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.

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...

Final Municipal Election Primary Report

So has anything changed since last night? Well, not enough to actually change the results that looked quite apparent last night. So what happened?

In Henderson, Mayor Andy Hafen slipped just under 55%, but that's still more than enough to avoid a runoff. Incumbent Ward 3 Council Member John Marz now stands just under 52%, and that's also more than enough to avoid a June runoff. The only runoff happening here will be for Municipal Judge, as incumbent Mark Stevens only scored 42% to Sandy DiGiacomo's 41%.

Again, Las Vegas will have no June runoffs at all. Ward 2's Bob Beers and Ward 4's Stavros Anthony are still above 75%. And while Ward 6 tightened up a bit, Steve Ross still finished just below 53%, which means no June runoff.

Yet while the other two major Southern Nevada cities were ho-hum, North Las Vegas was full of drama last night. We saw both a stunning rebuke (for one) and an epic comeback (for the other) as Former State Senator John Lee defeated incumbent Mayor Shari Buck 53% to 35%. Buck won't even have the chance of a June runoff, since Lee scored over 50%. However, Ward 1 will go to June runoff, as Isaac Barron scored 45% to Jared Hardy's 25%. Yet Ward 3 won't, as incumbent Anita Wood stands at just under 52%.

Unfortunately, turnout was horrific. Overall turnout was just over 11%. Henderson turnout hovered over 12%, while Las Vegas and North Las Vegas turnout only topped 10%. Yes, it was really that bad.

It's saddening to think that so few people participated in the process. As we discussed yesterday, this is the level of government we interact with most often. This was our chance to have our say in the direction of our communities and the state of our roads, parks, community centers, police & fire services, and more. Yet, only a select few of us even bothered to participate.

There's been talk of moving the municipal elections to even numbered years. I had been leery of that before, since local elections will likely be overshadowed by federal and state level elections. But at this point, is anyone even noticing municipal elections. I guess almost 45,000 people did, but that's still quite pathetic.

Otherwise, last night's results weren't really frightening. Rather, it looks like a certain "newspaper" was embarrassed badly in its effort to meddle in Henderson City Hall politics. And "tea party" efforts to defeat Steve Ross in Las Vegas backfired. At least most of those who showed up seemed to tire of the kind of zealotry that's wreaked havoc in past cycles & other elections.

So status quo reigned supreme for most of the municipal elections yesterday. That's not entirely bad... But it would have been nice to see more voter participation.

Municipal Elections UPDATE

So today was the final day of voting for the Southern Nevada municipal election primaries. Now, we have results... At least from early voting. But in this case, that may be all we need to figure out the final results for at least most of these races.

So what's happening? So far, most incumbents are cruising.

In Henderson, Mayor Andy Hafen has likely just been reelected. He has just over 57.7% with early votes, so at this point it's unlikely he'll even have to face a runoff at this point. Perhaps Hafen really lucked out with the lack of serious opponents, as did John Marz in Ward 3. Marz now sits at 52.2%, so he's closer to the edge. He must be hoping none of his opponents caught any late momentum, so that he can also avoid a June runoff. So far, the only likely runoff looks to be for Municipal Judge (Department 1), as incumbent Mark Stevens is locked in a close race with Sandy DiGiacomo with nearly 42% a piece.

Las Vegas will likely have no June runoffs. Both Bob Beers in Ward 2 and Stavros Anthony in Ward 4 romped the early vote with over 75%, so they've likely been very securely reelected. Steve Ross wasn't quite as fortunate in Ward 6, but he will likely also be reelected as he took 55.3% of the early vote.

If Henderson & Las Vegas are mostly lacking in the drama, then North Las Vegas is swimming in it tonight! For one, this city may already have a new Mayor waiting in the wings. John Lee led incumbent Shari Buck 51.7% to 37.2% in the early vote, so Buck may not even have a chance for redemption in the June runoff! However, there will be a Ward 1 runoff, as no one cleared 50% there. Isaac Barron at least came somewhat close with almost 41%, so he may have an edge over Jared Hardy (who only scored 27.7% so far). And in Ward 3, incumbent Anita Wood probably won another term tonight, as she scored 54.4% in the early vote.

So far, the status quo seems to be holding in most of the Southern Nevada cities. There just may be some interesting drama brewing in North Las Vegas. Just stay tuned here at Nevada Progressive. Tomorrow, we'll post another update on the big municipal races.

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.

PAC's & Mudslinging in North Las Vegas

And it's election time again! Wait, didn't we already have one last November? Yes, we did... For federal, state, and county offices. This spring, however, features municipal elections for all Clark County cities.

North Las Vegas is one of these cities. And considering North Las Vegas' recent history of salacious scandals and other forms of bad press, this election may very well become a referendum on the current troubled state of the city. That's why we're seeing all sorts of political jockeying and bare-knuckle campaigning emerge.

Take, for instance, the emergence of a new PAC opposing North Las Vegas Mayor Shari Buck's reelection bid.

A political action committee, helpfully calling itself The Coalition for Truth in Government, has formed to fund an independent expenditure effort that will benefit Buck's main foe, ex-state Sen. John Lee.

Political consultant David Thomas formed the PAC, and he told me Monday he has his first mailer ready to go. So who's funding it?

Thomas wouldn't tell me, but he did acknowledge that at least one union is involved. (Buck has fought with NLV labor groups over budget-cutting.)

