Only Just Beginning

This spring has certainly been a memorable one in Carson City. Yet during this 77th session of the Nevada Legislature, I couldn't help but think of what went down at the end of the 76th session. Remember the suprise Nevada Supreme Court decision that ultimately led to an unsurprising continuation of the status quo?

Remember the definition of insanity? We can't keep doing the same thing while expecting different results! We can't keep robbing Peter to pay Paul. We can't keep playing the same "accounting tricks" that ultimately got Enron into trouble. We can't keep avoiding reality.

The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling was a brutal reality check. And even if Brian Sandoval and most legislators continue to ignore the overarching message of that ruling to play more games and hobble together some sort of "Frankenstein budget", Nevadans are getting fed up with this nonsense. People out here are hurting, and they are wondering when they will see more job openings and how their kids will be able to get into college. Meanwhile in Carson, the debate is all about how [many] workers need to be attacked before schools can be allowed to stay open.

Wonderful. (snark)

But what if we don't want to keep going down this same road?

And that led us to think aloud about a different path forward.

It's now a question of whether Nevada will keep sputtering on its way to the bottom, or if progressives can turn this around and take advantage of this unique opportunity to inject more common sense into our state government. The days of Kenny Guinn and Barbara Buckley and Bill Raggio making "grand bargains" seem to be long gone. Term limits are taking away experienced legislators. Meanwhile, the power vacuum is being filled by corporate lobbyists, party central committees, and other outside forces.

So what can we do? In the long term, I still believe it's in our best interest that progressives work toward reforming state government to make it more responsive to the people and less beholden to special corporate interests. But in the mean time, we can't wait on the sidelines for the next two years while Nevada's people continue to suffer inadequate public education, health care, transportation, and other infrastructure necessary to make our state whole again.

So now, we have to ask ourselves not whether and when we will go to the ballot and ask the people to save our state, but how we will do so and who we will build coalitions with. Should we work with gaming and mining on a broad-based business tax? Should we work with other progressive activists on a corporate income tax? Should we push for some sort of mining tax reform? 2012 may seem like a long hike away, but it really isn't. We need to start planning now to take the first necessary steps to save our state and bring real progressive reform to Nevada government.

In many ways, it's started to feel like deja vu yet again. "Big talk" on tax reform has been replaced with tinkering around the edges (of a very broken system). And despite growing trouble arising from chronic underfunding of our social safety net, the chronic underfunding looks quite set to continue (albeit at a slightly less severe level).

Yet with this being said, something is different this time. This time, We the People will have the final say. 2014 may seem like a long hike away, but it truly isn't. And with The Education Initiative and SJR 15 going to the ballot box next year, this is only just beginning.

While we may yet see another politically convenient state budget full of ridiculously bad policy, something is different this time. It may not last too long. Voters will have the opportunity to finally put an end to the status quo next year. This is only just beginning.

SB 229 Secures Final Passage, Will Repeal "Trash Tahoe Bill"

This week has truly been a wild one in Carson City. We've seen plenty of action as the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature comes to a close. And yes, we even saw major progress on saving Lake Tahoe.

The Assembly voted 40-1 to pass SB229 which repeals a law passed by the 2011 Legislature that paved the way for Nevada to exit the Tahoe Compact created in the late 1960s to regulate development and oversee environmental controls in the Tahoe Basin that straddles Nevada and California. The Senate passed the measure in April.

"We have found new ways to cooperate, and SB229's repeal of the timetable of withdraw sends a strong message that Nevada supports working together with California to protect the lake," Assemblyman David Bobzien, D-Reno, said while urging his colleagues' support on the floor. [...]

Bobzien urged lawmakers to support a plan to withdraw Nevada's threat to leave the Tahoe Compact with California. The Assembly approved the measure 40-1. (AP Photo/Cathleen Allison)

The bill was ushered through the Legislature after Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and California Gov. Jerry Brown recently announced an agreement to protect Lake Tahoe's delicate ecosystem while also considering the economy when making land use decisions.

"Tahoe is a natural beauty we have to be proud of in our state and I'm glad everybody could come together to work together," said Nevada Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas. "I'm glad that Tahoe will stay blue and we have good compromise, and I'm glad the governors worked together as well."

"The timetable for withdrawal from the compact was just always a problem," Bobzien said. "The forum for cooperating has always been the compact, so if you make the statement that the compact should be dissolved, how do you expect people to cooperate."

This has been a long time coming. In 2011, the Legislature voted for SB 271. And in turn, that launched a protracted war with California as environmental advocates on both sides of the state line were horrified by this brazen attempt to dismantle safeguards meant to preserve Tahoe.

So this session, SB 229 was introduced to repeal the 76th session's SB 271 and preserve regulatory safeguards for Lake Tahoe. Yet even as SB 229 passed the State Senate last month, its future remained uncertain as Governor Brian Sandoval (R) made veto threats. After all, since corporate developers pushed Tahoe to the brink, they seemed hungry for more.

But then, we saw a surprising twist of fate. Earlier this month, Governor Sandoval announced an agreement with California Governor Jerry Brown (D) to pass SB 229/repeal SB 271. Apparently, California's threats of unilateral regulation and the continuing law suit against the recent revisions to Lake Tahoe's master plan proved to be too much for Governor Sandoval to ignore.

And now, we have overwhelming Assembly passage of SB 229. And under the agreement secured from California Governor Brown, Nevada Governor Sandoval has reversed his stance and promised to sign it into law. While many questions remain over the future of oversight and over-development at Lake Tahoe, at least the lake's advocates can celebrate the end to the all out assault on the entire regulatory framework meant to save Tahoe.

SJR 15 PASSES #NVLeg, Goes to Voters Next Year

As we mentioned earlier, today is a huge day in the Nevada Legislature. Another of the bills receiving a final verdict in the Assembly is SJR 15, the bill to take the mining industry's corporate welfare sweetheart tax deal out of the Nevada Constitution.

There was some debate on the floor. And Assembly Member Pete Livermore (R-Carson City) offered this insightful quote.

Root Beer speech ! #NVLEG #SJR15 No more ROOT BEER if you kill off mining !!!! #RootBeer #Fries

Oh, yes. That's right. Assembly Member Livermore actually compared multinational mining corporations to his A&W franchise!

The bill passed 26-15. Again, Peggy Pierce (D-Las Vegas) was absent. Otherwise, all the Democrats present voted in favor while all the Republicans voted against.

And now that it's finally passed the Legislature in two consecutive session (it also passed both chambers in 2011), this finally heads to We (Us) the People.

Voters will now weigh in on NV's constitutional mining tax cap next year RT @RGJRayHagar: SJR15 passes Assembly, 26-15. #NVLeg

So this moves to the 2014 general election ballot for final approval. It may not be all that easy...

As reported by @RalstonReports, mining tried to bribe #NVLeg $50mil to kill SJR15. They'll spend at least as much to defeat it in Nov '14.

But now, we can finally look forward to our Carpe Diem moment with this and The Education Initiative on our ballot in November 2014. And even though she may no longer be serving in Carson City, Sheila Leslie's legacy just became even more awe-inspiring today.

Let's toss a little love to @sleslienv who was big on #SJR15 !!! #NVLEG

And on we go...

So What's Next for Tahoe?

So far this year, we've been wondering about the future of Lake Tahoe. While SB 229 passed the Nevada State Senate last month and seemed to be moving in the Assembly, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) did not look amused. Rather, he seemed content with the continuing threat of Nevada pulling out of TRPA, the agency that oversees development and environmental stewardship in the Lake Tahoe region.

Yet today, we saw a stunning new development. Earlier today, Governor Sandoval announced a new deal with California Governor Jerry Brown (D) on the future of Lake Tahoe.

