See Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council of Las Vegas, 125 Nev. 165, 176, 208 P.3d 429, 436 (2009) (holding that the party challenging a ballot measure "bear[s] the burden of demonstrating that the measures are clearly invalid"). Because the district court resolved the challenge to the initiative in the absence of any factual dispute, our review is de novo.

Consistent with the constitutional interests at stake, the law requires the challenger of the initiative, not its proponent, to bear the burden of demonstrating that a proposed initiative is clearly invalid because it embraces more than one subject. See Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council of Las Vegas, 125 Nev. 165, 176, 208 P.3d 429, 436 (2009) (holding that the party challenging a ballot measure "bear[s] the burden of demonstrating that the measures are clearly invalid"); Heller, 122 Nev. at 912, 141 P.3d at 1247 (recognizing the initiative process as one of the basic rights enumerated in Nevada's constitution). Placing the burden on the challenger ensures that the "power of initiative [is] liberally construed to promote the democratic process."

It then provides that the margin tax revenues “would be deposited in the State Distributive School Account in the State General Fund, and used for the support of K–12 education” and notes that the two-percent modified business tax will be temporarily increased to cover initial administrative costs for the margin tax. This court has previously declared that a description of effect must be “ ‘straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative,’ ” Las Vegas Taxpayer Comm. v. City Council, 125 Nev. 165, 183, 208 P.3d 429, 441 (2009) (quoting Herbst Gaming, Inc. v. Sec'y of State, 122 Nev. 877, 889, 141 P.3d 1224, 1232 (2006)), and it must not be deceptive or misleading. See Stumpf v. Lau, 108 Nev. 826, 833, 839 P.2d 120, 124 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Herbst Gaming, 122 Nev. at 888, 141 P.3d at 1231.

Thus, the party challenging an initiative petition bears the burden of demonstrating the initiative is clearly invalid or does not comply with these requirements. See Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council of Las Vegas (LVTAC), 125 Nev. 165, 176, 208 P.3d 429, 436 (2009) (holding that the party challenging ballot measures "bear[s] the burden of demonstrating that the measures are clearly invalid"). Our review is de novo given that the district court resolved the challenge to the underlying initiative petition without any factual disputes.

This court reviews a district court's order denying declaratory relief de novo. Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 122 Nev. 930, 942, 142 P.3d 339, 347 (2006). Initially, we note that it is appropriate for this court to review a preelection challenge under NRS 295.009(1)(b), a statute requiring a description of effect of the initiative no more than 200 words long. Las Vegas Taxpayer Comm. v. City Council, 125 Nev. 165, 182, 208 P.3d 429, 440 (2009). We may not, however, review a preelection challenge to an initiative's substantive constitutionality, including whether the initiative petition violates Article 4, Sections 20 and 21 of the Nevada Constitution, see Clean Water Coalition v. The M Resort, 127 Nev. ––––, ––––, 255 P.3d 247, 256–59 (2011) (determining that revenue collected as a purported user fee was an unconstitutional local and special tax), because it is not ripe. Herbst Gaming, Inc. v. Sec'y of State, 122 Nev. 877, 887–88, 141 P.3d 1224, 1231 (2006).

The importance of the description of effect cannot be minimized, as it is what the voters see when deciding whether to even sign a petition. See Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nev. Jobs, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 293 P.3d 874, 879 (2013); Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council, 125 Nev. 165, 177, 208 P.3d 429, 437 (2009). We have emphasized that petition signers "must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed.

It explained that the pre-election challenge provision does not create a private right of action to bring pre-election challenges where none had previously existed; rather, the pre-election challenge provision "is a `procedural mechanism for asserting challenges to a measure based on the single-subject requirement and the description of effect.'" Id. at 18 (quoting Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council of the City of Las Vegas, 125 Nev. 17, 208 P.3d 429, 438 (2009)). The district court also stated that the pre-election challenge provision imposes no burden on political speech:

The description of effect "facilitates the constitutional right to meaningfully engage in the initiative process by helping to prevent voter confusion and promote informed decisions." Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm.. v. City Council of Las Vegas, 125 Nev. 165, 177, 208 P.3d 429, 437 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Under NRS 295.009(1)(b), every petition in support of an initiative or referendum must include a 200-word-or-less description of the effect the initiative or referendum would have if enacted. Such a description must be "straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative," Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council, 125 Nev. 165, 183, 208 P.3d 429, 441 (2009) (quoting Herbst Gaming, Inc. v. Heller, 122 Nev. 877, 889, 141 P.3d 1224, 1232 (2006)), and may not be deceptive or misleading. Stumpf v. Lau, 108 Nev. 826, 833, 839 P.2d 120, 124 (1992), overruled on other grounds by Herbst Gaming, Inc., 122 Nev. at 888, 141 P.3d at 1231. As such, a description of effect "does not need to mention every possible effect of an initiative," nor must it "explain hypothetical effects of an initiative."

Id. This court reviews descriptions of effect to determine whether the description identifies the petition's purpose and how that purpose is to be achieved, in a manner that is "straightforward, succinct, and nonargumentative," and not deceptive or misleading. Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Comm. v. City Council, 125 Nev. 165, 183, 208 P.3d 429, 441 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). The description does not necessarily need to explain every effect, or hypothetical effects, but it does need to accurately set forth the main consequences of the referendum's passage.