Thursday, March 11, 2004 | 8:54 a.m.
It's not hard to foresee the chaos that would erupt if someone were elected to the Nevada Legislature this year but a court ruled that he could not be seated because his candidacy violated the Nevada Constitution. Voters would be outraged, there would be appeals and the Legislature would have to decide whether to defy the court or perhaps delay the 2005 session until the question could be finally settled by the Nevada Supreme Court.
Attorney General Brian Sandoval's written opinion that employees of the state's executive branch cannot also serve as legislators sets up this possible scenario. In his opinion, Sandoval said the state constitution does not allow a person to have overlapping executive and legislative powers -- that the powers of the judiciary, legislative and executive branches must be separate. Five legislators, including Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, a professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, remain affected by the decision (another legislator, Sen. Ray Rawson, R-Las Vegas, resigned his state job two days after Sandoval released his position). Because Sandoval's opinion does not have the force of law, the five legislators are free to run for re-election. The problem would arise if someone filed a lawsuit challenging their candidacy after the cl ose of filing (or worse, after they were elected), and the court ruled that they were not eligible.
Sandoval is planning to go directly to the Nevada Supreme Court, without waiting for a challenge. That way, the issue could be clarified before the candidates' May 14 filing deadline. Generally, we believe challenges to attorney general opinions should begin in District Court. But in this case, considering the potential for chaos, we believe it would be helpful if the Supreme Court issued an early ruling.
archive