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and California Gov. Jerry Brown issued a joint statement Tuesday renewing their commitment to do what’s best “for the environment and economy of the Lake Tahoe region.”

Under the agreement amendments will be introduced to bills in the Nevada and California state legislatures that repeal Nevada’s planned withdrawal from the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact in 2015 and California’s proposal to re-establish a California Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in 2014.

The governors also agree to require consideration of economic conditions when adopting and implementing regional plans in the Tahoe Basin that straddles both states.

And the Nevada Conservation League had this to say on today's big development.

“The people of Nevada and California made it clear that protection of Lake Tahoe is a high priority,” said Kyle Davis, political director of the Nevada Conservation League. “We want to thank Governors Brown and Sandoval, Majority Leader Denis, Speaker Kirkpatrick and all of the other Nevada and California legislators that worked to make sure that both states were committed to the future of the lake.”

“We have been working all year to find a solution that would make both states happy while also preserving strong environmental regulation and protection for Lake Tahoe by keeping intact the Tahoe Compact,” said Darcie Goodman-Collins. “This agreement does just that. We hope for swift passage through both legislatures so that Tahoe’s communities can move forward with some certainty about their regulatory environment.”

So finally, the threat of obliterating oversight of development at Lake Tahoe is finally coming to an end. After 2 years of threats to the lake, all for the sake of corporate greed and political payback, some sanity may finally be returning to Carson City. So game over?

Maybe not. The latest update to the Tahoe Compact still faces a federal law suit. And environmental activists are still concerned about all the development TRPA has already been greenlighting for the region.

So perhaps SB 271 has already served its purpose...

Why Aren't We Disturbed by This?

Late last month, we discussed an important environmental bill in the Nevada Legislature, SB 229. This bill is out to repeal SB 271, the controversial bill passed in 2011 that threatened Nevada's withdrawl from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). TRPA is the enforcement mechanism of the compact between California and Nevada (and overseen by the federal government) to protect Lake Tahoe.

In June 2011, we noted the immense amount of juice that the lobbying firm R&R Partners has over Nevada Government. It has juice in the Legislature. And it has juice with the Governor. And is it any coincidence that R&R pushed hard for SB 271's passage? Oh yes, and don't forget that R&R represents various casinos and developers who are interested in more development at Lake Tahoe.

Fast forward to December 2012. By that time, TRPA had a new Regional Plan for the first time since 1987. And surprise, the new Regional Plan allows for more development around the lake. Yet when Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) signaled his support for rescinding SB 271 (he oversaw the revision of the original bill in 2011), the Nevada Conservation League signaled willingness to work with the new Regional Plan so long as SB 271 is repealed and the threat of the bi-state Tahoe Compact's destruction is withdrawn. However, other environmentalists, like the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Club, filed a federal law suit to scrap the new Regional Plan and reinstate stronger protections of Tahoe that are in line with the original Compact, along with the approval to it given by Congress in 1980.

Fast forward to this week. New controversy has arisen over testimony recently heard on SB 229 in Carson City. Earlier this month, the State Senate held a hearing and TRPA Board Member Steve Robinson testified against it. Why would Robinson testify against a bill written to drop the threat of abolishing his own agency? It turns out that Steve Robinson has a conflict of interest.

Robinson was testifying on Senate Bill 229, a measure backed by environmentalists that would preserve the bi-state compact by repealing the 2011 law allowing Nevada to withdraw from the TRPA if changes aren’t made to ease development around the lake.

The hearing highlighted Robinson’s dual role as both lobbyist and TRPA board member — a role that environmentalists say represents an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to protecting Lake Tahoe.

Robinson is the former government affairs director for R&R Partners, one of the largest lobbying firms in Nevada that was retained by Tahoe businesses to shepherd through the 2011 law, Senate Bill 271. Robinson is no longer an employee of R&R Partners, but is contracted with them to lobby for two mining companies. [...]

“Given the role R&R played in passing SB 271, it certainly concerns me,” said Kyle Davis, political director for the Nevada Conservation League, of Robinson’s dual role. “He’s been very good at making it clear when he’s working on TRPA issues and when he’s working on R&R issues. But the TRPA issues are completely intertwined with what R&R does. I don’t know how you keep the two separate.”

Neither do I, especially when R&R is actively working to keep this cloud of uncertainty over TRPA, and maybe even let it fall apart completely, in order to please its clients. After all, why let some big, silly lake get in the way of lucrative business?

As we explained last month, this is actually foolish thinking. Tourism and commerce at Tahoe ultimately rely on the lake's clarity and the overall environmental health of the region. Without a blue lake and nearby wildlife, who would want to visit Tahoe? Think about that.

I guess the R&R and its clients are not. And to be fair, that's not really what they're about. They just care about their bottom lines.

So why let them dictate the terms of preservation in and around Lake Tahoe? This is why the Compact was originally drawn in 1968, and why Congress gave the Compact its blessing in 1980. And this is why TRPA is supposed to exist. TRPA is supposed to protect Lake Tahoe, not private developers who want to build too much there.

Nevada risks breaching the trust of California, blowing up TRPA, and losing a very costly law suit because of the greed of a few companies and the immense juice of one lobbying firm in our state's government. Think about that. Why aren't we more disturbed by this?

Senate Passes SJR 15 (Again).

Last week, we saw a breakthrough. Just weeks after facing near death, SJR 15 was resurrected in an unanimous Senate Revenue & Economic Development Committee vote. Today, the resurrection continued as the full Senate voted 17-4 in favor. Only Senators Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley), Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka), Don Gustavson (R-Sparks), and James Settlemeyer (R-Minden) objected.

Otherwise, "The Senate GOP Mod Squad" joined with all the Senate Democrats to pass the bill. It now moves onto the Assembly. And as long as it passes there (again), it moves onto the 2014 general election ballot for final approval.

So why again is this important? Take a look at this again.

• Trans-national mining conglomerates took $8.76 billion in gold from Nevada in 2011, and paid a total of $104 million to the state general fund under the mining tax, an effective tax rate of 1.187%. In 2010, they mined $6.64 billion in gold, and paid $71.7 million in taxes, an effective tax rate of 1.079%. (Nevada Department of Taxation)

• Mining does pay sales tax and they pay certain property taxes —but not on the value of the mine or their mining claims. Renters, the unemployed, and minimum wage workers also pay sales and property taxes. But gold mining is different, so it should be taxed differently. Once that gold is gone, it’s gone forever. The money will be in Canada and other foreign countries, leaving Nevada with clean up costs and massive pits.

• Three of the five largest mines in Nevada are foreign-owned. The second largest mine in the world, and the most profitable mine in the world, is owned by Barrick corporation, based in Canada. This single mine will exceed $1 billion in profits in 2012, having reaped $500 million in the second quarter and $313 million in the third quarter of 2012 alone.

• Barrick pays next to nothing in taxes on the huge windfall profits from the world’s most profitable gold mine—paying a mere 1% on gross production value in taxes to Nevada’s General Fund in 2010, according to the state’s 2010-11 net proceeds of minerals tax (NPOM) bulletin.

As we've discussed before, SJR 15 takes the mining industry's current tax rate and deductions out of the Nevada Constitution so that our legislators have more authority over future mining taxes. That's all. Yet because that's SJR 15, mining industry lobbyists have fought hard to shoot it down this session (after exasperation over the status quo finally convinced most legislators to pass it the first time in 2011).

However, the story isn't over quite yet. The Assembly must now pass SJR 15 (again). Then in November 2014, voters must provide final approval. And actually, that's what likely scares the mining industry the most.

So this story may be far from over... But the mining industry already fears the ending. We'll have to see if the Assembly moves us closer to that happy ending.

For Green & Green ($), We Need to Keep Lake Tahoe Blue.

