No Mo' "Vegas 911!"?

So it finally happened. After a series of threats, they finally did it. Yesterday, Clark County Commissioners voted unanimously to abolish the Las Vegas Township Constable's Office in 2015.

Barring a legal decision to the contrary, the Las Vegas Township Constable’s Office will be abolished in 2015.

The Clark County Commission, after two hours of discussion at their meeting Tuesday, voted unanimously to abolish the office, effective when the term of the current elected constable, John Bonaventura, expires in January 2015. [...]

The primary job of the office is to enforce evictions and serve civil documents such as subpoenas, property liens, court summonses and wage garnishments filed in Las Vegas Township.

Although commissioners have not determined how the duties of the office would be divided among other agencies, most of them likely will fall to the sheriff's civil process section. [...]

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani said the decision to abolish the office this time around stems from an effort to provide services more efficiently.

“The office in my mind is no longer necessary. We have a sheriff’s office that can handle it. We have private sector folks that can do it,” she said.

In recent years, the Las Vegas Constable's Office (and especially Constable John Bonaventura himself) has been making news for all the wrong reasons. Sexual harassment allegations, a DUI arrest, meddling in the Steven Brooks scandal, and even a reality TV audition video (??!!) have created some embarrassing headlines. And the Clark County Commission wants no more of it.

However, this story is far from over. Bonaventura is now suing to halt this planned abolition of his office. A hearing has been set for April 30.

And this isn't even the only effort to abolish the Las Vegas Constable's Office. On Monday, State Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Attention) dropped SB 294, which abolishes the office and shifts duties to the Sheriff's Office as soon as the bill becomes law. So there's also that.

And something's telling me this melodrama won't be going away any time soon. Bonaventura seems to like his current gig, so he doesn't want it to be pulled away so soon. Yet Clark County Commissioners are tired of the scandalicious headlines, and the recent news has made them question the very necessity of the Constable's Office. Even certain Nevada legislators want to elbow their way into this story.

In the mean time, we're just wondering when we can expect local law enforcement that our communities can trust. Let us know when that happens.

Gun #FAIL

Perhaps this was bound to happen. As soon as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced the new Assault Weapons Ban, DC pundits were already declaring it dead. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) stayed eerily mum.

Earlier today, Harry Reid admitted to (again) omitting the Assault Weapons Ban from his omnibus gun safety bill. And he claimed he had to do in order to pass the bill. There's just a problem with Reid's latest claim. Can you notice it?

“We cannot have votes on everything unless I get something on the floor. It’s a legislative impossibility,” he said. “I’m not going to try to put something on the floor that won’t succeed; I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there.”

While the looming failure of an assault weapons ban has been obvious for some time, there’s been no apparent progress on mandatory background checks since it lost steam earlier this month, when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) quit bipartisan talks with Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Democratic leaders are wary of bringing such a proposal up for a vote unless more Republicans sign on.

When TPM asked Reid if background checks would be in the final bill, he was circumspect.

“I am working to put something together that I can get 60 votes to put a bill on the floor,” he said. “I’m going to do everything I can to do that. There are a couple of different background check proposals floating around. Manchin and Kirk are working on one. Schumer’s working on one. I don’t know who else is working on a bill.”

Manchin says he’s courting Republican support. But it’s hard to find. Given the popularity of background checks, Republican senators don’t want to go on record opposing the idea and would seemingly rather let it die by default.

Asked separately Tuesday if they would consider supporting gun background checks, Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and John McCain (R-AZ) each dodged.

Earlier this month, Republicans were even backing away from expanded background checks. And the NRAhas declared any and all gun safety reform legislation as "assault on freedom". Does anyone think shunning the Assault Weapons Ban can suddenly improve odds for gun safety reform?

Salon's Joan Walsh isn't having any of it. She reminds us of Dianne Feinstein's own history with gun violence, and of the kind of power the gun lobby still has in Washington.

Clearly Reid cares more about red-state Democrats beholden to the gun lobby than he does about gun safety. Remember, this is the same NRA-backed Reid who put an amendment in the Affordable Care Act declaring that wellness and prevention efforts should not collect or disseminate information about whether patients had guns in their home.

