no bright-line rule saying when abortion is legal. Is it always legal at 4 months? 6 months? 9 months? Our current law is clear. Question 6 is not. Question 6 has no bright-line rule saying when taxpayers must payfor abortions. Do taxpayers payfor an optional abortion at 9 months? Our current law is clear. Question 6 is not. What about doctors? Can a non-doctor perform a surgical abortion at 9 months outside a hospital? Question 6 may not stop this, but the current law protects women. Vote NO. What about parents? Can a non-doctor perform a secret surgical abortion on a 13-year-old girl? Question 6 may not stop this, but the current law protects children and parents. Vote NO. Whenlaws areunclear, theresult is expensivelawsuits.13 Thelegal,fiscal and environmental impacts ofQuestion 6 are unknown.14 Lawsuits cost taxpayers money.15 Vote NO because Question 6 is: • Dangerous: It lets people who aren't doctors do abortions. • Wrong: It allows abortions through all 9 months of pregnancy. • Harmful: It strips out rules that keep women safe. • Expensive: It may cause lawsuits and cost millions to fund abortions. • Unwanted: It changes our current abortion laws which are clear. 5 See Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 442.250 (Question 7 on the 1990 Nevada Ballot). 6 Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health (“DPBH”), “Abortion Information for Nevadans,” https://dpbh.nv.gov/Programs/ MIP/AbortionInNevada/. 7 NRS § 442.250 8 The Nevada Independent, “Indy Explains: What happens to Nevada’s abortion laws if Roe is overturned?,” (May 2, 2022), https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/indy-explains-what-happens-to-nevadas-abortion-laws-if-roe-is-overturned 9 See Notes 5-8. 10 Reuters, “Abortion rights: Tracking state lawsuits two years after Roe reversal” (“Nearly two years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, litigation over abortion has exploded”), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us- abortion-rights-still-flux-two-years-after-roe-reversal-2024-06-17/. 11 For example, Silver State Hope Fund vs. The State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Dept. of Health and Human Services, Division of Health Care Financing and Policy, (Case NO. A-23-876702-W), Eighth Judicial District Court Clark County, Nevada (lawsuit to force Nevada taxpayers to pay for more abortions as a result of the “yes” vote for Question 1 on the 2022 Ballot). 12 See above Notes 10-11. 13 See Notes 10-11. 14 See Note 1. 15 See Notes 10-11.Keepourlaws clear. Keep tax spendingtransparent. Keepcourts out ofabortion. Keep decisions between women and doctors. Vote NO. The above argument was submitted by the Ballot Question Committee composed of citizens opposed to this question as provided for in NRS 293.252. Committee members: Emily Mimnaugh (Chair) and Jason Guinasso. This argument can also be found at www.nvsos.gov. REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE The people against this amendment are lying to scare voters. Nevadans know that a woman may end a pregnancy for manydifferent reasons. We also know that women and doctors do not decide on an abortion later in pregnancy unless there is a serious reason, like a risk to her life or pregnancy. And this amendment does nothing to change parental rights in Nevada, because we all want young people to get the support they need from those who love them when making decisions. All this amendment does is ensure families – not politicians – are in charge of their own health care decisions and can make the right choice for their unique situations without government getting in the way. When families are making difficult, personal medical decisions, one-size-fits all laws don’t work. As bans across the country are already putting lives at risk, this amendment adds a permanent layer of protection for abortion rights in Nevada so that no matter who holds office in our state, these extreme bans cannot become law here. Again, this amendment has no fiscal or tax implications. The above rebuttal was submitted by the Ballot Question Committee composed of citizens in favor of this question as provided for in NRS 293.252. Committee members: Lindsey Harmon (Chair), Denise Lopez, and Bradley Schrager. This argument can also be found at www.nvsos.gov. FISCAL NOTE FINANCIAL IMPACT – CANNOT BE DETERMINED OVERVIEW The Statewide Constitutional Initiative Petition – Identifier: C-05-2023 (Initiative) proposes to amend Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution by adding a new section, designated as Section 25, establishing a fundamental right to abortion performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without interference from the state or its political subdivisions, unless the denial of that right is justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE Pursuant to Article 19, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution, an initiative proposing to amend the Nevada Constitution must be approved by the voters at two successive general elections in order to become a part of the Constitution.If this