How important is being green? Over the weekend, the Reno Gazette Journal's web site ran this blog item about Reno businesses seeing green (as in $) in going green.

“Sustainability is very important for job attraction,” [Mike] Kazmierski [President and CEO of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada] said. “Companies are looking for communities that embrace sustainability. It sets an image of an environmentally friendly community, it’s attractive to young professionals, and it speaks to clean air and water and to the quality of life.”

And being environmentally friendly speaks to a company’s bottom line.

“Employees like to work for businesses that are environmentally friendly, so you attract a different kind of employee,” Kazmierski said.

“Customers want to deal with businesses that are environmentally friendly so you might grow in a different way that you didn’t expect. … It’s not just fluff, it’s a decision businesses need to make to stay competitive in the years ahead.”

I guess a growing number of companies throughout Nevada are "seeing the light" in finding profitability in social responsibility. That's nice. So when will certain developers looking to pave paradise in Lake Tahoe realize this?

In 2011, the Nevada Legislature passed SB 271. It's also known around these parts as "The Trash Tahoe Bill". That's because this bill threatened to withdraw Nevada from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) isn't weakened enough to allow for massive new development around the lake.

Last December, talk was brewing of repealing SB 271. After all, a new agreement on TRPA was reached. And now, we finally have SB 229.

The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs introduced Senate Bill 229 on Monday. The bill would completely repeal 2011’s Senate Bill 271, which threatens to pull Nevada out of the bi-state planning agency in October 2015 if certain changes to the agency aren’t made. SB 271 authorizes Nevada’s governor to postpone the withdrawal until October 2017 under certain circumstances.

One of the most significant changes sought by SB 271 was the passage of an updated regional plan guiding development and land use throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The TRPA’s Governing Board passed its Regional Plan Update in December. The Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore sued to block the plan’s implementation last month. The environmental groups believe rules in the new plan will not accomplish TRPA’s environmental goals and will cause a new era of over-development at the lake. Proponents of the RPU contend the new rules will help ease burdensome restrictions on basin residents and businesses, while helping advance protection of Lake Tahoe.

The League to Save Lake Tahoe and Nevada Conservation League have urged legislators to repeal SB 271, especially in light of the RPU’s passage. Maintaining TRPA’s Compact is key to protecting the lake, according to the groups.

“Although the passage of SB 271 was a black eye for Nevada, we are committed to make sure that it does not result in the destruction of the Tahoe Planning Compact and the health of the lake,” the Conservation League wrote in a statement this week.

Back in February, Nevada Conservation League's Kyle Davis hinted at this strategy when he appeared on "To the Point" with Anjeanette Damon.

(Go to 13:00 for the Tahoe segment.)



Since SB 271's passage, Nevada has landed into the political and environmental hot seat. California, the other state covered by the current TRPA, is considering a "contingency plan" should Nevada follow through in pulling out of TRPA. Basically, the California Legislature is debating legislation to set up its own environmental stewardship plan for Lake Tahoe if Nevada allows SB 271 to stand.

Meanwhile, California officials began setting up a contingency plan in case the bi-state TRPA is dismantled. The California legislation is authored by the Senate leader [Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento] and by Sen. Fran Pavley, an Agoura Hills Democrat, who often takes a lead role in California environmental issues. About two-thirds of Lake Tahoe is in California.

Their bill, SB 630, would set up a California TRPA with a nine-member board to regulate development on the California side of the lake, the largest alpine lake in North America. Appointees would be drawn from the boards of supervisors in Placer and El Dorado counties, the Tahoe City Council and members of the public. The Assembly speaker and Senate leader each would have the authority appoint two members.

“California must have a plan in place to protect Lake Tahoe," Pavley said in the statement. "Due to unilateral action taken by the state of Nevada, the governance structure that has served Lake Tahoe for over four decades is now in jeopardy. We have sought to partner with the state of Nevada on this issue, and still see that as the best way forward.”

On the Nevada side, if the bi-state TRPA is dissolved, that state’s regulatory authority would be handled by a Nevada TRPA, which is poised to be set up under the provisions of the pullout bill.

And that's not all. While California is responding to Nevada's threat of unilateral deregulation with unilateral regulation, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and other grassroots environmental activists are going to court. Oh yes, that's right. They've filed suit to challenge the new TRPA compact. In their eyes, the new TRPA compact itself allows for overdevelopment at the cost of the well-being of the lake and its wildlife.

“In 1980, Congress, along with the states of California and Nevada, specifically entrusted a
regional body to oversee all environmental protection and land use at Lake Tahoe, including
project approvals, to ensure that local governments do not allow runaway development,” said
Trent Orr, attorney with the public interest law firm Earthjustice, which represents the
conservation groups. “The 1980 Compact requires TRPA to approve all projects within the
region, and to establish minimum regional standards for project approval. They can’t legally cede
that power and leave it to the local governments that failed to protect Tahoe in the past. There is
no reason to believe that cash-strapped local governments would adopt and enforce adequate
environmental protection measures in the face of lucrative development proposals.” [...]

“This new plan fails to recognize that an increase in buildings, rooftops, and pavement will mean
an increase in the amount of polluted rain and snowmelt - - runoff that flows directly into the
Lake,” said Laurel Ames of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club in California. “Stormwater from
pavement and roads is the leading cause of the Lake’s loss of clarity. Allowing more pavement
and roads seriously undermines efforts to clean up the once pristine lake.”

The revised plan also allows local governments to set development regulations that do not meet
minimum regional standards, including standards for how much land can be paved, or
“covered.” This violates the Compact’s requirement that TRPA establish “a minimum standard
applicable throughout the region.”

“This is a wrenching departure from past practice and is not in line with the spirit or law of the
bi-state Compact created to protect the lake,” said David von Seggren of the Toiyabe Sierra Club
in Nevada. “The people of Nevada, just like the people of California, care about the ecological
health of Lake Tahoe. Rather than weakening the Compact or threatening to pull out completely,
our leaders should be urging TRPA to develop the region in a way that not only protects the
ecosystem but actually improves it.”

In 2011, proponents of SB 271 claimed this bill was needed to cut through "excessive red tape" while allowing for updated environmental standards. Instead, it's created a legal nightmare. TRPA must now fight a federal law suit thanks to a revision in the compact that was exacerbated by SB 271. Meanwhile in Sacramento, California's Legislature is now considering retaliatory legislation should Nevada keep SB 271 and essentially kill TRPA as we know it. Let's face it, this has officially become a hot mess.

SB 271 was supposed to solve a problem. Instead, it's been creating new problems for Lake Tahoe and the State of Nevada. While local environmental groups disagree on whether the new TRPA compact is acceptable, they all agree SB 271 can't be allowed to wreak any more havoc on Lake Tahoe.

As a top tourist destination, Lake Tahoe is critical to the economic health of Northern Nevada as well as the environmental well being of the region. Without a clear, blue lake, can the Reno area still count on the millions of tourists and their dollars which flow through the region? I doubt it.

So if Nevada truly cares about green and green, then the Legislature should consider adopting SB 229 to repeal SB 271 and put an end to the legal mayhem that threatens the future of Lake Tahoe. Do we really want to risk losing visitors to Tahoe? And do we want to risk forever losing one of Nevada's greatest natural treasures? Think about it.

Hate Crimes on Today's Agenda

Let's take a brief trip down memory lane. Remember this?



Well, I'm doing it again today. This session, it's SB 139. And it's still badly needed.

In fact, it's likely needed now more than ever before. Hate crimes against LGBTQ people are at the highest level recorded in the last 14 years. This was confirmed in the most recent FBI hate crimes report.

Yet even that doesn't tell the whole story. The agency is just starting to collect data on anti-transgender hate crimes (so they're not included in last December's report). And far too many victims are still too afraid to come forward.