"These are people who are angry with Shari Buck," Thomas told me. "I believe she's doing a lousy job....a horrendous job. I'm not sure there's a government that has been run as badly, and the public needs to know. I don't think she's qualified to be the mayor of any city."

This is what happens when a Mayor and City Council use legally questionable tactics to violate city workers' rights. And this is what happens when a Mayor presides over one of the "10 Worst Run Cities in America". And I guess this is what happens when a Mayor "leads" one's city to the brink of insolvency. And perhaps this is what happens after a Mayor's spouse played a shadowy role in the great city council debacle in the last round of municipal elections. We really shouldn't be surprised this is happening to Shari Buck.

However, there is a strange and surprising twist to this story: John Lee is using this to attempt a political comeback! Yes, that's right. After his stunningly lopsided SD 1 Democratic Primary defeat by Pat Spearman last June, Former State Senator John Lee began crafting his return to the political stage by sending out "feelers" for a potential run for Nor'town City Hall. He must have liked the results. So now, John Lee will again be on the ballot.

As mentioned above, this race has already turned nasty. Buck has already been sending attack mailers against Lee noting his pursuit of multiple offices in the past 18 months (NV-04, SD 1, Nor'town Mayor, did I miss any?). Lee has obviously been hitting Buck over her own record as Nor'town Mayor. And now, PAC money has started to flood the city.

Early voting has already begun today in North Las Vegas, so campaigning there is already hot and heavy. And with 2 other candidates in the Mayoral Ring, there's a possibility of a June runoff. So Nor'towners need to brace themselves. This may be a long, expensive, and dirty slog all through the spring.

Please, No Guns in the Classroom.

In Washington right now, there's renewed hope for meaningful progress on gun safety reform. Yet while that's happening there, some G-O-TEA stalwarts here are still pushing more of the same insanity. In fact, one of them even wants weapons in classrooms!



This really is not helpful. We don't need for more classrooms to turn into war zones. And no, this would not make anyone safer. Rather, the opposite is likely far closer to the truth.

When Brian Fadie of Progress Now Nevada questioned Fiore’s logic —the claim that everyone must be carrying a gun at all times to be safe —the assemblywoman asked him if he had ever shot a gun and upon learning that he hadn’t, accused the [advocate] of “talking out of school.” [...]

A Mother Jones analysis of 61 mass murders over the last 30 years found that “in not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.” As one leading expert explained, “given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances,” arming civilians could often lead to more chaos and deaths.

Incidentally, The Nevada System of Higher Education and several law enforcement groups opposedan earlier bill permitting concealed weapons on college campuses, citing safety concerns.

This is the simply the wrong bill advocating the wrong policy at the wrong time. It was frightening when John Lee proposed it. And it's just as frightening now. The very last thing Nevada needs is schools full of weapons. We can't afford to have Newtown or Virginia Tech happen here.

An End to "Trash Tahoe"? Or the Start of a New Battle?

So after a long and very contentious battle over the future of Lake Tahoe, an agreement has finally been reached over how to plan for its future.

California and Nevada reached a historic agreement over Lake Tahoe this week with the passage of an extensive plan designed to shape development at the lake for years to come.

The Tahoe Regional Planning's Governing Board approved an update to its 1987 Regional Plan by a 12-1 vote late Wednesday afternoon. California board member Mara Bresnick was the lone vote against the plan update, which has been under discussion for the better part of a decade. [...]

“The reality is we need to take the old that is not working and redesign it so it is working to the benefit of the lake,” said Douglas County Commissioner and Governing Board member Nancy McDermid during the board meeting at Harveys Lake Tahoe.

Supporters of the new agreement claim that this heralds a new era of economic growth and environmental protection for the Tahoe region. After all, the Regional Plan hasn't been updated in 25 years. And older developments by and near the lake may be more harmful to the lake with their excessive runoff reducing the lake's clarity.

However, not everyone is buying this. In fact, some environmental groups are already vowing to fight this. There may even a be a law suit brewing.

TRPA’s latest plan, approved today, delegates critical environmental protections back to local jurisdictions, leaving many to wonder if a Tahoe on development steroids will soon turn into a series of corporate resorts. Without better protections, the scenic Tahoe loved by so many will likely morph into one with more paving and less open space, new eight to ten story hotels, and mega-size recreation resorts built on acres of once-pristine lands. The result will be a murkier lake and fewer views of the mountains and the lake as local communities add three and four story buildings along the roadways.

“This plan is based on the belief that the pathway to environmental improvement is through economic development. There is definitely some merit in encouraging development to replace aging commercial buildings and parking lots. But putting all of TRPA’s eggs in that basket is too risky for the golden goose that lays those eggs—Lake Tahoe,” said Bob Anderson, Chair of the Lake Tahoe Sierra Club Group.

Wendy Park, an attorney with the public interest law firm Earthjustice, agrees that the new plan poses new and bigger risks. “Earthjustice has represented local interests and conservation groups in the past to protect the lake and regions around its shoreline from unbridled construction and development. The population of California is growing rapidly and Lake Tahoe needs stronger, not weaker, protections to stay the very special mountain lake everyone cherishes,” Park said.

