Proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to add and revise terms relating to persons with certain conditions for whose benefit certain public entities are supported by the State. (BDR C-477)
If enacted, AJR1A will significantly influence state laws by redefining and broadening the scope of support provided by the state for various groups. By modifying discriminatory language and ensuring that the entities are inclusive of various conditions, the resolution aims to enhance the public welfare approach of the state towards mental health and disabilities. This could lead to increased funding and support for programs and initiatives tailored to these communities, aligning with contemporary views on accessibility and inclusion.
AJR1A is a proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution aimed at modernizing the terminology used in Article 13, which pertains to the state's support for certain public entities. The bill proposes to replace the term 'institutions' with 'entities' and updates the descriptions of the individuals benefiting from these entities. Specifically, it changes the terms related to mental health and disabilities, replacing 'insane' with 'persons with significant mental illness', and 'deaf and dumb' with 'persons who are deaf or hard of hearing'. Furthermore, it expands the support framework to include entities benefiting persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
The sentiment surrounding AJR1A appears to be generally positive, particularly among advocacy groups and legislators focused on social equity and inclusion. Supporters laud the bill for its progressive stance on mental health and disability rights, viewing it as a necessary update to prevent stigma and ensure that support systems are modern and relevant. However, there could be some contention among more traditional viewpoints regarding associated costs or changes in existing programs that could arise from the implementation of enhanced support measures.
Notable points of contention primarily revolve around the costs and implications of redefining roles and resources for public entities. Some critics may raise concerns about potential strains on state budgets and how changes in language could impact existing programs. Additionally, ensuring adequate training and resources for agencies tasked with implementing these changes might also be debated, particularly regarding the level of care and support that can be guaranteed.