Don't believe me? Believe this.

“Despite issues of underreporting from law enforcement agencies, some additional data suggest that hate crimes against transgender people are a significant problem. Community organizations and other interested groups have been tracking hate crimes against transgender people for several years. In particular, the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) includes transgender people in their collection of hate crime data against sexual minorities. When examining reports on 14 major cities, 5 states, and one multi-state region since 1997, the NCAVP reports an average of 213 hate crimes per year against transgender people. In 2004, the NCAVP reported the highest number of hate crimes against transgender people: 321 hate crimes. Nationally, this level of violence is comparable to the level of violence perpetrated against Muslims since 2002. Thus, the inclusion of gender identity in the categories reported in the Uniform Crime Reports and in the new National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) system would allow for more tracking of this serious problem.”

So it's heartening to see this return to the Legislature's agenda after the close miss of SB 180 in 2011. So far, SB 139 has 16 Senate sponsors and 21 Assembly sponsors. And even better, both lists are bipartisan. That's encouraging going forward.

Still, we can't forget how SB 180 unraveled in 2011. Transgender Nevadans can't afford for that to happen again. So I'm heading to Grant Sawyer today. I'll provide updates going forward on this and other LGBTQ equality legislation.

John Lee Speaks... To Stonewall (And Gets a Surprising Response!)

We were all waiting for this. This was the big night. For the first time ever, John Lee appeared at a Nevada Stonewall Democratic function.





Yes, I can wait a moment while you try to put your head back together after it exploded.

OK, are you ready now?

So John Lee spoke at length on Nevada's legislative process, and of the state of our economy today (which I'll get to in a future story). But this morning, I want to give Lee a chance to explain for himself his past opposition to SB 283 and AB 211.



Honestly, I was surprised. He neither apologized for his votes nor tried to really rationalize them. He basically just said that they are what they are and he is what he is.





John Lee said flat out that he believes marriage should be restricted to straight couples, but I just asked him about SB 283, which is not even marriage. It just affords some basic rights, benefits, and responsibilities to Nevada families that are easily given to everyone else. I understand John Lee is "pro-family", so why not at least allow these families to have the same rights that he and his wife gave?



An actual constituent of John Lee then asked him about his vote last session against AB 211, the transgender inclusive workplace non-discrimination bill. Lee had said earlier that no one from Stonewall even bothered to talk to him, but she corrected him and stated she did schedule meetings with him in 2009 regarding SB 283, and in 2011 regarding AB 211. Now I realize that it was a mistake for many progressives to totally shut down lines of communication with Lee, however not everyone was doing that. And despite hearing from constituents and activists who did schedule meetings with him, Lee still voted against AB 211. Did he need to see this?



Or does he need to hear from more Nevadans who have experienced workplace discrimination first hand? How hard is it to understand that it's wrong to fire someone from a job just because of one's identified gender?

Well, at least John Lee came to Stonewall last night to hear our grievances. I'll give him credit for that. (No really, I will!) And hopefully now with lines of communication between Lee and local progressives, he'll take some time to reconsider his take on matters of LGBTQ equality.



Interestingly enough, another candidate stood up later in the meeting and briefly discussed his own first hand experience.



Steve Parke is running for Assembly District 21 in Henderson and Silverado Ranch. (Disclaimer: He's also my neighbor.) And like John Lee, Steve Parke is also "pro-family" (he has a wife and two kids) and LDS. And he explained so well both the legal and moral case for marriage equality. In just his one minute of speaking, he blew away the audience... And hopefully, helped Lee start on that path of reconsidering his take on matters of LGBTQ equality.

Between Lee coming to Stonewall and the introduction of new Legislature candidates there last night, my hope for next session is being renewed.

10 of 11: In the Capitol... And from California to Here

Yesterday, I hinted at the strange dynamics of state government this year. Believe it or not, Nevada wasn't accustomed to the hurly burly of intense, combative, highly partisan "contact sport" politics... Until this year. Yes, for a moment it looked like Nevadans' worst nightmares were coming true and we really were turning into California (albeit led by the radical right that supposedly hates our next door neighbors so much).

Yep, that's right. Republicans here always make scary comments about this state becoming some sort of "Little California", but their very obstruction on the budget and diabolical brinksmanship games with state government are turning us into California!

Sometimes, I really do wonder if Republican legislators are spending time that should be used working on a budget deal to instead study up on how California Republicans have turned Sacramento into an endless game of "Mortal Combat"... Where the folks who get killed off are kids in need of education, and seniors & disabled in need of health care. Read Calitics' budget diaries and notice the strange air of familiarity to them.

It seems like both at the federal level and in other states, Republicans are exporting the California model of obstructing their way to broken government to the rest of the country.

However, I still sensed something different. When I arrived in the capital city myself, I saw it with my own eyes.

There really is an intriguing game of political chess happening in Carson City right now. Democratic leadership is figuring out where to find the votes to pass an actual balanced budget, and Republican leadership is trying to find "cover" so they can provide enough votes for a budget that won't anger "we the people" too much.

I had a chance to talk with three of my favorite legislators this week on what's happening up north. My Senator, Shirley Breeden (D-Henderson),is busy doing her "homework", studying the numbers, and pressing for a final budget that keeps kids in school and keeps our hope for a better economy alive. David Parks (D-Paradise) is working hard on a number of LGBTQ equality bills (that you will be hearing more from me on soon!) and hopes for agreement on these as well as the budget. And as part of the new wave of Latin@ legislators providing some much needed representation in Carson, Ruben Kihuen is already off to an amazing start in The Senate... He even expressed some hope that his fellow legislators, especially on The Senate side, can work together this session.

Interestingly enough, there may actually be some opportunities for just that. That Republican legislator I spoke with was willing to keep an open mind on AB 211, the transgender inclusive workplace non-discrimination bill. Another Republican legislator apparently expressed concern over Sandoval's proposed budget cuts this week, and signaled support for the LGBTQ equality bills. And even though GOP leadership are playing "hard to get" right now in demanding some of the same union busting run amok in Wisconsin and Michigan, they may also be realizing that they can only ask for so much, and that it may not be too smart to antagonize working Nevadans when they've already sacrificed plenty and are ready to share in even more sacrifice this year.

Hopefully, what I saw behind the scenes in Carson City this week are real signs of hope that our Legislature will be working on actual solutions that will make Nevada an even better state. The "sausage making process" may be messy, but let's keep pushing them to ensure the final product is safe for human consumption.

Well, at least the final product wasn't totally lethal. And thanks to a last minute court decision, the logjam was finally broken. And looking beyond the budget, we did score big victories on the LGBTQ equality front with legislation passed to address housing discrimination, school bullying, public accommodations for all, and a long desired win for transgender equality at work. That was the major bright spot that at least somewhat made up for the idiotic Trash Tahoe bill, the ugly continuing attacks on our public servants, and the ridiculous final state budget that was yet another pile of patches, band-aids, and "quick fixes" that are destined to combust all over again in 2013 (if not sooner).

But funny enough, the postscript is still being written. And coming around full circle, Californication may indeed continue next year... But this time, it may actually be for the better. I'll leave you with these words from June, which may yet come to fruition on our ballots next year.

Either way, Nevada's governance will start to look a lot more like California's, and more like other Western states (such as Arizona) that have become accustomed to partisan turf wars, ballot box budgeting, and "direct democracy gone wild". It's now a question of whether Nevada will keep sputtering on its way to the bottom, or if progressives can turn this around and take advantage of this unique opportunity to inject more common sense into our state government. The days of Kenny Guinn and Barbara Buckley and Bill Raggio making "grand bargains" seem to be long gone. Term limits are taking away experienced legislators. Meanwhile, the power vacuum is being filled by corporate lobbyists, party central committees, and other outside forces.

