The Waiting Game

Last week, the State of Nevada had no one present. No one even bothered to show up for court in San Francisco. Instead, the judges of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals instead had to endure this bucket full of crazy last week.

We will likely receive a ruling from the Ninth on Sevcik v. Sandoval fairly soon. And so far, marriage equality seem to be liking their odds.

Yet now, other states may have leapfrogged ahead of Nevada on the way to the US Supreme Court. However, Nevada may yet slip onto The Supremes' docket if the Ninth issues a ruling on Sevcik this week.



As we've discussed before, the US Supreme Court set this chain of lower court marriage rulings with its US v. Windsor. Will the SCOTUS Justices who ruled so passionately in favor of LGBTQ civil rights reverse course so suddenly? We seriously doubt it, but we can't take anything for granted there.

Now here's where it becomes even more interesting. The State of Nevada dropped its legal defense of marriage discrimination in February. That's why no one from the State of Nevada even bothered to show up in San Francisco last Monday to argue for the Question 2 marriage ban. And that's why US Supreme Court Justices will have to determine standing (a la Prop 8 California) should the usual suspects decide to appeal the Ninth's ruling.

This is why we're now playing the waiting game. If the Ninth Circuit rules in favor of equality, Nevada may become State #18 for marriage equality by next month. Or we may not, should SCOTUS decide to place that ruling on hold. Perhaps our case may be one of the marriage cases that will set a national precedent next year. Or perhaps not, should SCOTUS decide not to take up Sevcik at all.

Whatever happens, this month promises to be an exciting one for civil rigts activists here in The Silver State. We're just waiting to see what comes next.

Not If... But When

Just yesterday, we talked about two more to fall. Now, we can add another one to the pile: Pennsylvania. No really, Pennsylvania is the latest state where a federal court struck down its marriage ban.

As we were discussing yesterday, marriage equality is increasingly becoming a legal reality for the entire nation. And it's only a matter of time before it arrives in Nevada.

When the US Supreme Court issued its US v. Windsor ruling, it made clear that anti-LGBTQ discrimination would no longer be welcomed there. And since that ruling, we've had this long string of federal judges issuing rulings in favor of equality. That's certainly not a coincidence. Lower federal courts tend to take their queues from "The Supremes".

And it's not a coincidence that Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) & Governor Brian Sandoval (R) decided to drop their legal defense of marriage discrimination this past February. The original defendants in Sevcik v. Sandoval had tried to make their case in court, but that only blew up in their faces. They ultimately had to realize that they truly had no Constitutional ground to stand on, so they stood down.

It's no longer a question of if... But rather, when. When will Question 2 finally be tossed into the dustbin of history? When will Nevada's marriage ban be declared unconstitutional? When will marriage equality arrive in The Silver State?

Just two years ago, Sevcik v. Sandoval seemed like a long shot. But now, it's feeling more like a slam dunk. But really, this was bound to happen. Eventually, public opinion would catch up with Constitutional law.

And it's no longer a question of if it will arrive here... But when.

Follow the Leader

On Monday, we saw a major turnaround. In a fascinating about face, both Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto agreed to drop their plan to defend the state’s ban on marriage equality in federal court. Overall, their decision has been met with many sighs of relief here in Nevada. Why waste the state’s time and money on a losing war to deny thousands of Nevada families their civil rights?

However, not everyone feels that way. Already, Nevada’s top G-O-TEA politicians are going against their own Governor and decrying his decision to stop fighting marriage equality in court. Attorney General candidate Adam Laxalt (R) has been trying to differentiate himself from Sandoval, Cortez Masto, and his likely Democratic opponent this fall (outgoing Secretary of State Ross Miller) with his loud opposition to marriage equality and a promise to reinstate the state’s legal fight against it. And Washoe County District Attorney Dick Gammick (R) went on "Nevada Newsmakers" yesterday to declare he's sick & tired of LGBTQ Nevadans "throwing it in his face" (whatever that means).

We've known for some time that Brian Sandoval has very little juice left in his own party. But now, it's becoming crystal clear that most Nevada Republicans would rather take marching orders from G-O-TEA Shock Jock Rush Limbaugh than from their own Governor. Wait, what?!

