Saturday, July 12, 2003 | 3:53 a.m.
THOSE WHO lived by one provision of the state constitution seem to have forgotten that the document contains others.
For weeks after the constitutionally mandated end to the regular session, 15 Assembly Republicans continued to hold up the two-thirds provision, which requires a two-thirds vote for new taxes, as a reason they could hold up the legislative process.
None of them saw anything wrong with ignoring the provision that legislators must do their work in 120 days. Nor did they have a problem by withholding education funding.
That's why the Supreme Court needed to act -- to solve the problem of the conflict in the constitution.
But to the minority the two-thirds requirement was godlike.
U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., had fought for the supermajority rule during the 1990s when he was an assemblyman, using the fiscal conservative themes to win statewide popularity and, ultimately, lead to his coronation as congressman.
More than 70 percent of voters approved the initiative -- twice.
But voters also twice said, by nearly 70 percent, that the Legislature should limit its sessions to 120 days.
The bloc of Assembly Republicans, whether you call them the Mean 15 or heroic fighters, seemed to forget that the democratic process works because of checks and balances.
None of them reacted in such horror when the U.S. Supreme Court determined the fate of the U.S. presidency in 2000. Now all of a sudden they recoil, claiming the court has abused the separation of powers by taking over the Legislature's job.
They didn't seem to mind when Gov. Kenny Guinn sued the whole Legislature. They even joined the process, filing a legal brief of their own. If the judiciary was OK to rely on last week, it should be respected now.
Constitutions work because they aren't just sepia-colored documents withered from the light of decades. They work because they change and because they are interpreted.
If they hadn't been, women still wouldn't have the right to vote and slavery would still be just fine.
Nevada is still such a young state, with Las Vegas not even hitting 100 until 2005 and the politics still acting more like a gangly teenager.
The most maturity shown in the 2003 tax debate came in the majority opinion from Nevada Supreme Court Justice Deborah Agosti -- a decision five of her colleagues joined to support.
Agosti has much to lose. She's up for election next year and she suddenly was asked to arbitrate a stalemate between the executive and legislative branches.
The opinion is Nevada's landmark ruling on judicial review. The court referenced Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established the judiciary's role as lone arbiter of the constitution.
And it did so reminding the Legislature what it hasn't done.
"The Legislature failed to fund education in the 72nd Regular Session and in two special sessions and is evidently in a deadlock over the means of raising the necessary revenue," the court stated. "As a result, Nevada's public educational institutions are in crisis because they are unable to proceed with the preparations and functions necessary for the 2003-04 school year."
For all the talk of recalling or impeaching the six justices who held the majority opinion, there's been little mention of what Justice Bill Maupin actually said in his dissent.
He wrote that he wouldn't take the majority position "at this time."
Maupin said the court was simply premature in acting, and that it would be perfectly able to cast a similar ruling as the calendar neared Aug. 1, the date the quarterly distribution of state money to school districts will occur.
Bet the decision would have been 7-0 if made on July 28.
Nevadans can complain all they want about the court taking over. But when you only have two of three branches of government doing anything, the opinion was the kind of check and balance that was needed.
archive