So what can we do? In the long term, I still believe it's in our best interest that progressives work toward reforming state government to make it more responsive to the people and less beholden to special corporate interests. But in the mean time, we can't wait on the sidelines for the next [year] while Nevada's people continue to suffer inadequate public education, health care, transportation, and other infrastructure necessary to make our state whole again.

So now, we have to ask ourselves not whether and when we will go to the ballot and ask the people to save our state, but how we will do so and who we will build coalitions with. Should we work with gaming and mining on a broad-based business tax? Should we work with other progressive activists on a corporate income tax? Should we push for some sort of mining tax reform? 2012 may seem like a long hike away, but it really isn't [especially with the Presidential Caucuses right around the corner and just a month away for Democrats!]. We need to start planning now to take the first necessary steps to save our state and bring real progressive reform to Nevada government.

Nevada Redistricting: Onto Our State Senate!

Now that we've explored a number of Congressional redistricting options, I figured it's now time to see what may happen at The Nevada Legislature... Especially now that it's all heading to court.

So what may a court drawn State Senate map look like? I take a spin at Dave's Redistricting App to see what's possible.

Let's start with Clark County. Because Clark is picking up one new Senate seat, I needed to contract the current seats while cleaning up all the grossly gerrymandered lines and finding space for the new district.





Here in Clark, we'll start with the North Las Vegas/Downtown Las Vegas/East Side (Paradise) urban core.

SD 01 (The Blue District)
Incumbent John Lee (D-North Las Vegas)
44.6% White CVAP, 25.6% Latino CVAP, 17.4% African-American CVAP, 8.9% Asian-American CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 61.8% Obama (D), 36.6% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 58% Harry Reid (D), 38% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 51% Rory Reid (D), 47% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

SD 02 (The Green District)
Incumbent Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas)
53.1% Latino CVAP, 28.1% White CVAP, 11.8% African-American CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 68.1% Obama (D), 29.5% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 64% Harry Reid (D), 31% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 57% Rory Reid (D), 39% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

SD 10 (The Deep Pink District)
Incumbent Ruben Kihuen (D-Las Vegas)
51.8% Latino CVAP, 29.9% White CVAP, 10.7% African-American CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 71.5% Obama (D), 25.7% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 68% Harry Reid (D), 27% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 61% Rory Reid (D), 36% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

SD 03 (The Dark Magenta District)
Incumbents Valerie Wiener (D-Las Vegas) (termed out in 2012) and Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas)
35.8% White CVAP, 30.6% Latino CVAP, 23.8% African-American CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 72.0% Obama (D), 26.2% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 68% Harry Reid (D), 28% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 61% Rory Reid (D), 36% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

SD 04 (The Red District)
Incument Mark Manendo (D-Paradise)?
44.0% White CVAP, 34.2% Latino CVAP, 9.8% Asian-American CVAP, 9.2% African-American CVAP
US-President 2008: 64.8% Obama (D), 32.8% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 61% Harry Reid (D), 35% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 54% Rory Reid (D), 43% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

SD 07 (The Silver District)
Incumbent David Parks (D-Paradise)
46.6% White CVAP, 33.1% Latino CVAP, 9.2% African-American CVAP, 8.1% Asian-American CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 65.5% Obama (D), 32.0% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 62% Harry Reid (D), 34% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 55% Rory Reid (D), 42% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

As you can see, not much drama... Other than SD 07 being split into two districts (SD 04 and the new SD 07) and Valerie Wiener's old SD 03 being dismantled. Since the court will be drawing the lines this time, there's no chance of any gross gerrymanders or outrageous "dual districts". Yet despite the gimmickry (and Mark Manendo possibly having to move to keep his Senate seat), this very diverse section of the valley remains quite firmly in Democratic hands.

OK, then. Let's move to Summerlin, Spring Valley, and the west side of the valley.



SD 15 (The Dark Orange District)
Incumbent Elizabeth Halseth (R-Enterprise)?
69.8% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: Obama (D) 49.2%, McCain (R) 49.0%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: Harry Reid (D) 45%, Angle (R) 51%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: Rory Reid (D) 38%, Sandoval (R) 59%
Early Race Rating: Leans Republican

SD 14 (The Olive District)
Open Seat (See SD 04, incumbent Valerie Wiener termed out)
46.2% White CVAP, 34.4% Latino CVAP, 10.7% African-American CVAP
US-Pres 2008: Obama (D) 62.3%, McCain (R) 35.3%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: Harry Reid (D) 58%, Angle (R) 37%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: Rory Reid (D) 51%, Sandoval (R) 46%
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

SD 06 (The Teal District)
Incument Allison Copening (D-Summerlin)
68.1% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 54.0% Obama (D), 44.2% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 50% Harry Reid (D), 45% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 43% Rory Reid (D), 54% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Leans Democratic

SD 08 (The Slate Blue District)
Open Seat (IncumentBarbara Cegavske [R-Summerlin] termed out in 2014)
63.3% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 54.0% Obama (D), 44.3% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 50% Harry Reid (D), 45% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 43% Rory Reid (D), 54% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Tossup

SD 11 (The Chartreuse District)
Open Seat (Incumbent Mike Schneider [D-Spring Valley] termed out in 2012)
47.4% White CVAP, 23.5% Latino CVAP, 16.7% Asian-American CVAP, 9.8% African-American CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 61.4% Obama (D), 36.3% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 57% Harry Reid (D), 38% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 50% Rory Reid (D), 46% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

SD 09 (The Cyan District)
Incumbent Elizabeth Halseth (R-Enterprise)?
51.6% White CVAP, 23.2% Asian-American CVAP, 14.6% Latino CVAP, 7.0% African-American CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 58.9% Obama (D), 39.2% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 55% Harry Reid (D), 40% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 48% Rory Reid (D), 49% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Leans Democratic

As you can see, the fast growing west end of the valley makes some dramatic changes in redistricting. With both Valerie Wiener and Mike Schneider termed out, remnants of their old districts become minority-majority opportunity seats that will most likely provide opportunity for up-and-coming local Democrats. Meanwhile in Summerlin, incumbent Democrat Allison Copening keeps a district that she can probably win next year while soon-to-be-termed-out Republican Barbara Cegavske is doomed to leave behind a district that's a tossup at best and quickly trending Democratic. And even though newly minted Republican incumbent Elizabeth Halseth lives in The Southwest, she will probably prefer to run in the new and more GOP friendly Northwest district than face the new, diversifying, and more Democratic leaning Southwest district.

Now let's head back east and check in on the Silverado Ranch and Henderson area.



SD 13 (The Dark Salmon District)
Incumbent Michael Roberson (R-Henderson)
60.1% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 56.9% Obama (D), 41.2% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 53% Harry Reid (D), 42% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 46% Rory Reid (D), 51% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Tossup

SD 05 (The Gold District)
Incumbent Shirley Breeden (D-Henderson)
68.9% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 55.0% Obama (D), 43.1% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 51% Harry Reid (D), 44% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 44% Rory Reid (D), 53% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Leans Democratic

SD 12 (The Cornflower Blue District)
Incumbent Joe Hardy (R-Boulder City)
77.9% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 45.8% Obama (D), 52.1% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 43% Harry Reid (D), 52% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 35% Rory Reid (D), 62% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Republican

While my Senator, Shirley Breeden, loses some pockets of Democratic strength in Silverado Ranch and The East Side, she also loses Republican heavy precincts in MacDonald Highlands, Seven Hills, and the outer reaches of Old Henderson. All in all, it's likely a wash (maybe even slightly improving her district, since those parts of Henderson are filled with high-propensity GOP voters) and she's probably a slight favorite to hold onto this swingy but Democratic trending Green Valley based district. In the mean time, my other Senator, Michael Roberson, loses me and the rest of Green Valley as the SD 05 dual district is broken up and his house is placed in the new Silverado Ranch anchored SD 13. For him, that's not good news, since his house is placed in a rapidly diversifying and Democratic trending seat. Meanwhile, Joe Hardy can breathe more easily now that his once swingish seat sheds its East Side and North Las Vegas tentacles to contract to just GOP dominant Anthem, Old Henderson, and Boulder City (along with Laughlin at its southern tip).