Last Friday, Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller (D) stated his support for rescinding SB 271 as an agreement for a new Regional Plan has finally been reached. Perhaps the more cynically minded are thinking that it won't matter now that the damage may already be done. After all, the often omnipotent looking "gaming-mining-lobbying industrial complex" revamped SB 271 and pushed for its final passage in order to weaken environmental protection at Lake Tahoe in order to clear the way for more development. And now, it looks like they finally snatched what they wanted with the new Regional Plan.

To be fair, not all environmentalists are planning to fight this. The Nevada Conservation League has signaled it can live with the new plan.

“I think the plan is certainly a compromise,” said Kyle Davis, political director for the Nevada Conservation League. That group joined the League to Save Lake Tahoe in representing conservation interests in discussions last summer led by Nevada Conservation and Natural Resources Director Leo Drozdoff and California Secretary of Natural Resources John Laird designed to reach consensus over the hardest sticking points that had the plan at impasse at the time.

“There’s a lot we don’t like about it. There’s a lot that is an improvement,” Davis said. “I think there are enough safeguards to protect the lake but I think there is a lot more that could have been put in place for environmental gain.”

Nearly everyone was in agreement over the plan needing an update. What has been so contentious is how much more development to allow in the Tahoe region. Will the lake ultimately benefit from an "extreme makeover" of the lakeside communities that will allow for more energy efficient and less runoff producing development? Or will the lake be choked to death by the rush of real estate developers to fill every last acre of land with mega-resorts, mid-rise condos, bigger mansions & golf courses, and shopping malls?



Ultimately, time will tell where this new agreement takes Lake Tahoe. It just looks like this story hasn't ended just yet.

Turn of the Tide at Lake Tahoe?

Earlier this week, Senator Dean Heller's office announced the 16th Annual Lake Tahoe Summit happening August 13 in Stateline. There will certainly be plenty to talk about this year. Climate change certainly poses a greater risk to the region than ever seen before. And in case that isn't enough to tackle at this year's summit, there's another issue that may just rise back to the surface.

Last year, we saw the passage of SB 271, which is also known as "The Trash Tahoe Bill". Why? Oh, it just endangers the entire ecosystem of the region just to enrich "juiced up" corporate developers and pay back political favors.

The bill was originally authored by John Lee. Oh yes, you heard me right. John Lee made SB 271 happen.

But now, all of a sudden, John Lee is no longer in the picture. And to complicate matters further, California has refused to agree to the terms of SB 271. And without agreement from California, there can be no agreement on a badly needed and much delayed new Tahoe Compact to guide future development.

So all of this just barely lies beneath the surface now, but may just end up at the forefront once the Tahoe Summit begins. Climate change has already become a serious problem for Lake Tahoe, and the continuation of SB 271 further imperils the lake. Perhaps Dean Heller had something else in mind when he announced this year's summit, but it looks like we'll have a real opportunity this month to discuss the serious issues affecting the future of Lake Tahoe... And the recent turn of events has made this more possible than ever before.

John Lee's Out... So What's Next for Nevada Priorities?

So Pat Spearman defeated John Lee in SD 1. So what's next? There were some clues found in yesterday's Sun.

Sen. John Lee’s defeat Tuesday by Patricia Spearman in the Democratic primary marked the first time that a lawmaker was targeted and defeated from the left.

“Our goal is to re-center the party,” said Erin Neff, executive director of ProgressNow Nevada Action, one of the groups involved in the effort. “We want to pull the party back from the right wing. To do that, we have got to replace the conservative Democrats with normal Democrats, Democrats who hold our values and vote with us.”

And how exactly are they planning to re-center the party? They're looking at future primaries.

Specifically, Neff said she was watching http://www.marilynkirkpatrick.com/Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, and Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, who’s running for state Senate.

“I think there’s room for them to change next session,” she said, pointing to Kirkpatrick’s involvement in the late and ultimately unsuccessful tax debate last year and Smith’s bills changing work conditions for teachers. (Smith said she was surprised to be targeted. Kirkpatrick did not return a call for comment by deadline.)

Members of the coalition said they have no intention of working from within the Democratic Party structure. Instead, they intend to flex their newfound muscle in future Democratic primaries and in Carson City in 2013.

Remember when we discussed all the pent up frustration with the status quo in Carson City? Well, the folks in the Nevada Priorities coalition have begun taking action. And it's looking like primary-ing John Lee was only Step 1.

But why? Remember when we talked about the importance of values in campaigns? It still comes down to values. And going forward, there are a number of legislators, including some Democrats, who will need to be reminded of what Nevada values.

Certainly, there's a risk in going too far. Look at how insane the Nevada Republican Party has become precisely because it's been taken over by fringe radicals more interested in ideological "purity" than winning or governing. It's just not healthy for governing to devolve into pointless ideological warfare. After all, that's what's causing so much mayhem in Congress right now.

However, it's also a problem when legislators become unresponsive to their constituents. That's a big reason why John Lee fell last week. And it looks to be why the Nevada Priorities coalition feels it's not done shaking up the system just yet.

How long have we talked about progressive tax reform? How long have we talked about fully funding public education? And how long have we talked about rebooting Nevada's economy to be more sustainable in the future? Well, that's the problem. And the solution may finally be underway.

Nevada Primary Recap

To a large extent, we didn't see too many surprises last night. Both Shelley Berkley and Dean Heller won their respective primaries for US Senate, as did John Oceguera in NV-03. Yep, everything seemed to go smoothly and as planned...

Except it didn't.




