Editorial: Constitution is sacrosanct

Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004 | 9:23 a.m.

Today the Las Vegas Sun offers its views on the Nov. 2 ballot questions that would amend the Nevada Constitution if voters pass them at two consecutive general elections. Our views on other ballot questions will appear Friday.

We believe that the state Constitution is a sacrosanct document that should be changed only rarely, and then only to remove archaic language or to strengthen the basic freedoms it guarantees Nevada citizens, such as the right to be free, to vote, to worship and speak freely and to petition the government.

The Constitution stands apart from the transitory, day-to-day affairs of state. It is the essential framework for all of the laws passed, approved and interpreted by the legislative, executive and judicial branches of our state government. Those laws properly reside in the volumes of the Nevada Revised Statutes. They are changed as generations and the issues they confront change.

The fundamental laws residing in the Constitution, on the other hand, are for all time. We must not bypass our Legislature and clutter the Constitution with amendments that really are nothing more than laws governing current issues. Yet that is what is proposed in four of the six questions on the ballot.

Question 1 seeks an amendment stating that education funding must become the first order of business during legislative sessions. Emotions ran high during the 2003 session as a tax increase tied to education funding became the central issue. But we see this as a passing issue. The order in which the Legislature conducts its business is not fundamental to our freedoms. The Sun recommends a no vote on Question 1.

Question 2 would place in the Constitution the requirement to fund education at the national average. Those committed to voting yes on Question 1 should also vote yes on this one, to show a real commitment to education. Having said that, however, we cannot endorse Question 2. Again, this enshrines in the Constitution a requirement best embodied in state law, which can be more easily changed to reflect current trends. The Sun recommends a no vote on Question 2.

Question 4 would add insurance regulation to the provisions of the Constitution. It would require a rollback of rates, mandate that insurers justify any increases, and ensure that good drivers be entitled to discounts on auto insurance. The real purpose behind this proposal sponsored by personal injury lawyers, however, is that it would also decree that any state law limiting jury awards in medical malpractice cases be void unless insurance companies lower their malpractice rates. Question 5 (also sponsored by personal injury lawyers), ostensibly, would create penalties for lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits. The question is vague, however, and so subject to interpretation that it could provide for even more frivolous lawsuits. Questions 4 and 5 are not necessary, as the Constitution gives Nevada residents (through the Legislature) the power to reform law s when necessary. Insurance and medical malpractice are covered in state laws, and it is the laws, not the Constitution, wh! ich should be changed if current issues demand it. The Sun recommends no votes on Questions 4 and 5.

Question 6 would amend the Constitution to establish a new minimum-wage requirement for Nevada's workers. Here, we believe this change would be appropriate. The Nevada Constitution sets forth certain "inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying ... life and liberty ... and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." We believe the small increase resulting from this question is in the spirit of that fundamental right. Passing this question would show that Nevada values its working men and women. The Sun recommends a yes vote on Question 6.

Question 7 is also an appropriate change. Currently, the Constitution prohibits "idiots or insane" people from voting. We agree with the new wording, which states that "a person who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, unless restored to legal capacity," is prohibited from voting. The Sun recommends a yes vote on Question 7.