Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Columnist Jeff German: Court’s decision bold, but necessary

WHEN CHIEF Justice Deborah Agosti announced on live television last week that the Nevada Supreme Court was ordering the Legislature to break its budget impasse, she said the decision was not based on public opinion.

But public opinion is what the high court is getting, as the public digests the ramifications of the court's historic 16-page ruling.

The court not only set aside a constitutional amendment twice approved by the voters, but it also infringed on the power of the Legislature, an equal branch of government.

The decision was bold, stunning, unprecedented and yet very necessary.

Justices struck at the heart of the impasse, which was holding up the funding of public schools, when they tossed out a constitutional amendment requiring lawmakers to pass any tax increases by a two-thirds majority vote. The amendment twice had been approved by the voters.

The Supreme Court ordered lawmakers to press ahead on an $860 million tax package with a simple majority vote -- which at long last neutered the 15 Republican assemblyman who have been holding the Legislature hostage by refusing to vote for the sweeping tax increase.

Finally, the votes now are there for the Legislature to do its job and pass a balanced budget with a stream of new revenue sources that will keep education funded, protect seniors and the poor and keep the state afloat over the next two years.

There might even be a chance to pass a gross receipts tax to spread the cost of running the state to big businesses, such as banking institutions, which reap huge profits but give back very little to the state.

And, finally, we no longer have to watch anti-tax zealots such as Assemblyman Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, hold up the process with their uncompromising positions.

Beers and company now are accusing the Supreme Court of ignoring the will of the people, who voted in 1994 and 1996 for the constitutional amendment calling for a supermajority vote on all tax increases. Some of the more vocal anti-tax demagogues even are spouting off about wanting to recall the six justices who signed the opinion.

It is true that the justices did override those popular votes, but as they explained in their decision, they had a greater obligation to ensure that public education was funded.

The high court only stepped in because Beers and his 14 fellow Republican holdouts in the Assembly abused the intent of the supermajority amendment when they couldn't meet their Democratic colleagues halfway on the tax package. Since February, during the do-nothing regular session and two heated special sessions, lawmakers have been unable to reach any kind of an agreement.

The Legislature, frankly, deserved to lose some of its power because it failed the voters and didn't do its job.

So if Beers and his cronies want someone to blame, they should blame themselves, not the Supreme Court.

After watching how lawmakers struggled with the two-thirds amendment this session, it was obvious that they went about putting together a balanced budget the wrong way.

They should have decided how much money everyone was willing to spend before they proposed a budget calling for $860 million in new taxes.

That would have saved lawmakers a lot of headaches and spared them the embarrassment of the Supreme Court intervention.

Now that the precedent has been set, what's to stop the high court from stepping in the next time the Legislature finds itself hopelessly deadlocked on taxes?

It's too early to measure all of the ramifications of the high court's action last week.

But one thing is sure -- lawmakers need to do rethink the way they put together a state budget.

If they don't, they might not need to worry about the Supreme Court in the future. They might need to worry about the voters.

archive