While Danny Tarkanian ultimately prevailed in NV-04, he did so only narrowly... And only narrowly over the underfunded Barbara Cegavske. And in another embarrassing blow to "Baby Tark", he lost to Cegavske in Clark County! Oh yes, that's right. Barbara Cegavske actually beat "Lil' Tark Shark" in the territory where his last name is golden, and he needed the rurals to save his sorry behind.

And in the Legislature, we saw some dramatic upheaval. In AD 39 in rural Northern Nevada, incumbent Assembly Member Kelly Kite lost to "tea party" backed Jim Wheeler. While Kite was no moderate, he voted for last year's budget... Which still made him insufficiently conservative for the "tea party". In AD 9 in Southwest Vegas, GOP Establishment backed Victoria DeLaGuerra-Seaman narrowly lost to "some dude" Kelly Hurst. And in AD 35, which is just to the south of AD 9, Adam Cegavske (Barbara's son) lost to "some dude" Tom Blanchard.

And then, there's SD 1.

Michael Flores, who helped organize the opposition to [John] Lee, said liberals were motivated to oust Lee after the last legislative session, when he pushed a controversial bill to allow guns on college campuses and succeeded in pushing through another bill that could pave the way for more development around Lake Tahoe.

“Last session was really ugly,” Flores said. “We couldn’t sit around and let nothing happen. We couldn’t sit around and not follow through on our threat.” [...]

Lee had, for a time, been running for Congress, against Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford. But when Lee dropped out of that race and ran for re-election, he quickly earned the full-throttled support of the Democratic Party establishment.

Even such groups that had tangled with him in Carson City, like the state teacher’s union and AFL-CIO — the traditional Democratic political muscle — remained neutral in the race, instead of opposing him.

Who could have guessed? Who could have guessed?

This was the first time that the Netroots/Grassroots Left organized to unseat an incumbent Democratic legislator for voting too far to the right. And since John Lee had quite the conservative record for representing a safe Democratic seat, progressives seized on the opportunity to correct that. And despite all the money spent by Lee and the support he received from the Democratic Establishment and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Lee only managed to score 37% yesterday against military veteran, college lecturer, ordained minister, and out lesbian Pat Spearman. And interestingly enough, voters soured on Lee because of his opposition to progressive goals like marriage equality, fair taxation, reproductive rights, and good environmental stewardship.

While Nevada has become accustomed to seeing bloody primaries on the right, this is the first time that we saw a successful challenge from the left. And this probably won't be the last time.

All in all, we had an interesting night here in The Silver State last night. And later this week, I'll explain how this affects the general election.

A Look Inside SD 1 (Lee v. Spearman Primary)

Last Thursday, a friend asked me to go with her to check out a hot campaign in North Las Vegas. Guess where I ended up. If you guessed Senate District 1, then you're correct!







Nevada Priorities PAC, the progressive coalition supporting Pat Spearman's campaign, was fired up and ready to go yesterday morning at Seastrand Park in North Las Vegas. By 9:30 AM, there were at least a dozen volunteers ready to go out and walk. There were local feminist activists, LGBTQ equality activists, and environmentalists all huddling up and grabbing walk packets. It was quite the sight.

It was also interesting to see what's actually been happening on the ground in North Las Vegas. In the precinct my friend went to, it was about an even split... Between undecided Democrats and Spearman supporters. There were very few Lee supporters. Apparently, that's been the norm for Nevada Priorities' field campaign so far. Pat Spearman has been working hard in the field, and now she's reaping the rewards.

However, that still doesn't mean beating the incumbent Senator is easy. To the contrary, John Lee has some key business lobby power players behind him, so he can't be counted out. He also has people in the field, as his flyers were still on a couple doorsteps in the neighborhood we visited yesterday. Voters here are also getting plenty of phone calls and mail drops from both sides, and the activity won't cease until the last polling sites close on Primary Election Day.

Yesterday was the first day of early voting, so it was especially important for Nevada Priorities to knock plenty of doors. Both they and Lee supporters are targeting Democratic primary voters who regularly vote, as they are the ones who nearly always determine primary results. As we've discussed before, this is where John Lee likely runs into trouble. And now, the fate of his political career lies in their hands.

What Lee v. Spearman SD 1 Primary Comes Down to: Values

According to an article in today's Sun, State Senator John Lee (D-North Las Vegas) is quite glad to get by with a little help from his friends.

Lee’s original plan this year was to abandon his Senate seat in favor of running for Congress. He was expected to challenge a darling of the Democratic establishment, Sen. Steve Horsford, in the 4th Congressional District.

But Lee’s decision to drop out of the congressional race seems to have earned him the protection of the Democratic establishment against the liberal activists intent on driving him from office.

Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas, who had announced he was running for Lee’s Senate seat, decided to move rather than challenge Lee. Other candidates whom progressives tried to recruit to run against Lee also backed out, before Spearman filed on the last day. [...]

“John is very thankful and grateful for the support of the Democratic Party and Democratic constituents,” said Ryann Juden, Lee’s campaign adviser. “He’s happy and thankful to have their support.”

He said the party’s support has “absolutely” helped.

“In the traditional way a party helps a campaign,” he said. The party has helped provide volunteers and “resources necessary to get out and connect with voters.”

The Democratic Party declined to comment for this story.

