Filing challenges high court ruling: Federal Judge blocks Nevada Assembly's tax-increase vote

Las Vegas Review-Journal ^ | July 14, 03 | Las Vegas Review-Journal

[churchillbuff]

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

U.S. District Judge Philip Pro temporarily restrained the action by which the Nevada Assembly passed a tax bill with less than a two-thirds vote. He ordered an en banc hearing with all district judges for 9 a.m. Wednesday in Reno and Las Vegas.

The Assembly voted 26-16 Sunday for a bill that would increase taxes by a record $788 million over the next two years.

Today, Republican lawmakers, citizens and business groups -- upset with Thursday's decision by the state Supreme Court rejecting the two-thirds vote requirement to pass taxes -- filed an action in U.S. District Court seeking to block the court's ruling.

Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville, said the federal action is necessary because the 6-1 Supreme Court ruling allowing only a simple majority to raise taxes is unconstitutional.

"We don't believe the court's decision that we can ignore the constitution is legal," he said.

[steveegg]

Thanks for the complement. I don't have the demeanor to be a lawyer, though.

[steveegg]

ANother poster said that "exceptions have been made" to the 2/3 requirement, but he did not elaborate on what the exceptions were, nor did he indicate that it had any bearing here.

Wouldn't have been me (hadn't been to the thread when you wrote this), but the only constitutional exception to the 2/3 requirement is that a proposed tax increase, once it passes the legislature by a simple majority, first gets placed before the voters in the next general election. If it's approved there by a majority vote, it then takes effect.

The SCON added a second, unconstitutional exception; when the legislature first approves drunken-sailor spending without authorizing funding for bloated school budgets and the governor refuses to let the legislature rethink their choice of bottles.

[steveegg]

While it's technically true that the SCON has set aside the 2/3 requirement just this one time, and that the "logic" it used is hideously tortured, it has set a precedent that if the same conditions apply again, the 2/3 requirement will be set aside again. All that a majority (but not 2/3) of the legislature and a governor need to do to retrigger this is pass a sufficient amount of spending that, when the school spending that isn't approved at the same time is added to it, outstrips the projected revenues and then provide for nothing but a tax increase in the ensuing special session.

Skimming through the rest of the Nevada constitution, I can see another scenario where the current SCON can be expected to rule that 2/3rds doesn't mean 2/3rds. I would prefer to not mention it lest the peabrains that figured out the current scam figure out the next one.

[garbanzo]

The federal constitution guarantees that each state shall have a republican form of government. Judges overturning the will of the people expressed via an amendment to the state constitution is a violation of republican government.

[goldstategop]

Its a settled principle of constitutional law that a more recent provision supersedes or prevails over an earlier one and its also a settled principle of constitutional law that the court's duty is to reconcile differing parts into a harmonious whole. The SCON instead chose to simply nullify a part of the State Constitution it didn't like. What they decreed was unconstitutional in that it exceeds the courts' power of judicial review and it usurps the the balance of power between the three branches of government when the SCON took upon itself to act both as a legislative and an executive department of the government. An unconstitutional ruling is null and void and has no legal effect. I would have liked to see Assembly Leader Lynn Hetrick challenge her colleagues to aid the court in its rape of Nevada voters - as they so brazenly have done. The entire state government of Nevada is lawless. And I would submit further to Congressman Billy Bob that it is no longer a state guaranteed a republican form of government. It is instead a state ruled by seven liberal autocrats on its highest state court.

[The Red Zone]

The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Nevada’s constitutional requirement that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature must give way to another constitutional mandate – to adequately fund public education.

Well it would seem like the buck stops there. You get one state constitutional provision saying "you must" and another saying "you can't" and the state supreme court has to figure out what happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object.

[goldstategop]

Yup. To liberals the answer is clear: government comes first and the money belongs to it by divine right. So saith the SCON Seven.

[ontos-on]

I am sorry if I am losing patiencce on this, but my post tried to make that clear. The point of my post was to exhibit that when the legislature passes the tax hike with the majority rather than the 2/3 requirement then AT THAT MOMENT, it is the LEGISLATURE that is diluting the lone legislator's vote.

The Court only issued an opinon and an Order. The dilution occurs only when the Legislature follows the order and dilutes the vote by passing the tax hike without the 2/3 majority required by the Nevada Constitution.

[ontos-on]

Of course, I am not saying that the present action in fedral court is moot because the assembly sought an injunction rather than follow the Order and pass the bill diluting the votes.

[ontos-on]

Of course, I am not saying that the present action in fedral court is moot because the assembly sought an injunction rather than follow the Order and pass the bill diluting the votes.

[gaspar]

The scarey thing is that Agosti is the CHIEF Justice. If you have that little respect for the law chaos results.

[steveegg]

Its a settled principle of constitutional law that a more recent provision supersedes or prevails over an earlier one and its also a settled principle of constitutional law that the court's duty is to reconcile differing parts into a harmonious whole.

