Legal experts to discuss effects of tax ruling

Kirsten Searer

Friday, April 23, 2004 | 8:51 a.m.

Last year's controversial Nevada Supreme Court decision that paved the way for a tax increase could have much broader implications, a law professor was to argue today at a panel discussion.

John Eastman, the attorney appealing the case in federal court, said the decision, which set aside a constitutional requirement for tax increase bills to receive a two-thirds vote by both legislative houses, sets a dangerous precedent of allowing courts to ignore constitutional provisions.

He and other law professors were slated to examine the Guinn v. Legislature case at a seminar scheduled today at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The event is advertised as giving a "scholarly, not political" look at the case.

Eastman argues that the case could even be used in Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court is looking at the issue of gay marriage, and in Colorado, where a judge gave parental rights to a lesbian couple whose relationship wasn't recognized by state law.

Nevada's case, he said, set a precedent that justices do not have to allow "people to decide the law of the land," said Eastman, who is a professor at the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute in California.

The Guinn v. Legislature case was fought by a group of 24 state legislators who argued that a two-thirds majority vote was needed to pass the tax increase.

But the state Supreme Court eventually ruled that simple majority would suffice.

Justices ruled that it was more important to pass the budget -- and have money for important functions such as the coming school year -- than it was to follow a requirement put in the state Constitution by voters that two-thirds of the Legislature must approve a tax increase.

Sylvia Lazos, a professor at the UNLV law school, said she will argue that the case won't have a far-reaching impact unless there is a very similar case involving tax increases.

She compares the case to another high-profile case, Bush v. Gore, in which the U.S. Supreme Court sorted out the stalemate in counting votes in Florida in the 2000 election.

Justices in that case also ruled that it was important to proceed with government business, she said.

"They decided to take steps to not allow the government to become embroiled and enmeshed in a deadlock," she said.

Steve Johnson, another UNLV law professor scheduled to sit on the panel, agreed that "there was no good decision" that the justices in Nevada could make.

"There was (no) option available to the court that would have satisfied all of the provisions of the Nevada Constitution," he said.

Johnson said it's important to look at the Guinn v. Legislature now that the controversy surrounding it has cooled somewhat.

"We need to be thinking about the proper relationship among the branches of government and the balance between government as a threat and government as a protector -- which is represented by tax and spending decisions," he said.