That's because the Nevada Democratic Party itself can not endorse in a primary. State and county party bylaws prohibit that. However, the Nevada Senate Democratic Caucus has endorsed John Lee. You can see here how "excited" Senate Caucus leader Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas) was to endorse Lee on live TV.

I suspect other folks listed as endorsers in Lee's recent mailer were much more excited to do it. In addition to a few unions and Democratic electeds, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce endorsed Lee. Remember them? They held up the state budget last year over their preferred legislation weakening benefits and workplace protections for public sector workers. Several other corporate lobby regulars, such as Barrick (mining), Bank of America & the state bankers' PAC, CenturyLink, and the realtors' PAC, also seem quite happy to support.

However contrary to what Lee operatives were hoping, the entire Democratic base isn't exactly on board with his campaign. It's mainly because of whose opinion he seems to value the most.





And not only are the state's progressive groups making noise about their disappointment with John Lee, but they're also backing that up with a real campaign. While they may not be able to fully compete with Lee's "business lobby" support, they are firing back with mailers, web campaigning, and a grassroots field effort.

Here's another key excerpt of David Schwartz's Sun article.

“We think this is the right thing to do, to stand up for Democratic values in a Democratic primary,” said Erin Neff, executive director of ProgressNow Nevada.

Members of the coalition, including the Nevada Advocates for Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, Nevada Conservation League and Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada Action Network, “get it,” Neff said.

“They’re putting their name out there in a very difficult way,” she said. “It’s not easy to stand up to your own party.”

Lee, a conservative Democrat, has been progressives’ enemy in Carson City. He often votes against Democratic majorities on key issues for liberals such as domestic partnerships, minimum wage and environmental issues. His tendency to go rogue often required special attention from Democratic leadership to keep him in the fold.

Schwartz then noted the big Democratic allied groups staying out of the SD 1 primary, but he may have missed something quite important. The primary will likely be decided by a smaller (than the general electorate) core of Democratic primary voters who are motivated to get active in local elections, party matters, community affairs, social justice movements, and more because of their values. And their final decision in this primary will likely fall on who they believe best represents and supports what they value.

How much do Democrats in SD 1 value women's rights, full equality for Nevada's LGBTQ families, properly fostering Nevada's economy & environment, and justice for the 99%? And how does John Lee fit into this equation? How Democratic voters in that district answer those questions will be crucial in determining John Lee's political fate and Pat Spearman's political future.

Of course, there will be many more factors in this race. Who has the better ground game? Who contacted more likely primary voters? And who did best with the campaign donations received? But at the end of the day, it's really about the candidates' values and what voters in the district value most.

SD 1 Primary Heats Up As Progressives Churn Out Anti-Lee Mailers

Remember that episode of "The Agenda" last month when Pat Spearman was on? At the end of the program, Elizabeth Crum was asking how Spearman could possibly compete without the kind of money and field operation that Lee has.



Well, it looks like those assumptions Crum made were wrong. Jon Ralston has the latest.

A coalition of progressive groups have mailed the first of what they hope will be nine pieces against state Sen. John Lee, calling him "a millionaire who stands with the richest 1%, not the bottom 99%."

The targeted mailer, posted at right, uses several Lee votes, including against a tenant rights bill co-sponsored by Speaker Barbara Buckley, to contrast him with their candidate, Patricia Spearman.

The folks out to erase Lee are: ProgressNow Nevada Action, Nevada Conservation League, Planned Parenthood and IBEW. Also, MoveOn, PLAN Action and Sierra Club are assisting where they can. [...]

Without the moneyed and populous teachers and Culinary, this is all about phone banks and mail and targeting what will be a small primary universe. Lee will have the money and most of the endorsements, and most insiders think he will win. But with such a small turnout likely, only a few thousand votes will be needed, which has to be making some people, including Lee, a tad nervous.

I had always figured that union organizing muscle would neutralize Lee's Senate Caucus (endorsement) advantage. And I also thought Crum wasn't giving Spearman proper credit for working the field and knocking on so many doors in SD 1 (alongside many enthusiastic volunteers). But now, we're seeing something else that can cut into Lee's incumbency edge... And perhaps turn it against him.

Remember that SD 1 is a heftily Democratic district, so this race will be decided in this primary... And it will be decided mostly by the highest propensity and most hard core Democratic voters. And given John Lee's tendency to join Republicans often to advance their policy priorities, these mailers may come back to bite Lee depending on how many are sent and how many people see them before early voting begins.

It's increasingly looking like a real race is developing in Senate 1. We'll have to see if voters there value incumbency and plum committee assignments, or if they prefer someone who hews closer to their ideology.

Squeezed at the Middle? Or No Mo' Status Quo?

We've been talking for a while now about the increasingly complicated landscape of Carson City. Brian Sandoval may have shaken up that landscape with his embrace of the 2009/2011 "sunset tax" deal, but it's also led to some unintended consequences. Everyone's favorite "Angle-philes" emerged from their "hobbit cave" "undisclosed location" to hurl unhinged screeds at Brian Sandoval and Michael Roberson. But perhaps more importantly, Chuck Muth is now unleashing his harpies anger at "moderates" who dare to agree with their fellow Republican, Brian Sandoval, on maintaining the status quo.

So the primaries are coming at full force... Yet not all of them are coming from the right.

We've talked before about the precarious situation that John Lee has fallen into. Last weekend, Steve Sebelius talked with John Lee about his "moderate dilemma"... And his Republican (??!!) campaign manager.