Considering that the Nevada constitution is not formatted in a chronological order (i.e. an amendment meant to affect an existing portion repeals and recreates that portion), that is actually a moot point. For what it's worth, the 2/3 requirement came into being in 1996, while the last amendment to the "adequately fund" education section was back in 1954.

That having been said, had the SCON felt the urge to be "pro-active", they should have looked at the fact that the budget as passed did not include education, as mandated by the Nevada constitution, and then declared the entire budget null and void because of that deficiency. While even that would have some legal questions about it, it would seem to be the most-sound decision other than to let them continue to punt.

[xrp]

All of our rights will then disappear. What then?

Guns...lots of guns...

[Principled]

You can lose patience at your leisure. Clear posts alleviate that.

I know understand your point.

[The Old Hoosier]

Read the earlier stories. It was a truly unbelievable decision.

[hobbes1]

Considering that Nevadas Const. specifically states in the Article on Education that...

Section 6. Support of university and common schools by direct legislative appropriation. In addition to other means provided for the support and maintenance of said university and common schools, the legislature shall provide for their support and maintenance by direct legislative appropriation from the general fund, upon the presentation of budgets in the manner required by law.

The manner required by law, means whatever they can do without raising taxes, unless they have a supermajority...

Unbelievable.

[SolidSupplySide]

I am neither aware, nor very aware. This is the one thing in your post that contributes to the forum - thanks.

Could you tell us what exceptions have been made and whether it is germane to this complaint?

I am sorry to assume that you were aware of the underlying ruling of the SCONEV. The legislature of Nevada has failed to pass a bill to fund public education. The Nevada Constitution requires the state to fund public education. The SCONEV heard arguments that the reason the legislature has failed to fund public education was because of a Constitutional requirement that a 2/3 supermajority pass any bills to increase taxes. The SCONEV accepted these arguments and ruled that the 2/3 supermajority clause of the Nevada Constitution had an exception to fund Constitutionally required public education. That is the current law in Nevada.

This exception is the very heart of complaint. I am actually quite surprised that you weren't aware of it.

[Principled]

Indeed I became aware of the issue as a whole yesterday as I got into this thread. In all of about 30 minutes, I learned everything I know on the topic from this thread.

As it progresses, I learn more from my own searches and contributions like yours.

Why do you think that the court ruled that the 2/3 majority could be excepted rather than ruling otherwise (eg legislators fined until agreement or some such). Was it only because the court didn't hear contrary argument? Have they not opened pandora's box in that whenever dems want more $, they simply delay until after the July 1 deadline to reduce required majority? If 50% + 1 says they need 573 trillion for education, the budget will not get passed by the 2/3...july one passes, and the 2/3 requirement would be circumvented...

Many opine that the feds will intervene, many opine otherwiswe. I am anxious to see the outcome...
what are your thoughts?

[SolidSupplySide]

SSS: You don't like the law,

Principled (sic): Who said? You just made that up! Liar.

Am I to interpret this that you like the law that the legislature can sometimes ignore the 2/3 supermajority to raise taxes? For the record, I don't like that law. I think it is bad law, and that the citizens of Nevada should extract a price from the SCONEV through political means. Honestly, I thought you didn't like the law creating exemptions for the supermajority requirement.

SSS: ...you desire federal courts to review whether or not the Nevada Supreme Court had the authority to interpret Nevada law in this manner.

Principled (sic): No hell I don't. Do you fashion yourself a NYT reporter, making stuff up and all?

Am I to interpret this to mean you do not desire the courts to find jurisdiction in this case? Your previous posts seem to indicate you preferred federal court intervention. I am pleased to think that you have come along to states' rights principles by arguing that the federal courts should stay out of a state issue.

SSS: It is obvious that you are no supporter of states' rights.

Principled (sic): It is obvious you're an idiot. Nowhere did I state or connote such. What are you smoking/injecting? For the record, I am a proponent of state's rights. You'll find nothing to the contrary in any of my posts.

Many of your previous posts indicated you desired federal courts to interpret Nevada law. Any supporter of states' rights would be horrified at that. (Ask Texans whether or not the SCOTUS should have intervened in Lawrence v. Texas.) But it seems you may be changing gears and opposing federal court intervention in a case clearly comprised of Nevada courts interpreting Nevada law.

And what the hell is the point of the Florida crap anyway?

As I stated, elsewhere on the thread, some people were drawing similarities to Bush v. Gore. However, in that case, election laws as interpreted by the SCOFLA would have been unconstitutional in all 50 states. The SCOTUS had to act. A simple majority to raise taxes is not universally unconstitutional. We principled states' rights supporters think the federal courts should leave Nevada alone.

Remainder of ad hominem attacks deleted.

[SolidSupplySide]

Why do you think that the court ruled that the 2/3 majority could be excepted rather than ruling otherwise (eg legislators fined until agreement or some such).

I have heard anecdotes that the SCONEV responded very favorably to teacher's unions. Why the SCONEV would be favorably disposed to teachers' unions is beyond me, but if that is not the desire of the citizens of Nevada, they should get rid of the offending members of their supreme court through political means.