Initiative is approved byvoters at the November 2024 and November 2026 General Elections, the provisions of the Initiative would become effective on the fourth Tuesday of November 2026 (November 24, 2026), when the votes are canvassed by the Supreme Court pursuant to NRS 293.395.If this Initiative is approved by the voters at the November 2024 and November 2026 General Elections, the Legislature may be required to evaluate existing laws governing abortion to determine whether they are in compliance with the provisions of this amendment. If it is determined that existing laws are not in compliance, it is possible that the amount of resources utilized by the State or local governments for the administration or enforcement of new abortion laws that would comply with these provisions may be affected. However, because it is unknown what laws, if any, maynot be in compliance with the provisions of the Initiative, nor is it known how the Legislature may revise existing laws if they are determined to not comply with these provisions, the financial effect upon the State or local governments cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. Prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau – August 1, 2024 FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE Explanation - Matter in italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS Sec. 1. That a new section, designated Section 25, be added to Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution to read as follows: Sec. 1. All individuals shall have a fundamental right to abortion performed or administered by a qualified health care practitioner until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient, without interference from the state or its political subdivisions. The right established by this section shall not be denied, burdened, or infringed upon unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means. Sec. 2. As used in this section: A “compelling state interest” means an interest which is limited exclusively to the state’s interest in protecting, maintaining, or improving the health of an individual who is seeking abortion care that is consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice; and “Fetal viability” means the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient's treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures. Sec. 2. Severability. If any part of this Act be declared invalid, or the application thereof to any person, thing or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining provisions or application of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable. This subsection shall be construed broadly to preserve and effectuate the declared purpose of this Act. [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]STATE QUESTION NO. 7 Amendment to the Nevada Constitution Initiative Petition C-02-2023 CONDENSATION (Ballot Question) Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to require voters to either present photo identification to verify their identity when voting in-person or to provide certain personal information to verify their identity when voting by mail ballot? Yes  No  EXPLANATION & DIGEST EXPLANATION— This initiative, if enacted, changes Article 2 of the Nevada Constitution to create a requirement for voters to provide identification before they receive a ballot. Voters who vote in-person at a polling place would need to show an ID that is current or that has not been expired for more than four years. If a voter is more than 70 years old, the identification could be expired for any length of time so long as it is otherwise valid. The acceptable forms of identification include: 1. Nevada driver's license. 2. Identification card issued by the State of Nevada, any other State, or the U.S. Government. 3. Employee photo identification card issued bythe U.S. government, Nevada government, or anycounty, municipality, board, authority, or other Nevada government entity. 4. U.S. passport. 5. U.S. military identification card. 6. Student photo identification card issued by a Nevada public college, university, or technical school. 7. Tribal photo identification. 8. Nevada concealed firearms permit. 9. Other form of government-issued photo identification that the Legislature may approve. Voters who vote by mail ballot would need to include certain information so that election officials can use it to verify the voter’s identity. That information includes: 1. The last four digits of their Nevada driver's license number. 2. If the voter does not possess a Nevada driver's license, the last four digits of their Social Security number. 