And today, Pat Spearman appeared on News 3 Las Vegas' "The Agenda" to show that she's offering a progressive alternative.

(Start the video below at 12:00.)



Last year, Lee stood with Sandoval on the budget. But now, he's catching heat in his district over it. Lee is now championing community college reform and change in the state's funding formulae. However, Spearman flat out said that it wasn't enough.

So are we finally seeing an election cycle when it's not just the far right that complains about the status quo in Carson City?

I've been saying for some time that Brian Sandoval may have opened Pandora's Box by trying to stake "middle ground" to put away complaints from the right and from the left on the state budget. And the more I see this play out, the less I doubt my initial call. We'll just have to see what happens in June to see where this goes next.

So Who's Left at the Center of It All?

On Monday, KSNV's "The Agenda" took on what's becoming a big issue in Carson City: Who's taking "the middle ground" on taxes? And really, where is "the middle ground" on taxes?

(Start watching at 10:30 below.)



We know how Brian Sandoval has been dancing on this, but there are other players who will be playing key roles here. For one, the renewed focus on C-Tax issues has brought Senator John Lee (D-North Las Vegas) back into the spotlight. After all, his committee has been holding hearings on this very issue. He also recently penned a Sun op-ed on community college reform. He's been getting out front on these issues.



However, controversy has also been catching up to him. California has flatly ruled out the kind of deregulation of Lake Tahoe that Lee spearheaded last year. He's also caught heat over his opposition to marriage equality, domestic partnerships, and transgender inclusive ENDA. But perhaps most importantly, John Lee initially agreed with Brian Sandoval's "no new tax" position until the Nevada Supreme Court's late May ruling completely reset the 2011 budget negotiations. So now, he's getting a primary challenge from Pat Spearman... And Nevada AFL-CIO is now signaling it won't fall in line behind John Lee.

Earlier today, Steve Sebelius joked on Twitter that "it's tough out there for a moderate". John Lee is starting to feel that. However, not all the primary action is happening on the Democratic side.

Rather, there's even more primary drama to be found among Nevada Republicans. Remember, the "tea party" here still feels betrayed after falling for Sandoval. So now, it looks like they're lashing out at him, Senate GOP Leader Michael Roberson, and all the Assembly & Senate GOP Caucus endorsed candidates who refuse to sign the Chuck Muth/Grover Norquist tax pledge. In fact, we're now seeing GOP Assembly and Senate primaries across the state turn hot over this. Even Pat Hickey, the incoming Assembly GOP leader that Muth once seemed to like, is now falling out of favor with Nevada's "Tea Party, Inc."

Just as I had suspected back in March, this is turning out to be much more complicated than Brian Sandoval's PR team had initially thought. They just figured Sandoval could simultaneously "claim the middle ground", help his favored Republican candidates in swing districts, and fend off calls for comprehensive, progressive tax reform, by agreeing to the sunset tax deal yet again. However, it's starting to look like Sandoval may have stirred a real hornet's nest in doing this. While Sandoval may yet succeed in claiming at least some "middle ground" for himself on the budget and taxes, moderates in both parties are now feeling the heat as the grassroots on neither side likes the politics or the policy behind the tax deal that Sandoval now owns.

Ah, the law of unintended consequences...

Laughlin: "The Little City That Could"?

RT @SandraChereb: Laughlin residents will vote on incorporation. #laughlin /The Little City That Could......

That's what Jon Ralston tweeted when Nevada AP reporter Sandra Chereb broke the news that Laughlin will get a referendum on cityhood, after all.

Residents of Laughlin will be allowed to vote on incorporation under a compromise reached with state lawmakers that allows them to pull the plug on the new city if it can't support itself.

The Legislative Commission approved the proposal Thursday. The action allows residents to vote on incorporation in June, but requires proponents to instruct residents that if passed, becoming a city could mean higher taxes or reduced services.

The commission agreed that a bill draft will be requested for the 2013 session, giving legislators the option to either delay the July 1, 2013 effective date of Laughlin's cityhood, or revoke it altogether if there's insufficient revenue to fund it.

This is turning out to be quite the surprise. Just a month ago, it looked like Laughlin cityhood was dead as the state had originally punted the decision to the Clark County Commission, which wasn't interested in granting it.

The major point of conflict was (of course) over the financials. Clark County insisted that a City of Laughlin would immediately start in the red and could never really support itself. However a group of pro-city locals disagreed, and they even hired their own consultants to do feasibility analysis to show how a City of Laughlin could work. While most Nevadans probably haven't been paying too much attention to this fight over 7,323 residents and who should serve as their primary local government, this has been a fierce battle in the very southern tip of the state that some thought was over casino revenue and/or future development plans.

But now, it looks like there will be a vote this year for a proposed city that excludes the casino corridor while including plenty of land that's been eyed for development for some time. We'll have to see how it goes.

And apparently, so will the state. Under this proposed agreement, the state will leave open the possibility of the Legislature delaying incorporation of the city next year, or even repeal the city charter altogether, if future evidence shows that a City of Laughlin would not be financially feasible. This is why this fight isn't completely over yet. We'll have to watch Laughlin tax revenue and tourism numbers more closely in the coming months to see what kind of data state legislators in Carson City will be looking at next year.