No really, think about it. Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh had a panic attack when University of Missouri football star and potential NFL recruit Michael Sam came out as gay. He then went on to declare that heterosexuals are somehow "under assault". How?



As usual, "El Rushbo" made absolutely no sense. He just doesn't like the idea of out athletes. He probably also doesn't like out Eagle Scouts, out Bandstand dancers, and/or out Navy SEALs. And he still refuses to accept 21st century America.

But then again, so do the 21st Century Know Nothings who consider him, Laura Ingraham, and the other leading G-O-TEA Shock Jocks to be the "true leaders of the movement". They're afraid of 21st Century America, and they see growing acceptance of LGBTQ Americans as a "threat to traditional values". And because they are the base of today's Republican Party, G-O-TEA politicians (such as Adam Laxalt & Dick Gammick) will pander to their fears in order to further their own careers.

That's all we're seeing now. G-O-TEA politicians are just following their leaders. And no, Brian Sandoval isn't one of those leaders.

No Leg Left to Stand On

What a turnaround here. Last month, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) submitted a brief for the State of Nevada to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals that raised eyebrows and dropped jaws. And it did so for all the wrong reasons.

Perhaps the backlash finally got to them, or perhaps they finally did realize they have no legal leg left to stand on in Sevcik v. Sandoval. Whatever the case, both elected officials announced late yesterday that they're dropping the legal defense of Question 2. And all of a sudden, no one is left to defend Nevada's marriage equality ban.

So what's next? Most likely, we're about to see a replay of what happened when Perry v. Brown (aka the California Prop 8 suit) reached the US Supreme Court. After the Governor & Attorney General of California declined to defend Prop 8 in court, the Yes on 8 campaign stepped up to do so. But once the case reached SCOTUS, the Justices ultimately issued a 5-4 ruling that determined the Yes on 8 campaign had no legal standing to represent the entire State of California.

Now that Governor Sandoval & Attorney General Cortez Masto have dropped the State of Nevada's official defense of Question 2, there's no one left with the legal heft to represent the State of Nevada. Even if "the usual suspects" try to step in for the State, they will likely run into the same trouble that the Yes on 8 campaign did thanks to the precedent set by the Supreme Court last year in Perry v. Brown.

In many ways, we're now approaching a rather anticlimactic end to what has been a difficult (and ultimately embarrassing) period of Nevada history. Not too long ago, Question 2 was considered to be "settled law" and marriage discrimination was "the norm". But when a few plucky Nevadans decided to sue for equality, everything began to change. And when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) announced the ultimate change of heart, even more monumental change followed.

But now, the end of marriage discrimination in Nevada is looking increasingly inevitable. And yesterday's announcement from Brian Sandoval & Catherine Cortez Masto only confirms this. Simply put, marriage discrimination has no leg left to stand on.

There's More to That FAIL

Last Wednesday, we couldn't help but chuckle a bit (actually, quite a lot) over the State of Nevada's absolutely batshit crazy eye-popping brief to the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in the latest round of Sevcik v. Sandoval. It went to great lengths to defend the state’s history of "promoting traditional marriage", even though our state's history has proven anything but that. Oh, and it also took outrageous and downright nonsensical detours into the territory of incest and bigotry.

And now, it's close to ending a political career. And surprisingly (actually, not really), it's not Governor Brian Sandoval's (R-Still Unaware That It's 2014). Perhaps because he was expected to do something this stupid, he hasn't received much blowback (other than from yours truly here).

Instead, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D-??!!) looks to be receiving quite the farewell party from Carson City. Why? Her office went along with Sandoval's request for this brief. And nearly everyone expected better from her.

Her office initially suggested she was just "following orders". Really? So "following orders" is more important than paying attention to what's actually in the US Constitution? Keep in mind that the first and foremost duty of Attorneys General is to protect & defend the Constitution.

So why didn't Catherine Cortez Masto remember her own oath of office? Why did our Attorney General just go along with the Governor? And why is either one of them bothering to defend an indefensible denial of civil rights? Both are trained lawyers, and Sandoval previously served as Attorney General before being appointed as a federal judge.