Now that we have nearly all of Clark County covered, let's take a trip north and see what this map does to Reno and the rurals.



We'll start with the rural territory.

SD 16 (The Lime Green District)
Open Seat (Incumbent Dean Rhoads [R-Tuscarora] termed out in 2012)
76.0% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: Obama (D) 35.2%, McCain (R) 61.3%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: Harry Reid (D) 35%, Angle (R) 58%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: Rory Reid (D) 28%, Sandoval (R) 66%
Early Race Rating: Safe Republican

SD 17 (The Dark Slate District)
Open Seat (Incumbent Mike McGinness [R-Fallon] termed out in 2012)
78.9% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 37.3% Obama (D), 59.9% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 32% Harry Reid (D), 57% Angle (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Republican

Other than longtime Legislature legends Dean Rhoads and Mike McGinness being termed out next year, there's nothing really changing all that much here. SD 16 actually does have to dip into Clark County, but the addition of Mesquite only strengthens the Republican tilt here.

OK, then... Let's hit Carson and Reno!



SD 18 (The Yellow District)
Incumbent James Settlemeyer (R-Minden)
81.8% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: 45.2% Obama (D), 52.4% McCain (R)
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: 39% Harry Reid (D), 54% Angle (R)
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: 30% Rory Reid (D), 64% Sandoval (R)
Early Race Rating: Safe Republican

SD 21 (The Maroon District)
Incumbent Ben Kieckhefer (R-Reno)
78.3% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: Obama (D) 50.8%, McCain (R) 47.3%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: Harry Reid (D) 46%, Angle (R) 49%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: Rory Reid (D) 33%, Sandoval (R) 62%
Early Race Rating: Leans Republican



SD 19 (The Yellow Green District)
Incumbent Don Gustavson (R-Sparks)
67.9% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: Obama (D) 55.6%, McCain (R) 42.3%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: Harry Reid (D) 51%, Angle (R) 44%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: Rory Reid (D) 38%, Sandoval (R) 57%
Early Race Rating: Tossup if GOP picks another nominee, Leans Democratic if Gustavson or another teabagger is GOP nominee

SD 20 (The Pink District)
Incumbent Sheila Leslie (D-Reno)
62.7% White CVAP
US-Pres 2008: Obama (D) 65.2%, McCain (R) 32.3%
Estimated NV-Sen 2010: Harry Reid (D) 60%, Angle (R) 34%
Estimated NV-Gov 2010: Rory Reid (D) 47%, Sandoval (R) 47%
Early Race Rating: Safe Democratic

Sparks Republican Don Gustavson gets an unwanted surprise here when his district retracts from rural territory and takes in Downtown Sparks (reuniting all of the City of Sparks). This makes his district significantly more Democratic, and potentially unwinnable for a flame-throwing teabagger such as himself. Meanwhile in Carson City and Valley, James Settlemeyer's district doesn't change much, only reuniting all of Douglas County and taking in some Reno exurbs in Washoe County. And back in Washoe, Ben Kieckhefer gets a district that's probably better suited to his moderate ways... But if he gets teabagged in a GOP primary, it could potentially fall if Democrats unite behind a strong candidate. And in Reno, Sheila Leslie's district remains rock solid Democratic (don't pay too much attention to the NV-Gov numbers, Sandoval is "the hometown boy") as it contracts to just inner city Reno and the "college town" neighborhoods surrounding UNR.

I know this map isn't perfect, but I tried my best to keep districts compact, bring together proper communities of interest, and create as many neatly drawn minority-majority districts as possible. I think it's something The Nevada Supreme Court will at least consider.

And by the way, in case you were wondering, here's my breakdown of the partisan divide of the new Senate seats:

9 Safe Democratic
4 Safe Republican
8 Tossups & Leaners (2 Lean Republican, 3 Lean Democratic)

Sine Die, #NVLeg: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

So it's over. It's finally over. And unless Sandoval pulls any surprise last-minute vetoes, it looks like Nevada will have a budget on time, more smoke-filled taverns, a new legal battle with California over Lake Tahoe, an "extreme makeover" of Reno's bowling stadium, and more.

Oh, joy!

Just before noon on Monday, the Senate approved Assembly Bill 561, the bill that extends $620 million in taxes approved in the 2009 legislative session, which were set to expire, or sunset, on July 1.

"They said we were too far apart to reach a budget agreement,” said Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas. “They said it couldn’t be done. We proved the pessimists wrong.”

The bill that sparked the contention was Senate Bill 506, a bill that allowed for a toll road in Boulder City, but which also included Assemblywoman Debbie Smith’s “School Works” legislation, which would allow school districts to lower their bond reserves and fund construction projects.

The bill died in the Assembly because of opposition to the toll road, but came back to life with 13 minutes left in the session.

This time, it passed 29-13. The School Works measure was moved to AB 376, a so-called “Christmas Tree” bill, which also included measures to allow the Reno Aces ownership to add a surcharge on tickets and downtown Reno casinos to add a $2 per room night charge for improvements to the National Bowling Stadium, Reno Events Center and Reno Ballroom. It was approved with nine minutes left in the session.

That could really sum it up, but there's even more to talk about. Let's start with the good that happened this session:

- The state gave up its lust for county and city funds now that The Nevada Supreme Court ruled the Clean Water Coalition money grab unconstitutional.

- SB 276, the bill written to protect K-12 students from dangerous bullying (and is LGBTQ inclusive), passed.

- AB 211! Finally, transgender Nevadans can no longer be fired from work just because of who they are.

- Yay! Kenny Guinn Millennium Scholarships continue!

- Despite a last-minute court ruling jeopardizing additional mining fees, the mining industry finally agreed to cough up an extra $24 million to keep the state running.

- And at least for now, Nevada's colleges will remain safe and gun-free.

While I wish to just leave it here, we must also unfortunately address the bad that happened this session:

- Let the Tahoe trashing begin! SB 271 passed, so now Nevada can look forward to more unnecessary legal battles with the feds and California.

The demands in Senate Bill 271 are major. Chief among the demands are that the U.S. Congress and California would have to agree that major decisions do not need approval from a majority of members of the board from both states. Also, the Governing Board of TRPA would have to consider economic conditions when amending their regional plan. Congress and California would have 4 and a half years to agree to the terms.

As the law stands now, If these demands aren't met, then Nevada would withdraw from the compact by 2015. However, there is another legislative session before that time and Nevada Legislators could back-track. But until then the measure puts at risk a 415 million dollar 10-year funding bill for the agency that is floating on the floor of congress.

And considering California still has to resolve its own budget crisis (yet again), Sacramento probably has no appetite for any of Carson's follies right now.

- Teachers and other public servants get spat upon yet again with more pay cuts, more layoffs, and possibly more limits to their collective bargaining power.

And finally, let's take a look at the simply ridiculous:

- Yet again, we have a "budget" cobbled together from random this and mix of that... And our schools are still being shortchanged.

- Redistricting is now likely to go to court, as The Legislature adjourned without agreement on a new set of maps to send to Sandoval.

- And as usual, The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce pretty much got its way on everything.

So there you have it, folks! And that's all, folks... At least for now. #NVLeg may have adjourned, but the drama stirred up from this session may just be starting.

As the 76th Session Closes...

(Btw, there's more at The Nevada View! Yes, I'm now there, too!)