3. If the voter has neither a Nevada driver's license or a Social Security number, the number provided by the county clerk when the voter registered to vote. A “Yes” vote would amend Article 2 of the Nevada Constitution to require in-person Nevada voters present certain identification and mail ballot voters to provide certain information in order to cast a legal ballot. A “No” vote would keep the Nevada Constitution in its current form.DIGEST—Under current law, Nevada voters must onlyshow identification in certain situations. These situations are rare and related to the method and timing of how they register to vote. Currently only voters who register to vote by mail or computer, or who preregisters to vote by mail or computer, and who has not previously voted in an election for federal office in Nevada must provide identification. Additionally, state law requires voters who register to vote online less than14 days before an election must also vote in-person and present an identification and proof of residency. If approved bya vote bythe voters during the 2024 general election it would go to the 2026 general election ballot for additional approval. If approved there, the Nevada Legislature could create related laws through legislation during the 2027 Legislative Session and these changes would go into effect for the 2028 election cycle. ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE Flaws in the nation’s registration and voting laws are being seen as creating a lack of confidence in election outcomes. Many people lost trust in how elections were run. New voting technology raised worries about mistakes. More mail-in ballots also led to fears of fraud. A national bipartisan committee reviewed voting laws in many states. One of their recommendations in their report was to require Voter ID.1 Requiringvoters to show a photo ID before voting is a sensible and effective step to help make our elections more secure and to give people more confidence in the results. In Nevada, many people support this idea. A recent poll shows 74% of Nevadans back it. This includes 68% of Independents, and 62% of Democrats.2 As of 2024, 36 states have laws requiring photo ID for voting. There have been no major complaints in these states, and, contrary to what people were told would happen, turnout has not decreased.3 Some argue that requiring a photo ID would unfairly impact minorities. They say that many minorities and low- income people don't have a photo ID. This is not true, because people need a photo ID to apply for a job, cash a check, use a credit card, apply for a loan, see a doctor, pick up a prescription, apply to college, buy alcohol or tobacco, get on a plane, check into a hotel, and vote in some union elections. Nevada law requires those who don’t register in person show identification and address the first time they vote. This doesn’t have to be a photo ID. It can be a utility bill or some other official document that shows only their name and address. Also, this is only for the first time they vote. After that, there is no requirement to show an ID when voting.4 Others say that voter fraud is rare. However, identity theft is a growing problem. Close elections also show the need for every vote to be legal. For example, a 2002 race in Nevada ended in a tie. Former U.S. Attorney Jennifer Arbittier Williams said, "If even one vote has been illegally cast…it diminishes faith in the process."5 1 Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, American University Center for Democracy and Election management, Washington DC, 2005, pp 9-20. 2 Poll: Plurality of Nevada voters approve of Lombardo, majority support voter ID - The Nevada Independent 3 Requiring Photo ID Has Little Effect on Voter Turnout, MU Study Finds | MU News Bureau (missouri.edu) 4 Nevada Revised Statutes 293.272, 293.2725 5 Eastern District of Pennsylvania | Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia Political Operative Pleads Guilty to Election Fraud Charges | United States Department of JusticeRequiring a photo ID has no environmental, public health, safety, or welfare impact. A photo ID requirement will help people trust our election system and make sure that every vote is valid. Vote "YES" on Question 7. The above argument was submitted by the Ballot Question Committee composed of citizens in favor of this question as provided for in NRS 293.252. Committee members: David Gibbs (Chair), Chuck Muth, and David O’Mara. This argument can also be found at www.nvsos.gov. REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE The people who support Question 7 talk a lot about fear and mistrust. They’ve spent years tryingto make us doubt our election system. But they can’t show us even one time when voter ID would have actuallymade our elections safer in Nevada. They don’t tell you what bad things voter ID will stop because there haven’t been any. They don’t mention that identity theft has never changed any election here. They don’t talk about how many Nevadans—people just like you and me—don’t have the ID that Question 7 needs. They also don’t explain how Question 7 helps people get those IDs. It doesn’t. They just say that other states have voter ID and people there like it. But remember, not everyone does things like cash checks, go to college, or fly on planes. These aren’t like voting. Voting is a right we all have to choose our leaders. We shouldn’t stop anyone who can vote from voting. Think about this: you’re more likely to get hit by a meteor than to find someone cheating by pretending to be someone else when they vote. Question 7 is a step back for our democracy. Theaboverebuttal was submitted bytheBallot QuestionCommitteecomposedof citizens opposedtothis question as provided for in NRS 293.252. Committee members: Jennifer Fleischmann Willoughby (Chair), Daniel Bravo, and Jessica Rodriguez. This argument can also be found at www.nvsos.gov. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE When it comes to voting rights, we shouldn’t be leaving anyone behind. The ID requirements in Question 7 will mean fewer eligible people will cast ballots, while the new law would do nothing to prevent voter fraud. The measure’s supporters say they want more confidence in elections, but they don’t tell you that impersonating someone else at the polls never happens. One study found that out of more than a billion votes cast, it happened 31 times—statistically zero.1 You have a better chance of being struck by lightning.2 Question 7 overreacts to a problem that simply does not exist. And the risks of Question 7 are big. It does not ensure that Nevadans have the kinds of ID the law demands, IDs that cost moneyand take time to get. Voters living in rural or tribal communities will have to travel long distances to a DMV to receive an ID. In fact, almost 21% of all voting-age Americans don’t have a valid driver’s license 1 Justin Levitt, “A Comprehensive Investigation of Voter Impersonation Finds 31 Credible Incidents Out of One Billion Ballots Cast,” Washington Post, August 6, 2014, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of- voter-impersonation-finds-31-credibleincidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/. 2 Brennan Center for Justice, January 31, 2017, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud- mythwith their current name and address.3 In terms of Nevada’s population, that would equal more than half a million people.4 Studies have shown that strict voter ID laws reduce turnout among underserved communities and communities of color, making it harder to have their voices heard at the ballot box.5 Voter ID laws are also a waste of taxpayer dollars. Indiana, for example, spent over $10 million to produce free ID cards between 2007 and 2010.6 Question 7 will keep eligible Nevadans from voting, and won’t improve election integrity. Vote no on laws that reduce participation in democracy, like Question 7. Requiring a photo ID has no environmental impact. The above argument was submitted by the Ballot Question Committee composed of citizens opposed to this question as provided for in NRS 293.252. Committeemembers: Jennifer Fleischmann Willoughby (Chair), Daniel Bravo, and Jessica Rodriguez. This argument can also be found at www.nvsos.gov. REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE Opponents say that “impersonating someone else at the polls never happens.” But without a photo ID required, how can they be sure? To try to back their argument, opponents cite an opinion column from Washington, DC, from over ten years ago. This was before Nevada adopted new election laws in 2021. Opponents also claim that “21% of all voting-age Americans don’t have a valid driver’s license.” However, the same studyshows that only1% lack some other acceptable photo ID. The Legislature can find a way to help these voters, just like 36 other states have done. Opponents say voter ID laws “reduce turnout” among minorities. But the same study also says that “the research is mixed on whether ID laws actually reduce turnout.” A similar claim was made against Georgia’s photo ID law in 2021. Yet, Georgia’s Secretaryof State reported that turnout in the 2022 general election set new records after the law took effect.7 The bottom line is this: Requiring a Photo ID won’t make it harder to vote. It will make it harder to cheat. Vote YES on Question 7. The above rebuttal was submitted by the Ballot Question Committee composed of citizens in favor of this question as provided for in NRS 293.252. Committee members: David Gibbs (Chair), Chuck Muth, and David O’Mara. This argument can also be found at www.nvsos.gov. 3 “Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge,” Analyses Led by the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland, https://cdce.umd.edu/sites/cdce.umd.edu/files/pubs/Voter%20ID%20survey%20Key%20Results%20June%202024.pdf 4 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/31/2023-06717/estimates-of-the-voting-age-population-for-2022 5 “Voter ID Laws: What Do We Know So Far?” Berkeley Public Policy, Goldman School Working Paper, March 19, 2023, https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and- impact/policy-initiatives/democracy-policy-initiative/policy-briefs/voter-id-laws-what-do-we- know-so-far; “Who Do Voter ID Laws Keep from Voting?,” Bernard L. Fraga and Michael G. Miller, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 84, No. 2, April 2022. 