Feinstein has had some of her finest moments on gun safety issues, most recently dressing down the insufferable Ted Cruz, who lectured her on why an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional. “I am not a sixth grader,” Feinstein told the arrogant mansplainer. “Congress is in the business of making the law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. If they strike down the law, they strike down the law.”

As a San Francisco County supervisor in 1978, Feinstein found the body of Harvey Milk after he and Mayor George Moscone were shot by Dan White. In 1994 she successfully pushed for an assault weapons ban after a massacre at a San Francisco high-rise killed nine people and injured six. “I’ve worked 40 years on these issues —guns. I’ve seen so much violence,” a shaken Feinstein told reporters today.

Compromise-oriented Democrats say dropping the ban gives a gun-control package far more chance of passing. At the Plum Line, Greg Sargent argues that the ban was a bargaining chip on the way to a push for universal background checks. But background check legislation passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the exact same 10-8 party-line vote as the assault weapons ban. Sen. Chuck Schumer talks optimistically about finding GOP partners, but early discussions with Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn fell apart, and there are currently no Republican senators on record supporting background checks, either. Talking to TPM, Reid refused to commit to putting background checks in the bill, either. “I am working to put something together that I can get 60 votes to put a bill on the floor,” he said.

We could ultimately wind up with Democrat-sponsored legislation that merely toughens penalties for so-called straw man gun purchases and beefs up school safety. That would be a shame. For a while it felt like the outrage over Newtown would be more transformative than that inspired by other gun carnage. But it seems NRA lobbyist Bob Welch was right when he said the organization would prevail once “the Connecticut effect” passed.

On one hand, I can see Harry Reid's logic. How can a bill reach 60 votes when it has a thorny provision that can't even reach 49 votes? Sometimes, one must compromise in order to get anything done.

However, there's a flip side to this. The NRA & "tea party" refuse to budge on even background checks. And they're pressuring even Republicans who were initially open to some kind of gun safety reform to oppose anything and everything. Is it worth Democrats dropping a key priority for President Obama and progressives to pursue passage of some bill, any kind of bill?

At this point, Reid can't even guarantee expansion of background checks in his final gun safety bill. Come on now, this is the provision that regularly polls near 90% support! Even the Assault Weapons Ban has broad support. And somehow, Congress possibly can't pass either, let alone both?

And then, of course, there's the actual policy FAIL here. When did it become more important to protect gun manufacturers' profits than the lives of our own people? Think about that. And the chatter on Capitol Hill starts to sound even more absurd. This is the true EPIC FAIL of what happened today.

Mining for Reality

I know we keep talking about this. But hey, we're talking about it because this is important. And we're talking about it now because we need to cut through the spin and find some reality.

So let's briefly talk about what went down on KNPR just moments ago. Of course, Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Metamorphosis?) jousted with Nevada Mining Association President Tim Crowley on SJR 15 and Roberson's controversial IP 1 mining tax alternative. Crowley kept trying to deny reality, while Roberson was tooting his own horn as he was ripping into Crowley's attacks on his mining tax proposal.

Today's "State of Nevada" was fiery... But what if it was ultimately just Sturm und Drang? As we discussed last Thursday, there's a strong possibility that the clock has simply run out on Roberson's IP 1 alternative because the Legislature did not actually vote on IP 1. As Nevada's hottest new legal blogger Sean McDonald/Amicus Nevada explained, legislators must actually reject a people's initiative in an actual floor vote before they can propose an alternative initiative. While the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) and Steve Sebelius disagree, it's increasingly looking like the consensus view is that Roberson is standing on the legal equivalent of quicksand with his IP 1 alternative.



So where does that leave the debate on mining taxation? Actually, that brings us back to SJR 15. It already passed #NVLeg once. And there's no legal fight surrounding it. Yes, all SJR 15 does is remove the mining industry's tax rate (and exemptions) from the Nevada Constitution. Yet that alone can make a world of difference.



