Mining for Clarity

This has been one exciting week in Carson City. After a month of stalemate on tax reform, Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) came forward with his mining tax proposal. All of a sudden, a Republican offered a new tax plan, targeted perhaps the worst example of corporate welfare in Nevada, and revived something that many assumed (myself included) was dead in Carson City.

Yet even today, challenges remain. Remember that Roberson proposed his mining tax as an alternative to The Education Initiative. Yet while Republican legislators are united in opposition to that, they're divided on Roberson's alternative tax. This division was on display on KNPR this morning when Senator Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka) proclaimed his opposition to both tax plans on "State of Nevada".

When confronted with the question of how to balance the budget and properly fund public education without either tax, Goicoechea had no real answer. That's the challenge for him, Sandoval, and other Republicans. That's probably a reason why Roberson and the rest of who Ralston calls "The Dirty Half-dozen" broke ranks with fellow Republicans. They realized this was a prime opportunity to take a more populist tack, show actual support for public education, and fight The Education Initiative in a more politically palatable way.

But again, this has managed to divide Republicans. And to complicate matters further, there's no clear path to Roberson's IP 1 alternative reaching the 2014 ballot. Ralston is still trying to wrap his head around that!

I'm no lawyer, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of a veto and an override, and this is a special case in the Constitution, unlike other bill passages. On the other hand, the word "approval" could be construed to mean "in the ordinary approval of a measure," which would mean to disapprove it Sandoval would have to veto it.

So I am, ahem, supremely confident it....could go either way. (I welcome legal opinions in the comments or via email.)

Roberson seems confident the alternative tax bill would be deemed vetoed and lawmakers could override. He has verbal confirmation from legislative attorneys.

That is, it is "the same language that is used for any bill," he told me. "The word 'veto' is not in the Constitution in connection with approval by the governor for any legislation."

And he's right. The word "veto" does not appear in the Constitution when it refers to the governor approving bills. But as strong a case as that may be, "approval" also has been construed in practice to mean the governor either signs it or he...vetoes it.

Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution only states that any alternative to an initiative petition must be approved by the Governor. Yet Governor Brian Sandoval opposes both IP 1 itself and Roberson's alternative. So what happens if/when Sandoval vetoes Roberson's mining tax? And that assumes Roberson's mining tax can achieve the 2/3 supermajority necessary for passage (and override of Sandoval's veto).

That's another major challenge. The mining industry has already been waging an expensive war just to derail SJR 15, the constitutional amendment to remove the 5% mining tax and all the loopholes (that make the effective tax rate far under 5%) from the Nevada Constitution. What will mining lobbyists do in the coming days to fight this new development? We all know that's coming.

And then, there's The Education Initiative itself. Will it have competition on next year's general election ballot? Will all the renewed focus on tax reform compel the Legislature to craft some sort of alternative? Will all the renewed tax reform talk actually help drive the message home for The Education Initiative?

Right now, the fiscal picture in Carson City is looking quite unclear. However, the renewed energy for progressive tax reform is looking crystal clear. What also is looking clear is the opening progressives now have for tax reform thanks to a divided Republican Party. So what will ultimately make it through that opening? We shall see.

It's the Population

Surprise, surprise, the new Legislature maps are being challenged. Of course, the Republicans are whining because the proposed maps don't gerrymander the GOP back into power. Yet among those Republicans, there are some former and current legislators throwing a fit for another (albeit just as ridiculous) reason.

Rural lawmakers expressed dismay Tuesday with the latest redistricting maps that would add a big chunk of northern Clark County to the rural state Senate District 19.

While Washoe County would likely be represented by four state senators, the same number it currently has, rural Nevada would go from three representatives to two if not one.

“It dilutes the ‘cow counties,’ ” said Assembly Minority Leader Pete Goicoechea, R-Eureka. (He’s a rancher, and therefore allowed to use the sometimes-pejorative vernacular for the state’s less-populated counties.)

“The rurals are entitled to be represented like any other minority.”

Huh? When did the Voting Rights Act ever elevate "population minorities" to the same legally protected status as racial minorities? Is Goicoechea really trying to claim that rural Nevada is "discriminated against" when it has the most subsidized government services of any of us? I dare Pete Goicoechea to go to West Las Vegas and talk with the residents who remember the "Mississippi of the West" days, when no African-Americans were allowed to even step in the front door of any Strip casinos! And I dare him to go to East Las Vegas and talk with the residents who are still enduring the anti-Latin@ xenophobia that his party's US Senate candidate tried to tap into to win last year.



