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.

[SolidSupplySide]

I'm glad the fed judge did this, but how does he have jurisdiction in matters of nevada law?

Not a prinicipled (pun on screenname intended) believer in states' rights are you? You don't like the court's decision so you want the federal government to create a jurisdiction claim. How often do you want the federal government to step into state matters?

A believer in states' rights would say that the Nevada Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to interpret the laws of Nevada. The proper course for Nevadans to take after this miscarriage of justice is to kick their Supremes out of office through political means.

[churchillbuff]

A believer in states' rights would say that the Nevada Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to interpret the laws of Nevada.

That's why I'm not a believer in states' rights -- any more than I'm a believer in animal rights or "tree rights." I'm a believer in INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS' rights - - and when states, or any other level of government, violate individuals' rights, there should be an appeal to a higher authority.

[John Locke]

Isn't it the federal government's job to intervene when a state government is usurping the most fundamental rights of its own citizenry?

Indeed it is:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government..."

[The Constitution of the United States of America, Art IV Sect 4]

What the Nevada judges have done is a clear and blatant coup d'etat against the republican government of the State of Nevada, and the general government - or, for that matter, the citizens of Nevada - are fully entitled to reverse it by legislation, by judicial intervention, or, if necessary, by the Sword.

[Mr. Lucky]

...but wouldn't it be better were the higher authority not always the federal judiciary?

[only1percent]

Right on the nose!

The guarantee clause is the likely source of Federal jurisdiction, although this will doubtless create a lot of noise as far as the substantive decision goes. Federal courts have always held that just as the U.S. Constitution is what the U.S. Supreme Court says it is, state constitutions are what the relevant state high courts say they are. The authority to determine which section of a state constitution should predominate when two sections are in conflict seems one left to the state supreme courts.

Were a permanent injunction granted, my guess is that the 9th Circuit would reverse unanimously and the Washington Nine would not grant cert ... but I've been wrong about that kind of thing before. However, because this is a budget matter and budgets ultimately get settled in weeks, not years, this will not be a live controversy to get appealled.

The district court holdings will get discussed in law review articles quite a bit, though!

[SolidSupplySide]

I'm a believer in INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS' rights - - and when states, or any other level of government, violate individuals' rights, there should be an appeal to a higher authority.

I'm not sure what you mean. My original post suggested that Nevadans take care of their Supreme Court through political means. It appears that you are arguing that the federal government is a higher authority than the citizenry. I reject that in the most passionate terms.

[Principled]

http://leg.state.nv.us/TRO/order.pdf

also see post 42

[GWhite]

Would have been nice if the Nevada Supreme Court had ruled that Nevada "must cut spending to ensure adequeate funding for public education."

I won't hold my breath............

[Principled]

http://leg.state.nv.us/TRO/list.cfm

good info here.

The Nevada State Constitution, Article IV SS18(2) requires a two thirds majority to raise taxes.

Originally passed in 1994, the measure was made into a constitutional amendment which was also passed, in 1996.

The legislators are being denied their vote. They have precedent in their brief. They will win.

[Principled]

sorry, i mean post #40...

[SolidSupplySide]

Your post makes no sense. You reference a message that doubts that a federal question exists in this matter. Furthermore, you link to a TRO that contains no conclusions of law. What exactly is the point of your post?

[ontos-on]

"...but wouldn't it be better were the higher authority not always the federal judiciary?"

why do you object to federalism?

[churchillbuff]

My original post suggested that Nevadans take care of their Supreme Court through political means.

That means a long and arduous process. If the Nevada Supreme Court has violated basic rights by tearing up the laws of the state, then an appeal to federal authorities is appropriate.

[ontos-on]

What makes you be a "believer in "states' rights" over "fundamental constitutional rights"?

[Mr. Lucky]

OK, wouldn't it be better were the higher authority not always the judicial arm of the central government?

[ontos-on]

"...but wouldn't it be better were the higher authority not always the federal judiciary?"

why do you object to federalism?

[TheAngryClam]

Just as good as any. People here will know what you're talking about.

[SolidSupplySide]

You are very aware, aren't you, that the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that there are exceptions to the 2/3 supremajority requirement. That is currently the law in Nevada. You don't like the law, so instead of resolving it through political means, you desire federal courts to review whether or not the Nevada Supreme Court had the authority to interpret Nevada law in this manner. It is obvious that you are no supporter of states' rights.

I reject the similarities to Bush v. Gore elsewhere on this thread. The SCOTUS never claimed that the SCOFLA did not have the authority to interpret Florida election laws the way it did. The SCOTUS determined that the SCOFLA's interpretation of Florida election law violated the 14th amendment; in other words, Florida election law was unconstitutional. SCOFLA eventually issued a new opinion in Bush v. Gore that made Florida election law constitutional under the new interpretation.

[Carry_Okie]

It is pursuant to the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789. Any State action, which is repugnant to the US Constitution is actionable in Federal Court. This judicial over-ruling of a State Constitution in a matter of appropriations is a clear violation of the Separation of Powers principle.

[Mr. Lucky]

Hello?