Tim Crowley claims SJR 15 will do away with any mining tax. That's only possible if the mining industry goes to court and wins a law suit. Is that what the mining industry wants to do?



What's more likely is that multinational mining corporations will be forced to pay something closer to their fair share because their tax rate & exemptions are no longer written into the Nevada Constitution. That's why the mining industry is fighting SJR 15 tooth and nail.



The real reason the current mining tax structure was instituted in 1989 was because the mining industry refused to pay a severance tax. Imagine if #NVLeg was considering a gold severance tax similar to the oil severance tax proposals being considered in California and Ohio. But alas, that's not happening. Instead, certain legislators are discussing placing an increase in the net proceeds tax onto next year's ballot to compete against The Education Initiative. And at this point, it will likely soon prove to be fool's gold (as it may no longer be legally feasible).



But you know what's still here? SJR 15. It's just waiting for a second round of approval so it can go to voters in 2014. It won't compete against The Education Initiative, so no worries there. And if passed by voters next year, SJR 15 will finally give legislators the flexibility they need to properly set mining taxes. If Michael Roberson still feels strongly about raising the net proceeds tax, he can introduce one then.



Remember that former State Senators Sheila Leslie (D-Reno) & Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) introduced SJR 15 back in 2011. It wasn't until this month that Michael Roberson suddenly embraced mining tax reform as "his cause". And the mining industry has enjoyed the current lax system of nearly no taxation since 1989. Keep all of this in mind as we keep digging past the kabuki theater to uncover reality.

SJR 13 Introduced to Repeal Question 2 Marriage Ban

As of late, we've mainly been discussing how marriage equality may come to Nevada soon via a favorable result in the Sevcik v. Sandoval law suit now pending in the Ninth Circuit (Federal) Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Perhaps we won't even have to wait that long. Depending on how the US Supreme Court resolves Perry v. Hollingsworth (the California Prop 8 law suit), marriage equality may come to Nevada as soon as this summer.

Yet even as we await final verdicts on the Perry and Sevcik cases, some in Carson City are not. Rather, they're bringing forward SJR 13, a constitutional amendment to repeal the Question 2 marriage ban. This process will take a while, but it's another possible route to equality that's ready just in case "The Supremes" issue a Perry ruling that doesn't knock out the Question 2 marriage ban this year.

SJR13 was introduced Monday by Democratic Sen. Tick Segerblom of Las Vegas.

In 2000 and 2002. Nevada voters approved the “Protection of Marriage Act” defining marriage as between a man and woman. But some recent polls show sentiment in Nevada for same sex marriage has changed, with many voters supporting it.

The resolution introduced Monday would have to be approved by lawmakers this year and again in 2015 before going to voters in 2016 for ratification.

If the provision is repealed, lawmakers could then legalize same sex marriage through statute in 2017.

So SJR 13 must be passed by the Nevada Legislature this session, then again during the 78th session in 2015. Then if passed both times, voters will weigh in 2016. Then if voters pass it, #NVLeg can then pass marriage equality by simple statute in the 79th session in 2017. So this is a multi-step process that spans 3 #NVLeg session and 2 elections, 1 of which may very well have this on the ballot, but ultimately it leads to popular approval of marriage equality.

Tick Segerblom has been hinting at this since last May, and it's now finally here. Out LGBTQ Senators David Parks (D-Paradise) and Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas) are co-sponsoring SJR 13, along with allies (Senate Majority Leader) Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas), Ruben Kihuen (D-Las Vegas), Joyce Woodhouse (D-Henderson), and Mark Manendo (D-Paradise). Meanwhile, Eliot Anderson (D-Paradise) is leading the charge for SJR 13 in the Assembly along with out LGBTQ Assembly Members James Healey (D-Enterprise) & Andrew Martin (D-Enterprise), as well as allies James Ohrenschall (D-Sunrise Manor), Paul Aizley (D-Paradise), Joe Hogan (D-Las Vegas), and Heidi Swank (D-Paradise).