[Face palm]

Eureka County objected to the Senate maps. Former Elko Assemblyman John Carpenter, who served 24 years in the Legislature, also lodged the same complaint, saying Elko County would also include parts of Clark County including west of North Las Vegas and Mount Charleston.

Carpenter said, “My greatest fear is that someday the northern rural counties, the cow counties, would be represented by a senator from Southern Nevada.”

Oh, lordy. Oh yes, it's such an "injustice" to lump Elko and Ely into the same district as Indian Springs and Moapa! Oh, the horrors! (I'm obviously being sarcastic here, since the part of Clark County included in the new SD 19 is sparsely populated. None of North Las Vegas and very little of the City of Las Vegas [just Providence and Kyle Canyon] even touch it.)

So what's the real objection here? Simple: Population. And Power.

For decades, rural Nevada, along with Washoe County, has had disproportionate power and control over state affairs. Even though Clark became the most populous county in the state in 1960, we still haven't yet seen Clark become all that much of a force in Carson City. Again, look at the distribution of state college funds, and the distribution of public safety funds, and the constant resistance to progressive tax reform despite growing support statewide.

This really looks to be "The Cow Counties' Last Stand". Deep down, they know that Nevada is changing. Not only is Nevada's population growing more diverse, but it's also becoming more urban as Greater Las Vegas continues to reinvent itself. As we talked about on Monday, the "Bonanza" vision of Nevada is fading as the state makes the transition from bucolic desert wonderland to dynamic urban destination. And as we make that transition, our attitudes our changing on issues like taxes, land use, environmental stewardship, civil rights, and the overall needs for government.

To paraphrase James Carville's famous 1992 statement, "It's the population, stupid." And though rural legislators have long been able to maintain power in Carson City despite the rise of Vegas, time may soon be running out for them.

Pomp & Circumstance... & Any Possibility of Real Solutions?

On the opening day of the 76th Legislature, lawmakers skipped the issues that will likely define the next 119 days in favor of friendly speeches about working together, commemorative photos with proud family members and symbolic gestures.

In their only significant legislative act, lawmakers voted to voluntarily cut their salaries for the session by 4.6 percent — the amount of pay state workers have done without this biennium because of furloughs.

Awww. So everyone's getting along? Yeah, right.

Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, called for civility to rule the day, adding that he and other Democrats agree with much of what Sandoval proposed in his $5.8 billion budget.

But then this: “Now it is the job of the Legislature to determine if the sacrifices placed in the scales to balance the budget can be sustained. Or, if they are too much to ask of Nevada’s citizens who have already lost so much in the recession.”

The message between the lines: Mr. Governor, we aren’t going to simply roll over and hand you the no-new-taxes budget you want, not when it cuts this deeply into education. [...]

Assembly Minority Leader Pete Goicoechea, R-Eureka, also paid homage to the goal of working together. He noted that term limits had emptied the Legislature not only of important institutional knowledge, but also long-standing grudges that often impeded compromise.

But he had his own signals to send.

“Our constituents’ demands are very different than what the other side of the aisle is looking for,” he said shortly after delivering unscripted opening remarks on the Assembly floor, in which he said the state’s future prosperity depends on enacting meaningful reforms now.

What are he and his Republican colleagues looking for? Significant changes to the retirement benefits of public employees and a softening of the collective bargaining rights enjoyed by local government workers.

Already, it's looking like we have a hostage situation on our hands. State workers are public servants that, at times, are treated as indentured servants. They've been enduring pay cuts, furlough days, benefit cuts, and more... And now Goicoechea wants even more "punishment" cast on them?

And what is he willing to give in return?

While Republicans in both houses put out a statement last week supporting Sandoval’s cuts-only budget, Goicoechea implied his position is negotiable depending on the reforms Democrats agree to on those public employee issues.

“At this point, we support the governor’s budget and there are no tax increases in it,” he said.

He waited a beat and repeated: “At this point.” [Emphasis mine.]

Ah, so there it is. Goicoechea and a few other Republicans may allow our state to survive, after all... But only if we allow them to use state workers, the mentally ill, and perhaps a few more sick and starving kids as "collateral damage". Precious.

When did legislating become a political monster truck derby? This is just getting ridiculous.

Why can't more legislators just serve the constituents who voted them into office thinking they had our best interest at heart? You know, they're also supposed to be public servants.