Editorial: Standing on principle

Sunday, Sept. 10, 2006 | 7:39 a.m.

On Friday the Nevada Supreme Court showed courage.

The seven justices unanimously removed from November's ballot an initiative that would have severely tied the hands of the Legislature and the governor when it comes to government spending and raising taxes to effectively meet the needs of the nation's fastest-growing state.

The reason the decision showed backbone is that the justices, especially the two who are running for re-election this November, are certain to come under a withering attack by right-wing reactionaries in this state, led by the anti-government, anti-everything Las Vegas Review-Journal.

But the facts and the law really could have led to no other outcome than what the justices reached with nary a dissent. The proponents of the Tax and Spending Control (TASC) initiative circulated two separate petitions. A circulated version of the initiative would have allowed $1.5 billion more in spending than the much more restrictive version that was on file with the secretary of state's office. In other words, it was a classic bait-and-switch.

TASC's supporters claimed this discrepancy was just a "typographical error," and that it shouldn't prevent the initiative from going on November's ballot. Give us a break. As the Supreme Court noted in its opinion, the Nevada Constitution's limits "place significant value and weight on ensuring that the people are properly and adequately notified about proposed constitutional amendments, that the people are able to understand the effect that a proposed amendment would have if enacted, and that the people are afforded an opportunity to study the initiative and debate its merits during the pre-election stage."

The justices' analysis demonstrated a reasoned, strict construction of Nevada law and the Constitution, something that all Nevadans - whether they're conservative, moderate or liberal - should respect. We certainly do.