Last year, the issue of Laughlin incorporation became a bit of a political football as state budget negotiations were underway. But perhaps now that Laughlin cityhood appears to have broad bipartisan support, this tale may finally deliver a long awaited happy ending for those Nevadans at the very southern tip of the state looking to chart their own future.

As the #NVLeg Primaries Turn

In January, it looked like Nevada Democrats were starting the new year in a shaky position... At least when it came to the state of play in Carson City. HOA scandal plagued Senator Allison Copening (D-Las Vegas) decided not to run for reelection in the new SD 6, followed by Senator Shirley Breeden (D-Henderson) deciding not to run for reelection in the new SD 5 because of family health issues. Around this time, Nevada's pundit class expected Democrats to remain in defense mode and struggle to maintain the Senate majority.

However in February, everything seemed to change. Up north, Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) shocked the pundits by announcing her campaign in the new SD 15 this year against appointed Senator Greg Brower (R-Reno). Brower was expecting to coast to reelection, but the competitive nature of the district and the new competition forced him to flip-flop on his past anti-tax positions and switch from "tea party" allegiance to full on "moderation". Meanwhile down south, the growing chorus of questions on the whereabouts of Elizabeth Halseth (R-Enterprise) to resign her SD 9 seat, triggering a special election in what's now a Democratic leaning district. All of a sudden, G-O-TEA plans to reclaim control of Carson City hit a real snag. And if that wasn't frustrating enough for Legislature Republican leaders, the entry of moderate Democrat (and wife of a certain Las Vegas City Council Member) Kelli Ross into the SD 18 race put that district into play and further complicated GOP efforts to grow its ranks in Carson City.

So far this month, the dynamics of the #NVLeg campaign seem to be shifting yet again. Until this month, the pundit class was mostly focusing on the general election fight for control of the State Senate. However, a unique series of events turned attention to the primary. When Governor Brian Sandoval (R) announced his support for extending again the sunsets on the 2009/2011 tax deal, he wanted to make the Nevada GOP reclaim the middle ground and look more appealing to moderate voters. Instead, his move and Senate GOP Leader Michael Roberson's (R-Henderson) flip-flop on the tax sunsets enraged the "tea party" base and led Nevada "Tea Party, Inc." leader Chuck Muth to begin attacking them on his blog. And now, it looks like Muth is taking sides against incumbent GOP Assembly Member Kelly Kite (R-Minden) and against the Senate GOP Caucus endorsed candidates in SD 5 (Henderson-Green Valley) and SD 18 (Northwest Las Vegas), causing even more headaches for Republican leadership.

However, not all the primary action is on the right. Also in SD 18, former PTA President and current Democratic candidate Donna Schlemmer declined to step aside when Kelli Ross announced for that district, which seemed to encourage a number of local progressives concerned about the Ross' Blue Dog leanings. And last week in SD 1, nearly everyone (moiself included!) was shocked to find that not only was John Lee getting a primary challenge, but he's now having to endure a fierce campaign against a surprisingly strong candidate in Pat Spearman, as well as a growing coalition of LGBTQ equality activists, environmentalists, education advocates, union activists, and other progressives looking for a different voice to fill that seat. The R-J posted an interview with John Lee this morning, and he tried hard to make a case for his (relatively) conservative voting record making a good fit for the reliably Democratic SD 1. And with Assembly Member and aspiring Assembly Speaker Marcus Conklin (D-Las Vegas) catching heat for cozying up to the Fertitta family (while unions coalesce behind Culinary 226 to take on Station Casinos) and mining industry lobbyists (including going on a trip with them to Brazil last year), some progressives are feeling freer to eschew the Assembly Caucus endorsement list in supporting other Assembly candidates running in the Democratic primary.

Until recently, most political insiders described Nevada as a "one party state" in that whoever was in power completely subscribed to "the gaming-mining-lobbying industrial complex" party line. However this year, it's starting to look like change is in the air. Not only has the political landscape changed for the November general election, but we're also seeing a number of interesting races pop up for the June primary. "Tea Party" madness still looks to be alive and well on the Republican side, and Muth & Co. really look to be emerging as a serious thorn on the side to Republican leadership. Meanwhile on the Democratic side, progressives look to be speaking up and making more of an effort to challenge the "middle of the road" status quo.

It's increasingly looking like there will be real reason for us to vote in June, and that's not really a bad thing. Primaries are just another part of the "small d" democratic process. They'll never totally be done away with, regardless of some party officials' wishes and hopes and prayers. And they'll give Nevada voters more choices, and perhaps even some real choices.

All About Brian (When He's Not Even on the Ballot This Year?)

This morning, Anjeanette Damon has a Sun article on the continuing speculation on Governor Brian Sandoval's national aspirations. Honestly, I think Grover Norquist put that to rest last week.

So now, attention turns to what Sandoval will do next year. His surprise announcement on extending the 2009 tax deal indefinitely (right after Grover Norquist dissed him!) seems to have reshaped the dynamics of this year's race for the Legislature. Both David Schwartz and Jon Ralston pontificate on how it affects Republican Legislature candidates. Ralston seems to think that this helps Republicans in retaking the middle of the road, but Schwartz did note frustration from his former BFFs in Muth-land and NPRI.