While I don't always see eye to eye with Jon Ralston, he's totally correct on this case. Both the Governor and the Attorney General blew it when they decided to defend discrimination & inequality rather than remember their own oaths of office. And ironically enough, whatever political calculation they made to do this has only resulted in a major "EPIC FAIL" moment and one hell of a backfire.

Supreme Tax Melee

Just a month ago, we were all blown away when State Senator Michael Roberson (R-Metamorphosis) and his merry "Mod Squad" decided to not just change the tax debate in Carson City, but radically upend it with their mining tax alternative to IP 1/The Education Initiative (corporate margins tax). All of a sudden, some Republicans decided that the best way to kill a tax proposal... Is by offering another tax proposal. And on top of that, they decided to target the very industry that's had its sweetheart tax deals written into the Nevada Constitution.

I know, I know. That's a whole lot to process. Yet so is the trouble "The Mod Squad Mining Tax" is now running into.

For one, it likely still doesn't have the votes for passage. (Instead, it's been worsening the civil war within the Nevada Republican Party.) And Governor Brian Sandoval (R-Nevada Mining Association) has threatened to veto it if it does pass. And even if it does pass and somehow overcome a Sandoval veto, a growing chorus of legal experts have been declaring it to be unconstitutional. Why? Since the Nevada Legislature never even voted on IP 1, how can it place an alternative on the ballot?

Amicus Nevada (aka Sean McDonald) first chimed in with his legal opinion suggesting Roberson's tax alternative isn't legal. And now, he's far from alone in thinking this. Yesterday, both the Secretary of State's office and the Attorney General's office reached the same conclusion.

The Secretary of State’s Office said this alternative or any other wouldn’t qualify for the ballot because the Legislature did not meet a deadline by which to introduce the alternative.

That keeps the Nevada State Education Association’s margins tax alone on the ballot. Voters will decide in 2014 if they should approve or disapprove of a 2 percent tax on business revenue that would raise an estimated $800 million for the state’s education system.

After consulting with the Attorney General’s Office, Deputy Secretary for Elections Scott Gilles wrote that the Legislature failed to take actions defined in the state’s constitution by March 15, the 40th day of the legislative session.

The constitution says that the Legislature needs to reject by the 40th day any initiative — in this case, the margins tax initiative — in order to preserve the right to introduce an alternative.

The legal question involved the definition of reject.

And obviously, the Governor's office also agrees with this. However, Roberson still doesn't. Instead, he's doubling down on his mining tax alternative. And he even has a brand new (Legislative Counsel Bureau) LCB opinion to back him up!

["You can do what you want, and the executive branch can't interfere," is] the gist of a new legislative legal opinion that mining taxman Michael Roberson obtained shortly after news broke of executive branch analysis that could block an alternative to the margins tax from the ballot.

It's all about the power of the Legislature to do what it wants.

There is a real separation of powers battle brewing this session, unlike any we have seen before.

Ralston is correct on the last point. We are now seeing an unprecedented conflict over separation of powers, and over who ultimately sets the rules on what makes the cut for the ballot. Roberson & the LCB are arguing that the Legislature can essentially reject citizen initiatives and place alternatives to compete against them on the ballot, the Legislature can do so however it wants, and everyone else must essentially accept this as legal.

Amicus Nevada, Governor Sandoval, and both the Secretary of State's office & the Attorney General's office disagree. They're saying that Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution stipulates that any alternative to a citizen initiative petition must be rejected in an actual vote of the Legislature. They've also hinted that it's unclear as to whether the Governor's approval is also required to move an alternative initiative forward. And on top of that, is this mining tax also violating the single subject rule (since it proposes a completely different tax than that of IP 1 itself)?

At the very least, the legal waters here are very murky. This nonetheless doesn't seem to be stopping Senator Roberson's "Mod Squad" from pursuing their mining tax alternative. It's now just a matter of how much further it can go in the Nevada Legislature... And how long before The Nevada Supreme Court is asked to intervene.