Wait, do you notice something above? Interesting. All the SJR 13 sponsors have (D) next to their names. Where are the Republicans? They must be "coming out" soon... But I guess it will take some effort to make this bill bipartisan. After all, this is the perfect opportunity for #NVLeg Republicans to highlight their "moderation".

And SJR 13 provides a new opportunity for Nevada to undo the damage of Question 2. We know our economy stands to benefit from full civil marriage equality. And the LGBTQ families of Nevada have certainly been waiting some time for full legal equality. The time has come. It's now just a matter of how and when it arrives.

Mining for #Winning

Ah, so now we know. Senator Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) has risked dividing his own party (even further than it has already been) with his IP 1 mining tax alternative. So why has he been willing to escalate Nevada Republicans' civil war?

This helps explain why. Remember when Monte Miller was pushing a mining tax initiative? Let's just say he didn't pull the plug on it due to lack of public support.

Before he abandoned his attempt to tax mining last year, businessman Monte Miller hired master voter contact man Billy Rogers to gauge support. So Rogers went door-to-door asking folks how they felt about raising the mining tax from 5 percent to 9 percent.

Out of 22,991 interviews completed before Miller decided not to proceed, Rogers identified 18,634 mining tax hike supporters. That's 81 percent.

So not only would a mining tax pass -- my guess is no matter what the industry did to try to block any ballot question -- it would pass overwhelmingly.

Highlights (and the full demographics are attached here):

· Overall, 81 percent supported increasing the mining tax

· 88 percent of Democrats supported increasing the mining tax

· 80 percent of non-partisan and third-party registrants supported increasing the mining tax

· 73.5 percent of Republicans supported increasing the mining tax

Apparently, Monte Miller has always taken a liking to Michael Roberson. Would anyone like to guess how and why these numbers are now public? And does anyone doubt Roberson hadn't already taken a look at these numbers?

And to think, less than a month ago even SJR 15 was in a shaky position. Why? One of the dirtiest secrets in Carson City is just how much juice the mining industry has in that town. Could it possibly be due to all the lobbyists and all the campaign contributions?

Yet this month, Roberson and the rest of his "Senate GOP Mod Squad" decided to break away from their former mining industry BFFs. Why? Look above. No, look further above. When even over 70% of rank-and-file Republicans (!!!) support mining tax reform, perhaps knee-jerk opposition to it should be reconsidered... And ultimately dropped.

Of course, Roberson's IP 1 mining tax alternative still faces great hurdles. For one, those mining lobbyists won't be going away any time soon. In addition, it's at best (for him) legally unclear as to whether he can even propose one now. Let's just say that if "The Mod Squad Mining Tax" goes down in flames either in the Nevada Legislature itself or the Nevada Supreme Court, it won't be due to lack of public support.

(But of course, SJR 15 still isn't going away any time soon, either!)

On Loss & Change @ #NVLeg

This morning, we learned some saddening news. Former Assembly Member John Marvel (R-Battle Mountain) passed away on Saturday. So who was John Marvel? Here's a quick summary.

John W. Marvel, a stalwart in the Nevada Assembly for 30 years and on other government boards, has died at the age of 86.

A cattle rancher from Battle Mountain, he was a member of the Assembly from 1978 to 2008, was minority floor leader in 1993 and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that help shape the state budget. [...]

Gov. Brian Sandoval said, “John Marvel was a friend and mentor to me when I served with him in the Legislature. A son of Battle Mountain, John was a fierce advocate for rural issues and a leader in the Legislature. Nevada is stronger because of John’s service and I extend my condolences to John’s wife, Willie, and his children.”

During his career in public service, Marvel served on the Lander County Commission, as a member of the Advisory Public Lands Review Committee, as chairman of the Nevada Tax Commission and as a member of the state Ethics Commission.

And here's an interesting fact. Marvel was considered to be a solidly conservative Republican. He generally favored a limited public sector and less regulation. Yet towards the end of his career in the Nevada Legislature, Marvel became known for something different... And something that many "tea party" agitators claim automatically disqualifies a politician from calling oneself a conservative.

