Into the rabbit hole
Nevada judge ignores plain language
IN a disappointing yet entirely unsurprising development, a Carson City judge on Tuesday further gutted the state’s separation of powers clause, intended to mitigate the dangers of consolidated authority.
Never let it be said that the state’s political establishment doesn’t protect its own.
Article 3, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution holds that the state government shall be divided into three separate departments — the legislative, executive and judicial — and “no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others.”
But District Court Judge James Russell this week jumped down the rabbit hole and ruled from the bench that the unambiguous codicil doesn’t mean what it clearly says. “The question is,” said Alice in Wonderland, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
The case involved Heidi Gansert, a Reno Republican who serves in the state Senate while also collecting a six-figure annual check from her day job as UNR’S executive director of external relations. The Nevada Policy Research Institute a libertarian think tank in Las Vegas, went to court, claiming that Ms. Gansert was in violation of the law because she was working in two branches of government — the legislative and executive — at the same time.
Ms. Gansert’s legal strategy was to parse the meaning of the word “powers” while simultaneously invoking the “everybody does it” defense.
In regard to the latter, she has a regrettable point. For decades, state lawmakers have ignored Article 3, Section 1 without consequence. Acting as accomplices, members of the Nevada judicial system have averted their gaze, using technicalities and feeble sophistry to avoid the issue. In shielding Ms. Gansert from her indifference to the state constitution, Judge Russell follows in that sorry tradition.
NPRI attorney Joseph Becker said he was “shocked” by the decision. But this is Nevada, after all.
The specifics of the judge’s reasoning won’t be known until an official ruling is put into writing in the coming days. But it appears he accepted without critical eye a dubious and self-serving 2003 Legislative Counsel Bureau opinion that the separation of powers language prevents only top officials or constitutional officers from serving in two branches at once. The LCB has the disappointing habit of telling lawmakers what they want to hear. Besides, no actual language in Article 3 supports the bureau’s interpretation.
Despite the state judiciary’s frustrating indifference to enforcing the state’s separation of powers clause, it remains an important concept worth fighting for. In addition to minimizing potential conflicts, the provision is designed to preserve the integrity of each governmental branch, to ensure checks and balances and to prevent the concentration of power, which the nation’s founders felt hastened tyranny.
Mr. Becker shouldn’t hesitate to appeal. If Nevada’s judges are intent on excising Article 3, Section 1 from the state constitution by judicial fiat, let’s get as many on the record as possible.
The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.
The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.
Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Fax 702-383-4676 levels have supported very robust biospheres in the past ; notably in the Cretaceous period (the so-called “Age of Dinosaurs”) where carbon dioxide levels were roughly three times what they are at present.
Climate change is a very real concern. Depending upon how this change affects weather patterns over the coming decades, millions, perhaps billions, of human lives could be put at risk, especially in such vulnerable areas as sub-saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent. I absolutely agree with professor Pravica that climate change is such a complex and evolving subject that the public would be better served by listening to the studied opinions of scientists and not half-informed assertions by celebrities, politicians and pundits.
That presupposes, of course, that those scientists do not fall into the same trap of sensationalism that professor Pravica accuses others of. income tax system. It should be abolished and replaced with an expanded, simple inheritance (death) tax. Unlike our current system in which cheaters abound and nearly half the population pays nothing, everyone would have skin in the game because there would be no exemptions — although naturally the tax rate should be progressive depending on the size of one’s estate.
Why should people who work and struggle to survive be taxed to the hilt while others who inherit millions generation after generation pay little or nothing?
Imagine how productive this country would be if people did not have to pay income taxes while they were living and base so many of their personal and business decisions on the tax structure.
Our crippling national debt could be paid off in short order and we could be much more prosperous.