We see the usual last-minute flurry of activity.

The Legislature has until 1 a.m. Tuesday to finish its business, unless Gov. Brian Sandoval calls a special session, which he has said he will not do.

Republicans, led by Sandoval, agreed to extend taxes passed in 2009 that were set to expire on June 30. In exchange, Democrats agreed to spending cuts for education and social services, and changes to policies like teacher tenure and collective bargaining.

The latter issue, which dictates how counties and cities bargain with public employee unions, threatened to unravel the budget compromise Sunday night. Republicans were unhappy with language they believed broke the general agreement the sides had struck. Specifically, they believed the agreement included a ban on supervisors bargaining collectively. It was so narrowly written that only a handful of city, county and school district employees would be banned, said Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno.

But Kieckhefer said Monday morning that a compromise had been reached about 3 a.m. this morning that would create a broader prohibition on supervisors collectively bargaining.

Oh, yes! Of course, our biggest problem right now is allowing public servants to bargain collectively. [Face, meet palm.]

So the budget is being wrapped up as we speak. In the mean time, bills addressing matters as diverse (or are they?) as HOAs, financial crises, Reno's bowling stadium and baseball team, and Lake Tahoe have one more chance of passage tonight. Fasten your seat belts, kids, we're in for one more VERY bumpy ride!

And then what? What happens when the 76th Session of The Nevada Legislature adjourns? Maybe the 77th Session won't have to be so unforgivingly, brutally banal? One can hope... And then, others can act.

Danny Thompson of the AFL-CIO and Bob Fulkerson of the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, both said in the past two days that work goes on in preparing a tax ballot question of the 2012.

Fulkerson talked about the initiative being for a new broad-based business tax or a tax on mining. PLAN had given up on a service tax question since it would hit too many in the middle class. (Plus, it would get very complicated).

Thompson is leaning toward a business tax. Both, however, said that a petition drive for the ballot question on taxes is definitely coming.
“Clearly, you are never going to get anything done here (at Legislature),” Thompson said. “It’s impossible.”

As we talked about yesterday, our state can not afford any more inaction. However "messy" and "unpredictable" it may be, direct democracy may truly be the one real solution to avoid any more missed opportunities like this session's.

Redistricting: Off to Court We Go!

The Nevada Legislature is wrapping up. We're now in the final 24 hour stretch, and the final budget bills must be approved and sent to Governor Sandoval. So really, it isn't too much of a surprise that any sort of redistricting deal finally looks to be dead at #NVLeg.

Maybe this really isn't a bad thing? After all, the current districts we have are a result of a bipartisan "incumbent protection" gerrymander. Perhaps now that judges will decide the new district boundaries rather than politicians looking to protect their own behinds and/or use redistricting as a bargaining chip for something else, we'll see Congressional and legislative districts that actually make more sense. Here's to hope! ;-)

My Planned Testimony on SB 271

Because there were many speakers scheduled and certain legislators were actually asking questions about this, I couldn't speak. However, this is what I was planning to say about SB 271. If you also want to make your voice heard, send a message to your legislators while you still can.

---

When I visited Lake Tahoe this spring, I did not go to see just another casino, or just another shopping mall, or just another ski resort. I went to experience the unique natural beauty of the lake. Tahoe truly is one of Nevada's greatest jewels. But if SB 271 passes, Nevada risks losing this jewel.

Lake Tahoe is a precious resource that Nevada should treasure. Yet if SB 271 passes, we will jeopardize the clarity of the lake that residents and tourists alike love by allowing for more development that harms the streams the feed into the lake. And why? So more McMansions can be built? So another ski resort and casino can be developed? And we potentially lose the economic lifeblood of this area? New development and redevelopment projects are already being approved. Why do we need to weaken TRPA?

I hope this legislature considers both the long term economic health and environmental health of the region when considering SB 271. I am afraid of the consequences of withdrawing from removing the regulatory checks and balances necessary to protect Lake Tahoe and preserve Northern Nevada's crown jewel for future generations. Please look at the big picture. I suspect you will find that if passed, SB 271 would harm the Tahoe region far more than it would help.

Deja Vu?

Why are we here? Why does this feel so familiar? Why does it feel like I've heard this from Ralston before?

Because the solution will be only about money, a number arbitrarily chosen as it always is to garner the necessary votes, with policy considerations left behind (or never even raised) in the Rush to Close. Once again, when lawmakers have returned home, the state’s unsustainable tax structure will remain in place (why do you think we have the country’s highest unemployment rate?), as Nevada gamers look to the Far East, the higher and lower education systems retain their cellar-dwelling positions, and options diminish with every myopic biennial exercise in futility.

We are here because of shortsighted Legislatures, governors and, yes, even the judicial branch. We are here because of rapacious special interests with no investment in the state’s education system and social safety net. And we are here because of an apathetic populace — I saw more energy and involvement in one session from college students than in a quarter-century from those who should be even more active.

The common metaphor for the end of sessions is a train wreck. But this locomotive has been chugging along for decades, a recurring Murder on the Nevada Express, where everyone is to blame and no one takes responsibility.

But wait, do we have to keep repeating the same mistakes? Must Nevada Government always look like such a train wreck?

Thus, we will have the same result we have every other year, a cobbling together of unrelated parts to build a tax and budget monster that makes Frankenstein look attractive.

As this session comes to an end, the major special interests are expressing a familiar fear. Gaming, mining and Big Business are more afraid of a different kind of ballot royale next year — a raft of initiatives to tax them because people are mad as hell and don’t want to take it anymore.

Generally, the business elite need not worry because labor and the teachers can be co-opted or they misplay their hands. And the chances of a well-funded, effective effort sprouting from the grass roots assumes someone would step up to seed the movement.

And so we are where we always are.

OK, here's where I diverge from Ralston. Are we really where "we always are"? I do agree with him that the usual suspects in Carson City are, but what about the real people outside?

What if Nevadans are ready to change course? And what if state government is forced to change course?

The Supreme Court's ruling should highlight for the governor and his anti-tax allies in the Legislature that Nevada, the state, is living on borrowed time and from paycheck to paycheck like many Nevada families. We are literally one accident, one natural or man-made disaster or other unforeseen crisis away from bankruptcy.

Dismantling our already-strained governmental and educational institutions breaks faith with Nevadans, past and future, who expect responsible leadership in times of crisis, not blind adherence to an ideology that serves no one well. Nearly all elected officials will admit, off the record, that we are neither overtaxed nor adequately served by the bare-bones budget that currently exists.

Our consistently low ranking on both tax burden and services is nothing to be proud of. This new financial crisis should wake open the eyes of the governor and his allies for a fresh look at the long-term health of our state and hope for the future.

We have limped through the current recession without leadership during the last governor's administration, barely keeping the ship of state afloat by using the much maligned, and now much missed, federal stimulus funding. Do we really want four more years of failed leadership and lack of vision from the Capitol?

Remember the definition of insanity? We can't keep doing the same thing while expecting different results! We can't keep robbing Peter to pay Paul. We can't keep playing the same "accounting tricks" that ultimately got Enron into trouble. We can't keep avoiding reality.





The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling was a brutal reality check. And even if Brian Sandoval and most legislators continue to ignore the overarching message of that ruling to play more games and hobble together some sort of "Frankenstein budget", Nevadans are getting fed up with this nonsense. People out here are hurting, and they are wondering when they will see more job openings and how their kids will be able to get into college. Meanwhile in Carson, the debate is all about how much workers need to be attacked before schools can be allowed to stay open.

Wonderful. (snark)

But what if we don't want to keep going down this same road?





Perhaps we're ready for something different. Perhaps we don't want to take it any more. Perhaps we don't want to feel this "deja vu" ever again.

Meanwhile, About That Budget...