And speaking of Muth, he's acting like a scorned lover (and quoting me!) in his rebuke of Roberson's rebuke of Grover Norquist. And earlier last week, he dared to go there in calling out Roberson's flip-flop on the sunset taxes. But ultimately, his anger is being directed at Sandoval for making permanent his flip-flop on the sunset taxes. Both Roberson and Sandoval may be leaving the "tea party" high and dry, but will Muth & Co. let them get away with it? Remember that there are a number of hot GOP primaries in Legislature races across the state. And no attempt at spinning the sunset extension as just another take on "no new taxes" will be enough to stop Nevada's arm of "Tea Party, Inc." from gathering more pledges and running scorched earth primaries. As we've talked about before, the Nevada Republican Party in 2012 holds Sharron Angle in much higher regard ("SHE'S PURE!!!") than Kenny Guinn ("He was LIB'RUL!!!") or Bill Raggio ("He was also LIB'RUL!!!"), so we'll see if "the base" reacts kindly to Sandoval's sunset switch-er-roo.

And considering the base reaction (pun intended?) to Sandoval's announcement, just what will actually happen in the Legislature next year? As we discussed last month, it largely depends on who controls the State Senate chambers. In fact, I still suspect that even after Sandoval's move, a Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson would have to do a whole lot of heavy lifting just to get Sandoval's budget passed.

But if Democrats retain the Senate majority, and especially if the Senate Democratic caucus grows this year, Sandoval will have fewer opportunities to work with the G-O-TEA faction in the Legislature for some sort of deal that exchanges the 2009 tax deal extension for more "tea party" legislation being enacted. Instead, he'll have to deal with a Democratic Caucus that's had to pay more attention to the growing chorus in favor of bold, progressive tax reform. In fact, David Schwartz had another Sun article today on the painful reality of recent state budget cuts.

A 1-year-old with Down syndrome had his every-other-week physical therapy cut in half after the state told his parents there wasn’t money for more frequent sessions.

The state would not pay for a 2-year-old with speech and cognitive disabilities to see therapists more than twice a month. Again officials cited the battered state budget.

A 2-year-old with Down syndrome had her sign language lessons and occupational and physical therapy appointments reduced by half. And instead of being seen at home, her parents take her to a clinic.

These cases and others, detailed in a complaint against the state, triggered an internal state investigation last month. Together they reveal a troubling fact about the impact of Nevada’s austere budget: Services to the state’s youngest children are being curtailed and sometimes not provided at all because of a lack of funds.

About 250 children, from newborns to 3-year-olds, are on waiting lists for such services. For the 2,447 children who are in the state’s program, plans for therapy are often limited, the investigation found. The complaint was brought by the Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center.

Now remember, Brian Sandoval is only talking about "flattening" the budget. He doesn't want to restore what was cut in 2009 and 2011. But as our population grows and social service caseloads remain high (due to the continued aftershocks of "The Great Recession"), "flattening" is far from enough to keep up with what our state actually needs.

This is why Sandoval's shift on the sunsets probably won't dampen calls to reform Nevada's tax code. We'll have to wait and see which petitions go out for which initiatives, but it's still looking likely we'll see signature gathering outside our local grocery stores soon.

And in the mean time, there will be pressure on Democrats not to give into Sandoval so easily and so soon. We're about to see a spirited primary contest in the new SD 1 because John Lee often strengthened Republicans' hands in Carson City (by often breaking away from Democratic ranks at the most inopportune time). And if this primary challenge catches fire, Sheila Leslie's campaign gains steam in SD 15, and SD 9 changes hands, it may just be "the perfect storm" that may really test Sandoval's ability to stay in the middle of the road.

So even though Brian Sandoval may not be on the ballot this year, he still looks to play a large role in this year's election. How he navigates the early stage of the budget process can affect what happens this year. And what happens in the election this year will ultimately determine how Sandoval will govern next year.

SD 1: John Lee Gets a Primary Challenge. And I Honestly Didn't Know About It.

Honestly, I did NOT know this was coming. When I was at Stonewall on Wednesday to listen to John Lee discuss his experience in the Legislature and answer questions about his record, I had no clue that Southern Nevada Stonewall's new Vice-chair was preparing to challenge him in the Democratic Primary in the new SD 1.

And now, it looks like Senate Democrats are in for a real Battle Royale. On one side, the Senate Caucus will have to decide how to defend John Lee in the primary. He is the incumbent, after all, and the caucus typically favors incumbents first.

But on the other hand, a number of progressive activists will probably be jumping behind Pat Spearman. Considering his past votes on matters of LGBTQ equality, the environment, education, and more, the grassroots left hasn't ever had a very good relationship with Lee. Tensions have been rising in the last few legislative sessions, so perhaps this was bound to happen at some point.

I'm sure there will be talk of how this affects the Senate Caucus. The fact of the matter is that this is how the ("small d") democratic process works. Primaries happen. And if Pat Spearman didn't do this, someone else might have announced.

Still, I just hope folks on both sides of this emerging divide remember to look at the bigger picture. Regardless of what happens in this primary, there's a big election coming in November. And not only is partisan control at stake, but so are the environment, workers' rights, education, LGBTQ equality, tax reform, and so much more.

I honestly didn't even know about this until Jon Ralston tweeted it. And I had no clue on Wednesday that this was going to happen. I'm confident that Stonewall will be fair in its endorsement process, as no endorsements have even been issued yet. I just hope that the larger progressive activist base will really think this through and make sure that whatever happens in this primary doesn't harm larger efforts to make a positive impact on the Legislature in this fall's election.