So what did Marvel do that would now be considered so shocking for a Republican to do? Oh, he voted for the 2003 tax deal. Oh, the horrors! He voted for the 2003 tax package that "Tax-n-spend LIB'RUL!!!" (Republican) Mark Amodei introduced as an alternative to "SOE'SHUL-IST!!!" (Republican) Governor Kenny Guinn's tax reform plan.

I'm sorry, but in light of today's news, I can't help but notice how much "standard operating procedure" has changed in Carson City. Just a decade ago, Republicans offered alternative tax plans to other Republicans' more visionary tax reform plans. But now, Republicans are pilloried for even mentioning "The T Word".

Of course, it's not as if this was a completely foreign concept in 2003. After all, John Marvel and a few other Assembly Republicans had to struggle to break the logjam created by "The Mean 15". Yet back then, they were considered "too radical for their own party's good". Now, however, they run the Nevada Republican Party and try to marginalize those willing to talk revenue.

I can't help but think of how much Carson City has changed in the last decade. Just over a year ago, I was pondering the same thing with the loss of longtime Senator Bill Raggio (R-Reno). And of course, we really had to think long & hard after the loss of Kenny Guinn in 2010. While "The Great Bipartisan Consensus" of past years was far from perfect or progressive, it at least allowed the state to function. What do we have today?

Think about that.

Some 411 on "Vegas 911!"

Back in January, and just as the Steven Brooks scandal began kicking into high gear, a sideshow to the media circus' main event emerged when Las Vegas Township Constable John Bonaventura agreed to "provide security" for Brooks when he first returned to Carson City. But wait, how could do he do that? And why was he injecting himself into the Brooks affair?

Bonaventura claimed he was filling a void in law enforcement. Others, however, claimed that he was just trying to settle a score with political rival and Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas). And since then, more questions have arisen on the very necessity of the Constable's Office.

As of late, the Las Vegas Constable's Office has been in the news for all the wrong reasons. We already mentioned the Brooks scandal above. John Bonaventura was arrested on a drunk driving charge last month, though Clark County DA later decided to drop the charge. Last year, Bonaventura faced sexual harassment allegations. And of course, there was the "Reno 911!"-esque reality TV audition in 2011.

Yikes. There's been a whole lot of drama at that office. So what is it actually responsible for? Here's the condensed Wikipedia version of an explanation.

Constables are elected peace officers who have statewide powers similar to sheriffs, marshals and police officers, as per NRS 289.150 , but in practice some constables maintain a relatively low profile in the law enforcement community. Constables and their deputies must be Nevada POST certified category 1 or category 2 within 1 year of being sworn in, in order to keep their peace officer status. [...]

The primary duties of constables are to act as a civil enforcement agency. This includes the service in minor civil cases in the Justice Courts of subpoenas, evictions, summons, vehicle and property liens, and wage garnishments, and also enforcing vehicle registration laws.

This is why Kirkpatrick and other state legislators are considering legislation to clarify the role of constables. Meanwhile, Clark County Commissioners are considering abolishing the Las Vegas Township Constable's Office altogether. After all, why have this office do tasks that Metro and other local law enforcement agencies can easily take on?

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani proposed the ordinance.

"The ordinance that I plan to bring says that the office is redundant, it's no longer working in the way that we believe it should and therefore we need to abolish it, and in two years, we still have an opportunity to look at that."

That, in turn, has led to this.

Bonaventura filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the commissioners in an attempt to prevent them from taking action to abolish his position. A hearing is scheduled for Monday, one day before the commissioners were set to discuss eliminating his job.

In the lawsuit, Bonaventura is seeking to challenge the constitutionality of the commissioners' attempt to abolish the constable’s office. The lawsuit alleges that his office has been subject to questionable acts, such as the county taking $2 million of the constable funds without public notice, agenda or vote.

And that, in turn, has led to this.

Clark County officials have demanded that Constable John Bonaventura outline why he hired lawyers for more than $30,000 or be held personally liable for the expense.

