Letter: Private interests or people’s law?

Monday, April 12, 2004 | 8:54 a.m.

A reason given by some state employee legislators and commentators opposing Attorney General Sandoval's opinion that state executive branch employees cannot simultaneously serve in the legislature is that the state constitutional prohibition applies only to public officers and not to lower level employees. The Legislative Counsel has also expressed this view. This ignores the plain language of the Nevada Constitution.

The separation of powers article prohibits persons exercising "powers" in one governmental branch from exercising "any functions" in another branch. These words have two entirely different meanings. Courts in other states with constitutional provisions similar to Nevada's interpret "functions" to cover a broader range of activities than "powers," so that even state-employed clerks, stenographers, teachers and janitors are barred from the Legislature.

So, when Jeff German stated in his recent column that Sandoval's opinion would even apply to a janitor in Sandoval's office, he was actually correct.

Finally, the argument is made that Sandoval's opinion undermines the concept of a citizens Legislature, that it is discriminatory and contrary to the people's will. The same arguments could be made about term limits and age restrictions for holding office, but those arguments cannot be taken seriously anymore. But is it really necessary to remind everyone that the constitutional provision banning state employees from the Legislature was adopted by, and already constitutes the will of, the people? Politicians must decide which is more important -- their private interests or the people's law. Sen. Ray Rawson, honorably, chose the law.

DONALD KLASIC

Editor's note: Donald Klasic is a semi-retired attorney living in Reno. He was a Nevada deputy attorney general from 1972 to 1981. From 1981 to 1997, he was the general counsel for the University and Community College System of Nevada.

archive