Columnist Jon Ralston: AG’s ruling to define paths

Friday, Feb. 27, 2004 | 5:55 a.m.

Jon Ralston hosts the news discussion program Face to Face on Las Vegas ONE and publishes the Ralston Report. He can be reached at (702) 870-7997 or at ralston@vegas.com.

WEEKEND EDITION

Feb. 28 - 29, 2004

When Attorney General Brian Sandoval releases his finding this week on whether public employees can serve in the Legislature, one of the only certainties is that it will not affect the man whose actions caused the opinion to be written.

Although Wendell Williams, who began Double Dippinggate, doesn't have to worry after finally being fired by his maundering bosses, many others are fretting and scheming as Sandoval's words could affect the Legislature's composition and dramatically alter the state's political dynamics.

It's probably too much to ask that the opinion, besides catalyzing lawsuits and controversy, would have salubrious effects such as muzzling the Review-Journal's preferred source and public employee-basher, George Harris, or prompting a serious debate, legal and political, over who should serve in the Legislature. But what might happen is that two prominent Democratic leaders, both of whom have evinced an interest in being governor, will have to rethink both of their public careers.

Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, a university professor, and Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, a Henderson policeman, may be the two most interested parties in Sandoval's incipient opinion.

In fact, not since an opinion by Sandoval's predecessor essentially determined the outcome of the 1994 governor's race has an attorney general's ruling been so eagerly awaited. Frankie Sue Del Papa's tortured definition of what the word "days" means allowed Bob Miller to run in 1994 for what some saw as a constitutionally prohibited third term.

Now Sandoval's opinion on public employees could affect the gubernatorial candidacies of Titus and Perkins. Both face voters this year, but their situations are very different.

Titus seems unwilling to relinquish her university job and has taken to floating her name for Congress if she can't seek re-election. But how can she tell people she is committed to and preparing for a gubernatorial bid and yet blithely say she will take on Rep. Jon Porter if the opinion doesn't go her way? And, second, while Titus could be a formidable foe for Porter, she now has to contend with ex-Park Place Entertainment CEO Tom Gallagher, who is exploring a bid.

Perkins, though, is so bent on running for governor that he is concentrating on building his base and ensuring he still has his title next session. Not too many people know who the Assembly speaker is, but it sure sounds better than "minority leader." Just ask Titus.

I also believe Perkins, who is nearing retirement from the police department, will decide to leave early to devote full time to his gubernatorial ambitions -- no matter what Sandoval says.

There will be other potential political impacts, too, on lesser legislative figures, most of them Democrats. Sandoval, a Republican, knows that banning public employees obviously helps his party by eviscerating the Democratic leadership team, and he surely will be criticized if he stops short of a total prohibition.

But amid this intense pressure and scrutiny, Sandoval has handled this just right. Once a thoughtful lawmaker and gaming regulator, he has approached the issue with an admirable seriousness and deliberation, requesting information from other states, some that allow public employees to serve and some that do not. The release also has taken longer than he expected because his deputy working on it, Victoria Oldenburg, was busy writing that phenomenal and scathing opinion about the regents flouting the open-meeting law.

Oldenburg had to analyze the often-conflicting laws in other jurisdictions and reconcile those with the vagaries of Nevada statutes and its Constitution, which appears to prohibit public employees from serving in the language of Article I, Section 1:

"The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments, -- the Legislative, -- the Executive and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others ..."

But Sandoval does not see the language as opaque, the issue as black and white, as he said on "Face to Face" last month:

"... in other states where they said, yes, certainly there may be an issue associated with the separation of powers but at the same time do you prohibit an individual from having the right to represent the people of his or her state? So you have to balance those."

But what happens if Oldenburg has reached a conclusion on that balancing test that Sandoval does not like? "Ultimately, if it becomes close, if there is an equal body of law on each side, yes, I will probably have to make a decision based on philosophical reasons," he said.

Sandoval has held the deliberations very close and has scoffed at the speculation that he will bar university employees from serving but allow local government employees to run -- that is what has caused Titus to talk about Congress so much lately.

How ironic would it be if Williams, whose career is moribund, were re-elected, but Titus, who still has hills she wants to climb, were not? And how delicious would it be if state Supreme Court justices, who caused so much controversy for lawmakers last year by erasing the taxing supermajority, have to rule on this and cause themselves even more grief?

Sandoval's opinion will be both the beginning and the end of questions about public employees and the Legislature -- just as it will signal the beginning and the end of certain political paths.