Posted on 07/18/2003 2:11:12 PM PDT by adaven
Federal judges in Nevada reject challenge in tax dispute case
By CHRISTINA ALMEIDA, Associated Press
LAS VEGAS — A panel of federal judges in Nevada on Friday rejected a challenge of a Nevada Supreme Court decision that set aside a state constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority vote on a tax plan. In a unanimous decision, the seven justices found that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that ‘‘district courts have no power to declare a ruling of a state supreme court violated provisions of the federal Constitution.’’ The decision followed a historic Nevada Supreme Court ruling last week that temporarily set aside the two-thirds voting requirement, clearing the way for lawmakers to break through a tax impasse that has extended through one regular and two special sessions. During a 90-minute hearing held Wednesday in U.S. District Court, lawyers for the state argued that the state high court has the final word on interpreting the Nevada Constitution and any appeal should be taken directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
With the ruling, the federal judges dissolved a temporary restraining order issued Monday that prevented legislative action on an $800 million-plus tax plan unless a two-thirds majority was achieved.
‘‘We are, of course, disappointed that the district court has lifted the injunction and dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds,’’ said John Eastman, director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence who represented the plaintiffs in the case. Eastman said he plans to file an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Friday’s opinion, the federal judges left open the possibility that plaintiffs who are not lawmakers may refile their case in state court or in U.S. District Court.
A group of 24 Republicans from the Assembly and Senate, along with a host of Nevada residents, filed petitions seeking a preliminary injunction blocking lawmakers from passing a tax plan without a two-thirds vote. The federal judges said the lawmakers were named in the state Supreme Court decision and were precluded from petitioning the U.S. District Court for relief. ‘‘Because this court cannot grant the relief requested by the Legislator Plaintiffs without voiding the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court, subject matter jurisdiction to consider their claims is lacking,’’ the judges wrote.
The U.S. District Court judges wrote in the opinion that the only federal court suitable to address the lawmakers’ claims is the U.S. Supreme Court. Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, who favors higher taxes, had requested the state Supreme Court’s intervention after legislators deadlocked on a tax plan needed to balance a nearly $5 billion two-year budget.
In the state Supreme Court ruling, justices ruled that a simple majority vote on a tax plan was acceptable since other constitutional mandates required a balanced budget and adequate funding for public schools.
‘‘I’m not surprised. I never thought there was a federal question in the case,’’ said Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas. ‘‘We’re going to try to get two-thirds but if it means shutting down schools, then we will go with a simple majority and go home.’’
This is such a crock... What does "adequate funding" mean? Does the contitution require that no other spending be cut?
It's definitely a federal case : a 4th amendment case. Potentially the first one in 150 years.
What may be interesting is that O'Connor has already shown an interest in matters pertaining to the 4th amendment.
I just went over some of the law on this one a couple of days ago, and IIRC this is true only upon appeal. As I understand it, without a ruling there could be no appeal, unless this involves a type of writ with which I am not familiar.
She's so wishy washy though. Throw up enough fog and she will go which ever way the wind blows.
I think there is a 4th amendment case too. But after reading this article, I'm not sure there is much of one.
The state constitution requires a balanced budget, adequate funding for schools (whatever that means) and a 2/3 majority vote.
The question is has enough been done, are they truly at an impass, where they can't accomplish all three, before throwing out 1 of the 3 provisions. And how does the court know enough has been done?
Yeah but isn't Guinn a Republican leading the whole thing, Won't his actions help more Rat legislators get elected? Including helping Reid retain his Senate seat?
Does Nevada have a recall like California? Guinn has got to go.
Does Nevada have laws something like Texas that a certain number of Reps must be present to have a vote? If it does the real Republicans outta do what the Dems in Texas did and flee to Idaho or Utah, I wonder if they would be treated as heros in the press like they were in Texas? Yeah Right!!
Article IV Section. 4.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
And to qam1 : I hadn't heard that Republicans were supporting this. If true, then $#!$@#*!!
Have you heard that this is a large number of republicans?
Quoting from the article: Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, who favors higher taxes, had requested the state Supreme Court’s intervention after legislators deadlocked on a tax plan needed to balance a nearly $5 billion two-year budget.
Looks like the Arizona GOP won't come out smelling like a rose here.
The Republican legislators here in California are the only thing stopping the Gray Davis tax hike because, like Nevada and Arizona all tax increases require a super majorities and the GOP has just enough "Nay" votes to stop it.
A State SC which voids an Amendment to the State Constitution and orders a Legislature to vote a certain way is not acting in accordance with a Republic.
SCONEV is a scofflaw court and needs to be slapped down for violating of Article IV.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.