By Steve SebeliusThe majority — comprised of Chief Justice James Hardesty and Justices Ron Parraguirre, Michael Cherry, Mark Gibbons and Kristina Pickering — agreed. “Nevertheless, the Legislature did not discuss [in 1997, when the law was originally written] either the magic words or the contextual approach in any depth,” the majority wrote. “Thus, we cannot conclude from the legislative history that the Legislature intended ‘advocate expressly’ to include communications that lack magic words.”In 2011, however, the law was amended to say that either fliers with magic words or those without such words but that nonetheless are subject to no other reasonable interpretation but that they are expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate are subject to disclosure. And while the state argued that amendment established the 1997’s Legislature’s intent to include fliers with both magic words and those without, the court determined that at best, the issue wasn’t clear.“Perhaps the 1997 Legislature intended express advocacy to include more communications than those that contain magic words, but this intent was not clear — from either the language of NRS 294A.004(2) (2009) or its legislative history — when Citizen Outreach distributed its fliers,” the majority wrote.
