Letter: Compromise is discouraged by two-thirds vote

Wednesday, July 16, 2003 | 9:01 a.m.

The two-thirds supermajority requirement in the Nevada Constitution is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution. It prevents every citizen from having equal protection under the law. It thwarts the concept of one man, one vote. In Nevada, one-third of either branch of the Legislature is capable of thwarting the will of the majority of Nevada voters. The most anti-tax one-sixth of the Legislature is in complete control. Five-sixths of the Legislature might as well stay home, their constituency unrepresented.

There is no motive for the anti-tax people to compromise. If they don't get their way, the government can't raise taxes at all. So what if they shut down the government? I can hear them saying with a snicker: "Don't throw me in the briar patch!"

There is a reason we have a Bill of Rights. It prevents a majority from taking the rights away from a minority. It may be true that 70 percent of the people who voted in two elections wanted to make it harder to raise taxes, but they do not have the right to vote away the right to representation for even one person, much less five-sixths of the electorate.

If people want to limit or lower taxes, let them vote for legislators who will do so. In a democracy, the majority always rules (if it doesn't infringe on people's rights), not just once or twice in constitutional referendums. What if the situation were reversed, and it only took one-sixth of the Legislature to raise taxes?

WILLIAM R. REMICK