Catherine Cortez Masto's Speech @ #CCDP2012

Another of the big headliners at yesterday's Clark County Democratic Party Convention was Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. Her office has been in the news lately as the $26 billion 49-state-plus-DC foreclosure settlement has been approved by the courts and is about to provide badly needed aid for distressed homeowners along with foreclosure victims who wrongly lost their homes. So it wasn't really a surprise to see Nevada's Attorney General explain to the crowd why she was willing to take on the big banks... Then why she was willing to settle.



And it seemed so fitting that Beau Biden followed her speech.

Another #CCDP2012 Update

So far, here's what's been happening:







Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D), Treasurer Kate Marshall (D), and Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Las Vegas) (who's also, of course, now running for US Senate) spoke to the convention floor.





So have State Senator Ruben Kihuen (D-Las Vegas) and likely NV-04 Democratic nominee Steven Horsford.

Both Berkley and Horsford spoke powerfully about protecting Social Security and Medicare, and about rejecting "tea party" extremism. And while the crowd has thinned a little since lunch break, the room here in The Riviera's Convention Center still looks pretty full... And the room is still getting riled up by powerful speeches.

Oh, and by the way, President Obama will be getting all of Clark County's delegates to the state Democratic Convention this June. Surprised, anyone?

Again, I'll have videos from the speeches available later this weekend. Stay tuned for more.

Ensign's Gone... Now What?

Heh. That didn't take long.

In a final acquiescence to what many saw as the inevitable end to his scandal-scarred political career, U.S. Sen. John Ensign closed the door on a re-election bid Monday, dramatically improving his party’s chances of keeping his seat in a swing state that has been leaning more Democrat[ic].

The move accelerates the race for a seat that will help determine which party controls the U.S. Senate after 2012.

Ensign’s announcement intensifies the pressure on Democrats, who had been hoping the beleaguered incumbent would stay in the race long enough to weaken presumed Republican front-runner Rep. Dean Heller. [...]

Democrats must quickly figure out who their strongest candidate will be to run as they hope to resurrect the Obama wave and ride it once again to down-ticket victories.

Meanwhile, Republicans will try to quell a potential scrum of primary opponents who might view the open seat more favorably now, despite Heller’s presumed entrance.

So who's all in? Need we even ask? Dean Heller is running. He's wanted this for quite some time. And now, he has it...

Or at least, he thinks he has it in the bag.

What if solidly popular Secretary of State Ross Miller or Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto decides to run?

(Skip to 3:30 on the video.)



So will one of them step up and do it? Well, on the Democratic side, all depends on Shelley Berkley's decision. It looked likely Shelley would run when it also looked likely that Ensign would continue his vanity campaign, regardless of what his actual chances were. But now that Ensign was forced out by GOP power players is retiring "for family reasons", the race looks like less of "a gimme" for Shelley, and the DSCC has already sent smoke signals suggesting they don't believe she's the only game in town.

I suspect Shelley is now under intense pressure from the DSCC to make up her mind once and for all, and do so quickly. I'm sensing the DSCC prefers she bow out and let Ross Miller or Catherine Cortez Masto take a crack at this race, but they also realize Shelley has the full force of The Reids behind her and won't stand for a heated primary if she's that determined to run.

But does Dean Heller have that kind of luxury on the GOP side? Perhaps not. Guess who's already testing the waters!

It's possible that former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle could mount another bid for a spot in the upper congressional chamber next year, an adviser to the Tea Party darling signaled to Ben Smith at Politico on Monday. [...]

On Monday, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) announced that he would not run for reelection in 2012. It seems for Angle, the news could be just the opening she needed to mull another run.

"Almost 250,000 Republicans have already donated to Sharron Angle, probably more than any Republican in the country," wrote consultant John Yob in an e-mail to Smith. "She will be a tremendously strong candidate for whichever office she chooses to run for. A combination of a strong tea-party based grassroots operation and unprecedented campaign funding is a powerful combination in a Republican Primary."

During a recent trip to New Hampshire, Angle hinted that another campaign for federal office could be in her political future. According to the Union Leader, she ruled out a run for the White House.

Yes, my dears. "Our Lady of Perpetual Campaigning" returns! And she has a history of going toe to toe against Heller, so let the fireworks begin.