6 ACLU Fact Sheet On Voter ID Laws, August 2021, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/document/aclu_voter_id_fact_sheet_- _final__1_.pdf 7 https://sos.ga.gov/news/record-breaking-turnout-georgias-runoff-electionFISCAL NOTE FINANCIAL IMPACT – YES OVERVIEW The Statewide Constitutional Initiative Petition – Identifier: C-02-2023 (Initiative) proposes to amend Article 2 of the Nevada Constitution by adding new Sections 1B and 1C, as follows: • Section 1B would require the presentation of a specified form of identification in order to vote in person in an election in Nevada, either through early voting or on Election Day. • Section 1C would require voters who submit a mail-in ballot to provide certain specified information in order to verify that voter’s identity. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE Pursuant to Article 19, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution, an initiative proposing to amend the Nevada Constitution must be approved by the voters at two successive general elections in order to become a part of the Constitution.If this Initiative is approved byvoters at the November 2024 and November 2026 General Elections, the provisions of the Initiative would become effective on the fourth Tuesday of November 2026 (November 24, 2026), when the votes are canvassed by the Supreme Court pursuant to NRS 293.395. The provisions of the Initiative are anticipated to have a financial impact upon the State and local governments relating to procedures and systems utilized during the election process. The Secretary of State’s Office has indicated that these provisions will require modifications to processes and systems related to check-in of voters at the polling location and verification of mail-in ballots, as well as ensuring that the statewide voter registration system is modified to ensure that all data necessary to implement the provisions of the Initiative is captured. Based on information provided by the Secretary of State’s Office, the estimated costs to make these changes to voter systems in Nevada would be approximately $6,750, and these changes would need to be made in time for the elections that would be held in the year 2028. The provisions of the Initiative additionally allow the Legislature to determine additional forms of valid identification that can be used to verify identity for voting, aside from those already specified in the Initiative, which the Fiscal Analysis Division assumes will need to be created by the Legislature for those people who do not have or cannot obtain another form of allowable identification. The Fiscal Analysis Division additionally assumes that this alternate form of voter identification will be provided to the voter at no cost, which means that the cost for these identification documents will be wholly borne by the State or by one or more local governments. However, the Initiative does not specify the form which these alternative identification documents must take, nor does it specify which agency or agencies (either at the state or local level) will be required to provide these documents. Additionally, it is unknown how many registered voters will not have one of the specified documents that would be acceptable to provide as proof of identity for in-person voting, who would need to be issued one of these alternative documents. Thus, the financial effect upon the State or local governments relating to the issuance of an alternative identity document to those voters who will require such a document in order to vote in person cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. Prepared by the Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau – July 29, 2024FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE Explanation - Matter in italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS Article 2 of the Nevada Constitution is hereby amended by adding thereto new sections to be designated as Section 1B and Section 1C, to read as follows: Sec 1B. Photo Identification. Each voter in Nevada shall present photo identification to verify their identity when voting in person at a polling place during early voting or on election day before being provided a ballot. To be considered valid, the photo identification must be current or expired for no more than four years. If the voter is 70 years old or more, the identification can be expired for any length of time, so long as it is otherwise valid. Acceptable forms of identification include: 1. Nevada driver's license. 2. Identification card issued by the State of Nevada, any other State, or the US Government. 3. Employee photo identification card issued by the US government, Nevada government, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other Nevada government entity. 4. US passport. 5. US military identification card. 6. Student photo identification card issued by a Nevada public college, university, or technical school. 7. Tribal photo identification. 8. Nevada concealed firearms permit. 9. Other form of government-issued photo identification that the Legislature may approve. Sec C. Voter Verification. Each voter in Nevada who votes by mail-in ballot shall enter one of the following in the block provided next to the voter's signature for election officials to use in verifying the voter's identity: 1. The last four digits of their Nevada driver's license number. 