Federal judges in Nevada reject challenge in tax dispute case

Nevada Appeal / Associated Press ^ | July 18, 2003 | CHRISTINA ALMEIDA

[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.’’

[ZGuy]

"Looks like the Arizona GOP won't come out smelling like a rose here."

Well it serves 'em right for messing around in Nevada's politics!!! :^)

[George W. Bush]

Most bodies must have a quorum (two-thirds) present to begin a meeting/session or to hold a vote. So obviously, the Republicans could do this. I somehow doubt they'd do it though.

Dims are expected to run and pout and their voters cheer them for it. Repubs are expected to behave like adults by their voters, generally speaking.

[CA Conservative]

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?

This is a manufactured crisis. The Dems passed a general fund budget that spent all of the available funds (but did not fund education) during the regular session. The RINO governor them called the legislature into special session to deal with the education budget and a tax increase only. He will not allow them to reconsider the general budget for spending cuts to find the money for education. The Nevada Supreme Court decided that the only solution was to throw out the 2/3 requirement to pass a tax increase.

The correct decision would have been to order the legislature to cut all spending not explicitly mandated by the state constitution by an amount sufficient to provide "adequate" funding to education. In that way, all of the constitutional requirements could have been respected. Of course, that would not have served the agenda of the liberals and RINOs pushing this trainwreck.

[CA Conservative]

Most bodies must have a quorum (two-thirds) present to begin a meeting/session or to hold a vote. So obviously, the Republicans could do this. I somehow doubt they'd do it though.

According the website of the Nevada Legislature, a simple majority is required for a quorum to do busines...

[Deb]

I know. So? What party were the people who filed the appeal? I'll bet they weren't Democrats.

[Poohbah]

It's definitely a federal case : a 4th amendment case. Potentially the first one in 150 years.

Actually, it's an Article IV case, not a 4th Amendment case.

[CFC__VRWC]

Let the recall drives begin. Recall every single Nevada Supreme Court justice, as well as the RINO governor. And then when November 2004 rolls around, Nevada voters need to start clubbing some Rats!

[George W. Bush]

The correct decision would have been to order the legislature to cut all spending not explicitly mandated by the state constitution by an amount sufficient to provide "adequate" funding to education. In that way, all of the constitutional requirements could have been respected.

Nicely put. I hadn't thought of all that but it has the ring of a proper legal remedy. Sounds like maybe you have professional legal training.

[CA Conservative]

Nicely put. I hadn't thought of all that but it has the ring of a proper legal remedy. Sounds like maybe you have professional legal training.

Thanks for the compliment. No legal training, but I have 1 sister who is an attorney, 1 brother-in-law who is a police officer and attorney, another sister who works for the DA's office, and a fiancee who is an attorney. But mostly, I have been blessed with a little bit of common sense!

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

[ZGuy]

Hey don't feel bad. I'm the one who said "Fourth Amendment" instead of "Article IV"!! It must be Friday.

[DannyTN]

Thanks, I see, so the Nevada SC is complicit in the manufactured crisis. I agree, I think the SC should have put all spending back on the table instead of siding with the Tax increase.

I hate for a trial balloon like this to go up to SCOTUS given that they are so liberal.

hmmmm what are the possibilities

• SCOTUS rejects the case saying that it's between the Nevada Legislature and Nevada SC.
  • Tax proponents win
  • But maybe tick off the populace enough to impeach some judges as well as elect some conservatives.
• SCOTUS overturns the Nevada SC on 4th admendment grounds and remands it to the Nevada SC for another solution...but what???
• SCOTUS overturns the Nevada SC and imposes their own solution (I really don't like that one)
• SCOTUS doesn't reject the case on authority grounds, but upholds the Nevada SC decision. Giving all state SC's the ability to legislate contrived crises.

[OldFriend]

LET THE RECALL BEGIN

[Lurking Libertarian]

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a line of cases going back to 1849, has held that only Congress, not the federal courts, has the power to decide whether a state has a "republican form of government."

[John123]

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.

Those of you in the legal profession, please explain to me who does have the power to declare a ruling of a state supreme court violated provisions of the federal Constitution? If not the Federal District Court, the United States Supreme Court?

[Atlas Sneezed]

"So Nevada's constitution requires both a balanced budget passed by a two-thirds supermajority and 'adequate' school funding."

Actually, the word "adequate" never appears. The legislature shall "encourage education", "provide for a uniform system of common schools", "provide for [the] support and maintenance [of schools] by direct legislative appropriation from the general fund, upon the presentation of budgets in the manner required by law." That's it.

The pertinent excerpts are below:

ARTICLE. 11. Education.
Section 1. Legislature to encourage education; appointment, term and duties of superintendent of public instruction. The legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, literary, scientific, mining, mechanical, agricultural, and moral improvements, and also provide for a superintendent of public instruction and by law prescribe the manner of appointment, term of office and the duties thereof.

Section 2. Uniform system of common schools. The legislature shall provide for a uniform system of common schools, by which a school shall be established and maintained in each school district at least six months in every year, and any school district which shall allow instruction of a sectarian character therein may be deprived of its proportion of the interest of the public school fund during such neglect or infraction, and the legislature may pass such laws as will tend to secure a general attendance of the children in each school district upon said public schools.
...
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.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst.html

[cdrw]

I dont know the details of this particular case but the manufacturing you describe has been a trend in many states for a long time. I think it started with all the "user fees" that started showing up about a dozen years ago. Some brilliant consultant must have figured out that people would accept a "fee" for things like 911 or ambulance services that had always been funded by general funds but were now suddenly to be shut down if the tax payers didn't agree to pay the fees. Meanwhile a commensurate amount of pork was added to the budget coming from the general funds.

Now we've had virtually all the state legislatures cranking up their expenditure rates during the boom on the gross assumption that the economy and thier tax receipts would never slow down. Now suddenly we find all forms of threatening proposals coming from our state governments holding education, roads, DMV offices ... hostage.

When this happens in private industry we all know the result. It's cost cutting time and its healty if not painful for the employees. Companies would become horribly bloated and unprofitable without the occasional house cleaning. We have to stand firm and force OUR government to do the same. The politicians are OUR employees - lets fire them if they dont do their job as they have failed to do so in NV.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Those of you in the legal profession, please explain to me who does have the power to declare a ruling of a state supreme court violated provisions of the federal Constitution?"

I think the deal is that a federal district court is simply a trial court, not an appeals court. Trial courts do not weigh the legal error of other courts. Thus, one goes to the 9th Circus, or SCOTUS.

[SolidSupplySide]

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a line of cases going back to 1849, has held that only Congress, not the federal courts, has the power to decide whether a state has a "republican form of government."

I don't understand why you consider this to be unfortunate. I find it extremely fortunate that federal courts can't dissolve the republican government of a sovereign state on a whim.

[Lurking Libertarian]

who does have the power to declare a ruling of a state supreme court violated provisions of the federal Constitution? If not the Federal District Court, the United States Supreme Court?

The short answer is yeas, but it's actually a bit more complicated than the quoted sentence makes it seem. In this case, the plaintiffs in the district court case were the same people who were the losing parties before the Nevada Supreme Court. Because of that fact, a rule known as the "Rooker-Feldman doctrine" says that they couldn't start the case over again in U.S. District Court, but could only appeal the Nevada Supreme Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.