Folks in Carson City are still trying to figure out how deep their troubles are...

In a late night press conference, director of Administration Andrew Clinger said the potential budget hole created by the Supreme Court decision in the Clean Water Coalition case could strip $656.7 million from the governor's proposed budget.

He said the decision if read broadly could deny the state not only the $62 million in water use funding but the 9 cent property tax rate from Clark and Washoe counties worth some $121 million, the school bond reserves from nine Nevada counties estimated at $247 million and the indigent accident fund money — $39 million.

The governor's office is preparing an amendment to the budget to cure the shortfall. The plan is reportedly to lift the sunsets on the tax hikes approved by the 26th special session of the legislature, which would generate a net revenue increase of $643 million.

But it seems like there's growing consensus that everyone will have to accept the obvious and lift the sunsets on the 2009 tax deal. And in fact, negotiations are again underway.

While Although the court’s decision applied to a relatively small sum compared to with the billions at stake in the state budget -- $62 million from the Clean Water Coalition -- the broader precedent set by the court likely prevents Gov. Brian Sandoval and lawmakers from looking to local government to solve the budget woes.

To keep his no-new-taxes pledge, Sandoval had avoided more draconian cuts by relying heavily on money from local school districts and county governments. The court decision removes that option, opening up at least a $500 million hole in the governor’s proposed budget. Loath to cut further into struggling state services and with only days left in the legislative session, Sandoval’s simplest option is to give in to Democrats’ demands to extend the temporary tax increase passed in 2009. [...]

“Now we’re back into the real world of negotiating,” state Sen. Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said. “So far it has been only one side willing to negotiate. This ruling forces the other side to negotiate.”

Democratic leaders met privately with Sandoval late Thursday to work on the contours of that agreement.

Democrats have spent the past two weeks building building a budget that includes revenue from the taxes about to sunset. That will be the starting point for the negotiations.

Now, it's just a matter of what else will happen. Some Republicans will still try to demand attacks on unions, but now their hand has been significantly weakened. The teabaggers are all now weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth. And a few progressives are already starting to take advantage of the changed dynamics and demand better.

Gary Peck, executive director of the Nevada State Education Association, said “the sunsets are not enough.”

Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, said the sunsetting taxes were the best they could get from Republicans right now.

Peck said the Legislature should go back to its plan to raise $1.2 billion in extending the sunsets and instituting a sales tax on services and the margin tax. That tax plan won no support from Republican lawmakers, who would be necessary to pass any tax.

“It’s unfortunate that the Legislature seems unwilling and unable to stand up to governor and do what’s right,” Peck said.

Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association, said the union would still look to put a tax on the ballot if all it got were extending the existing taxes.

Maybe the spirit of Wisconsin is finally arriving here? Maybe progressives are ready to take the lead on saving the state and move forward with real reforms? Maybe we will take what's already available and run with it?





Now that Sandoval's cheap fiscal gimmickry has been exposed as just that, we need to act and we need to keep speaking the truth. Nevada is being forced to wake up, and in the coming days and weeks we need to continue this adult conversation. And even though I myself have been concerned in the not-so-distant past about taking tax reform to the ballot next year, I am now thinking it may be the only way to get around a deadlocked legislature and Governor with his head constantly stuck in the sand. Perhaps we need to let the people decide once and for all if they're satisfied with this nonstop nonsense, or if they're ready for real change.

At some point, the kabuki theater must end. As Mr. Gleaner so eloquently explained this morning, most Nevadans don't give a rat's ass if Sandoval and most legislators grab hands and sing kumbaya over a pile of horse manure. The fact of the matter is that our schools are still grossly underfunded, the rest of our public infrastructure is still woefully inadequate, and our state still needs real long-term solutions for real, sustainable success.

Can We Be Ignored?

Can this be ignored?









Look at all the people who flooded Grant Sawyer yesterday to plead with legislators to at least make a deal on extending the 2009 tax deal. Even with that, there must be nasty cuts to the very public infrastructure we need... But at least it won't be cut to death. But even with not much hope left (at least that politicians in Carson City will do anything close to the right thing this year) and very short notice, over 100 people showed up at Grant Sawyer in Las Vegas and ten whole sign-in sheets were filled up. And for the record, only four individuals of the ten pages were pro-Sandogibbons teabaggers.

And throughout the Assembly Ways & Means hearing on the amended AB 561 (which now just consists of extending the 2009 taxes), the testimony was mind-blowing and heart-wrenching.

Which programs will survive has been a moving target, and witnesses said they've been frustrated by the process.

"Children and families are not pawns in a game," said Jan Crandy, an advocate for autistic children and their families. "We have made them promises and taken them away."

Lifting the sunsets on the temporary taxes could help fill the gap between the governor's $6.1 billion recommended budget and the larger one Democratic lawmakers have approved. Proponents say the taxes, which include a school support tax, a modified business tax, a minerals tax and a business license fee, are already in place and have not hampered economic growth so far.

One business owner said she hadn't heard of any businesses that left the state because of those taxes and didn't see any harm in keeping the status quo.

"I'll survive," she said. "I don't know if Nevada will survive."

Several business groups, including the Nevada Mining Association and a casino association, testified that they don't want the millions in extra money they will get if the temporary taxes expire.

"It's just not necessary to give us a tax cut," said Billy Vassiliadis of the Nevada Resort Association.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval has said throughout the session that he will veto any new taxes or bills extending sunsets on existing taxes; he argues the economy needs time to recover before more taxes come into play.

When even big mining and big gaming are asking to be taxed, what else can be done for gawd's sake??!!

Can this be ignored?

For far too long, we have been told to "suck it up" and "celebrate the free market". Look where that has taken us. Even though we have the cheapest state government and one of the lowest tax burdens in the nation, we have the highest unemployment rate in the nation and an economy unraveling due to casinos investing more offshore and the real estate bubble bursting. The Nevada "success story" of the past has been found to be just a mirage, an illusion, a trick.

Can we be ignored?

We know what we need to fix our economy and put our state back on track. While Sandogibbons continues to dream of making it big time, many Nevadans' dreams of making it to the next day fade away. There were so many people in Grant Sawyer yesterday testifying of how they're trying to do the right thing by staying in school, working on college degrees, and aspiring for real, stable jobs. But as Sandogibbons and his merry band of cannibalistic teabaggers continue to pull the rug out from under them (by way of forcing class eliminations, school closures, further health care rationing, etc.), they don't know if they can survive here.

Yes, it's really come down to that. Can we be ignored any longer? Or will we be forced to leave? Could that be why big bid'ness is swooping in at the last minute?

Many of Nevada's largest taxpayers lined up on Wednesday in support of extending business taxes approved during the 2009 Legislature.

"We did not anticipate a rollback in the tax rates, and we support the temporary taxes going on into the future," Nevada Mining Association President Tim Crowley told members of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, who heard nearly four hours of testimony on AB561.

Crowley was joined by representatives of gaming industry and business industries, along with numerous advocates for education, health care and public safety, asking that $712 million in taxes that were put in place in 2009 be extended through the next biennium to help the state avoid large cuts proposed in Gov. Brian Sandoval's budget.

"As we look at what the impacts of this economy is doing to our public education system, our higher education system, health care, senior citizen support, in good conscience, we would just as soon not get a tax cut," said Billy Vassiliadis, representing the Nevada Resort Association, which includes most of the state's gaming properties.

"There isn't a business in this state, that cares about this state, that wants to see its taxes reduced while we are laying off teachers, reducing their salaries, furloughing state employees, reducing nursing home support, reducing public safety, potentially closing community colleges, increasing tuition, eliminating professors, eliminating degrees from universities, etc., etc., etc., he said. "It's just not necessary to give us a tax cut."

Can we be ignored? Or is Nevada about to get a brutal wake-up call?