2. If the voter does not possess a Nevada driver's license, the last four digits oftheir Social Security number. 3. If the voter has neither a Nevada driver's license or a Social Security number, the number provided by the county clerk when the voter registered to vote. [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]COUNTY QUESTION NO. 1 FALLON CHURCHILL COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDENSATION (Ballot Question) Shall Churchill County be authorized to levy an additional property tax rate for major fire equipment and apparatus purchases for the Fallon Churchill County Volunteer Fire Department in the amount of up to $0.03 per $100 assessed valuation for a period of up to six years commencing July 1, 2027, and ending June 30, 2033? The cost for the owner of a new $100,000 home is estimated to be up to $10.50 per year. If this question is approved by the voters, any property tax levied will be outside of the caps on a taxpayer’s liability for property (ad valorem) taxes established by the Legislature in the 2026 session. EXPLANATION A “YES” vote on the above question will permit the Board of County Commissioners to increase the ad valorem tax rate by 3 cents above the rate otherwise established by the Nevada Revised Statutes. Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 354.5982 states in part that a local government may exceed the maximum allowed limit upon revenue from taxes ad valorem if its governing body proposed to its registered voters an additional levy ad valorem, specifying the amount of money to be derived, the purpose for which it is to discontinue the additional levy before it expires and may not reimpose the levy without another approval by the registered voters of that local government. Typically, a 3-cent increase in the ad valorem rate would add approximately $10.50 annually to the property tax bill of a house appraised at $100,000. An ad valorem rate of 3 cents will generate approximately $217,500 in revenue for fiscal year 2027-28 and the years thereafter, will generate revenue in amounts determined by that year’s assessed valuation of the taxable property in Churchill County. The additional levy automatically ceases at the end of the specified period. All revenue generated will be used exclusively to fund the capital acquisition of major pieces of fire equipment and apparatus, to provide public safety services for the citizens of Churchill County. A “NO” vote on the above question constitutes a rejection of the proposed levy. In that event, the additional rate of 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation will not be levied and the ad valorem tax rate established by the Nevada Revised Statutes will be maintained. Without the levy, certain general County programs and services provided to the citizens of Churchill County may be eliminated, others will be reduced in scope to a minimal level in order to fund the acquisition of fire equipment and apparatus.VO O VOT T O E VO O VOT T O E YO O YOUR R U VO O V TE E TE YO O Y M D OUR R U VO O V TE E T MA A M KE E K S A DI IF D FF I FE F ER F RE E EN R N E E NC CE N E C VO O O VO V E E OT OT O OT VO O V E E OT T O O O O YO O O O YO O O YO O E E E UR R U VO O O VO V TE E E TE E O O O O O YO O O O O Y D M O O O O E TE E D DI M MA E E E M M D D UR R U VO O V T AKE E K S A IF FF I FE F ER F RE E EN R N E E E NC C CE E C CE C CE E N E C NC CENOTESNOTESNON PROFIT ORG US POSTAGE PAID RENO NV PERMIT NO. 931 LINDA ROTHERY Churchill County Clerk/Treasurer 155 N.Taylor Street,Suite 110 Fallon,NV 89406-2748 G1 VOTE your vote makes a difference BRING YOUR SAMPLE BALLOT WHEN YOU BRING YOUR SAMPLE BALLOT WHEN YOU GO TO THE POLLS TO VOTE. GO TO THE POLLS TO VOTE.

Churchill County uses countywide vote centers: registered Churchill County voters may vote at any location listed for that county.

Early voting · Oct 17 – Oct 30

• Churchill County Commissioner Chambers
  155 N. Taylor Street, Fallon, NV
  Get directions

  Sat, Oct 17

  10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

  Mon, Oct 19 – Fri, Oct 23

  8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.

  Sat, Oct 24

  10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

  Mon, Oct 26 – Fri, Oct 30

  8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.

• Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Community Learning Center
  8955 Mission Road, Fallon, NV
  Get directions

  Sat, Oct 17

  10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

  Fri, Oct 23

  10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

Election Day · Tuesday, November 3 · 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

• Fallon Convention Center
  100 Campus Way, Fallon
  Get directions
• Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Community Learning Center
  8955 Mission Road, Fallon
  Get directions

Confirm with your county elections office. Locations and hours can change. This summary may be incomplete; the county's official list is the authority. Polling location source ·Sample ballot source