Wow, we missed the boat on this one. With a chance to invest some money in historically low markets we're now going to miss the chance to reap the benefits of huge gains in the near future.

There are reasons people with money are buying right now...and it's a shame we're not part of it. We talk and talk and talk about helping education funding and yet we vote ourselves out of grand opportunities. What a shame!

I'm impressed. There wasn't a counter argument on E but voters took the time to research and pick what they wanted.

We haven't missed the boat entirely -- West Wendover will still have slot machines when the next election rolls around.

No the more likely scenario is that the voters did not inform themselves on this amendment and saw the words investing education funds in stocks and made a knee jerk reaction not ot vote for it. This was an excellent amendment and would have greatly benefited our education funds, but they totally missed the boat on this one.

Whether voters supported or opposed this amendment, they should be commended for paying attention.

maybe people don't want to throw away what little education we have left.

This was certainly a bad time to ask for this. I agree that we're missing some great buying opportunities and that investing those funds in the stock market following the "prudent manager" standard (I think that's what it was called) is a good idea. My only concern with the amendment was that it allowed investing only in *newly issued* securities. Why the constraint? Initial public offerings tend not to perform well, they're more likely to come from smaller and riskier companies, and there's no historical record on which to evaluate the quality of the stock. Granted, we're seeing several financial institutions and other established companies issuing new stocks now to raise capital, but limiting the education funds to investing only in newly issued stock seemed unnecessarily risky and even a bit fishy.

RE Chris Kapp,

The fact that there was no counter argument means that no one that knows anything about the amendment opposed it. I too was skeptical when I read the simple explanation of the amendment, thinking we shouldn't be investing education money in the stock market. But when I saw that there was no con argument in the voter guide, I did do some extra research on it and found some newspaper articles that really analyzed what it was meant to do. I supported it. Again, the people who voted against it did so because they didn't understand it.

Of course, we (aka "they") voted against Amendment E. It appeared to be something right out of the wealth managers' cookbook with arcane language and circumstances coupled with the fact that it would need several more government accountants, auditors, and analysts,(all of whom would get their cut first), more office space, computers, administrative staff, ad nauseam. It has the very real potential (sometime in the future) for legislators to look at and think something like, "...look at all of that money, just sitting there - let's pass an amendment."
Wonder why it was designated as E? Probably the old psychology of having someone saying "Yes" four times in a row and just automatically doing the same on the fifth one.
Sorry, educational funds need to be (as much as possible) kept out of the political-corporate-manipulative arena where the great-idea people can't smell it.