The Hill suggests that Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki might also want to run, but both Ralston and Roll Call suspect he's more likely to run for Heller's current NV-02 House seat. I think the latter two are right on this, as Krolicki probably doesn't want to take on Heller, and would rather ease his way into a cushy House seat.

So however this shakes out, Nevada is poised to yet again host the most topsy-turvy, thrilling, and exciting Senate campaign in the country. And of course, we'll be here to guide you through all the craziness of it. ;-)

Scenes from Stonewall's Henderson Mixer on Monday!

Yes, yes, yes! Finally, Stonewall was here in my 'hood this week! We had a chance to speak with Assembly Member Ellen Spiegel, State Senator Joyce Woodhouse, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, and more!

It was great to actually speak to her directly about the recent issue of the Nevada DMV denying accurate driver's licenses for transgender persons, and she said she'd be on the case. Ellen Spiegel said she was proud to testify in support of SB 283 and be the 28th vote to override "Luv-Guv" Gibbons' veto of domestic partnerships. Joyce Woodhouse spoke about what she's doing in the Senate on education, renewable energy, the budget, and more.

All in all, it was very informative and very fun. And yes, I was so glad that we were able to do it so close to home! :-)

So Much for Republicans Praising "Tort Reform"

Isn't it funny how Republicans always complain about "frivolous law suits"... Until they start filing their own? That's what I'm thinking about this new GOoPer plan to have a bunch of wingnut GOoPer state Attorneys General (AGs) file law suits against health care reform. They claim it's unconstitutional, but Steve Sebelius has already pointed out they're not on solid legal ground.

Although ["Luv-Guv"] Gibbons seems confident that the health-care bill is unconstitutional, many people disagree with him (not least of whom is President Obama himself, a Harvard-trained former law professor). Health-care supporters make a strong case that the bill they championed is allowed under the Constitution’s language empowering Congress to provide for the general welfare, the so-called elastic clause, which allows Congress to enact laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers to provide for the general welfare, and to regulate commerce among the several states. To those people, an argument on Tenth Amendment grounds — that the power to enact health-care reform or require residents to buy health insurance is reserved to the states or the people — is baseless, since the Constitution specifically delegates to Congress the power to provide for the general welfare and regulate interstate commerce.

And yes, you heard him right... "Luv-Guv" Gibbons is trying to force our AG, Catherine Cortez Masto (D), to join the law suit. Unfortunately for him however (and fortunately for all of us!), she's not interested in his ridiculous political games.

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto on Wednesday pushed back against calls to sue the federal government over health care reform, saying she will evaluate the bill and won’t make a decision until completing a “thorough legal analysis.”

Gov. Jim Gibbons has called on Masto, a Democrat, to sue, saying state law gives him the authority to direct the attorney general to take legal action.

But Cortez Masto, in a response sent Wednesday, said that the state’s constitution created her office to be the state’s chief legal officer.

“I must be satisfied in my own professional judgment that the case has merit and should be filed,” she wrote. “I also have the responsibility to decide how and when litigation is conducted.”

She also wrote that she must follow professional standards. “As an attorney yourself,” she wrote Gibbons, “you understand an attorney must certify that any litigation is warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous argument and that any pleading presented to a court cannot be presented for any improper purpose.”

And good on AG Cortez Masto for being the sane voice in Carson City! I know Mr. Sebelius doesn't mind seeing this law suit progress its way through the courts (until it finally has no more legal legs to stand upon!), but I'm glad he also sees that enough teabagger wannabes have already filed suit that there's no need for the State of Nevada to waste our tax dollars on this overtly political ploy to smear Harry Reid and make President Obama look bad.

Yes, you heard me right. The GOoPers don't give a rat's @ss about the Constitution. If they did, they would have challenged George W. Bush all the times when he overstepped his authority to declare war or torture or wiretap without a court warrant. Rather, it's all about politics for them. It's all about appeasing the teabaggers by throwing baseless attacks at Democrats.

Whatever. I feel for all the residents in those other states where their AGs are wasting their tax dollars to fight much needed health care reform. Still, I'm glad it's looking like we won't have to suffer the same fate. Thanks, Attorney General Cortez Masto, for making this decision on the merits of the law and not the political whims of the Nevada GOP.