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?
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.
There was precious little reasoning in the majority decision (both the decision and the partial dissent are available in both HTML and PDF formats). From what I've been able to decipher, the Gang of 6 SCONs saw this as a conflict solely between the "specific, substantiative" requirement to fund education and the "procedural" requirement that 2/3rds of the legislature must agree to raise taxes. The SCON took it upon themselves to go beyond the requested relief from Governor RINO (an adomition to the Legislature to change a sufficient number of votes to get his precious big tax increase) and instead granted a relief suggested by the teachers' unions.
The "logic" employed by the Gang of 6 is best captured by this quote from an earlier SCON case (decided by the same members): "We must give words their plain meaning unless doing so would violate the spirit of the provision." (emphasis added). I can see no precedent-setting prohibition against making the "simple majority" now called for 40%, 33% or, in the most-extreme case, even 1 vote in either house in the future to raise taxes. The only limitation that the SCON gave itself (at least for now) was that it couldn't unilaterally impose a tax increase or spend money.
I find it odd that only the partial dissent mentions any alternative to this particular rewriting of the Nevada constitution. It mentions a proposed relief offered by several legislators that would have forced the governor to allow the legislators to reconsider the rest of the budget. However, the justice rejected it as that would have violated the separation of powers clause of the constitution (the setting of the agenda of a special session is constitutionally-defined as being the sole province of the governor). He also notes, after dismissing the "budget repair" remedy, that there is still significant waste in the budget. As for the rest of that particular opinion, he disagrees with the Gang of 6 only as to the timing of the remedy.
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...
You figured out this game. All it takes, for now, is a tax-increasing governor and a simple majority of the legislature. However, I can easily see the SCON extending it to compel a lean-thinking legislature unable to override a tax-increasing governor's veto of a trim budget to pass the bloated budget and tax increases.