The letter [...] essentially says Bonaventura may have broken the law, needs to pay up or the district attorney will be involved.

And this is all over a supplementary law enforcement agency best known for serving foreclosure notices... And jumping deep into scandals.

Frankly, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. How did John Bonaventura win elected office (again)? Does Clark County still need constables for law enforcement? And may it finally be time to overhaul and update our law enforcement framework?

Perhaps John Bonaventura is serving a useful purpose. With his wild antics, he's highlighting this problem. It's become more difficult for County Commissioners and state legislators to just sweep this embarrassing series of incidents under the rug. Something must be done.

So what will be done? That will be up to Clark County Commissioners. They should just know that should they decide to shift current constable duties to local police departments, the police departments must be better trained in constituent services.

To the Ballot Box We Go

So it's over. It's finally over. Today was the deadline, and The Education Initiative couldn't even get a vote.

So it's... Actually only just begun.

The Nevada Legislature took no action within the 40-day limit it had to pass or reject the measure, meaning Nevada voters now get to play policymaker and vote the margins tax up or down.

“I don’t believe the votes are there,” said Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, about the initiative measure.

Legislators of both parties never warmed to the tax on businesses that make $1 million or more per year in revenue. The Legislature gave the tax a show hearing in which its sponsor, the state teachers’ union, trotted out supporters who cheered for the tax. Business groups booed, and at least one legislator verbally ripped into a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce lobbyist who opposed the tax.

But the margins tax initiative petition never made it out of committee, and nobody brought any emergency measures to the Senate or Assembly floor to pass or reject it at the last minute because Democrats would not bring it to a vote.

“It’s going to the people either way,” said Sen. Debbie Smith, D-Sparks. “I’m focused on solving our problems so that we have education funding for the coming school year, not down the road.”

Remember what we discussed when the 76th session was coming to a close in June 2011? This was bound to happen. And now, it's finally happening.

Funny enough, a tax plan considered during that session is now manifest in The Education Initiative. Yet now, #NVLeg leadership on both sides agreed to punt because they didn't want the optics of turning down public education funding. Wow.

Oh, and whatever. If the Nevada Legislature can't do its job, then we the people must act. Since The Education Initiative couldn't even get a floor vote, it's time for this people's initiative petition to return to the people on next year's ballot. We can't afford to wait any longer to start solving our problems.

But wait, there's another twist. Yesterday, we discussed the fascinating turn of events regarding the emergence of Senate Republican Leader Michael Roberson's IP 1 alternative mining tax. Once Roberson and the rest of "The Dirty Half-dozen" saw the polling and shat their pants, they decided the only way to beat IP 1 is by creating competition. That's why they decided to ditch their own party's base and pick a fight with the mining industry.

But now, "The Dirty Half-dozen" IP 1 mining tax alternative is in deep legal jeopardy. Precisely because the Legislature failed to even vote on the actual IP 1, it's at best (for Roberson) unclear whether the Legislature can actually place an alternative to compete against it on next year's ballot. Local legal eagle Sean McDonald doesn't think an alternative can legally be presented as of now, and Jon Ralston is mourning over this.

Lawmakers, even those whispering a good game, have all but short-circuited the serious tax discussion for the next 80 days unless they propose some new package themselves and get two-thirds to back it (that would include a handful of Republicans, who would have to vote for it twice over a certain gubernatorial veto). That’s because a plain reading of Article 19, Section 2 indicates that unless the Legislature formally rejects a petition – not simply pretends it does not exist – it loses the ability to propose an alternative.

The language says “the statute or amendment to a statute proposed thereby shall be enacted or rejected by the Legislature without change or amendment within 40 days.” Pretty simple, right?

Put aside the argument that tax policy should not be made at the ballot, which of course it shouldn’t be. But the teachers were frustrated by the Legislature’s serial inaction, so they circumvented lawmakers and went to the ballot process, qualified the margins tax and forced lawmakers to take action within 40 days, as the article mandates. And now, because of lawmakers’ inert behavior once again, tax policy will be decided at the ballot next year, with no alternative to tax mining or business or anything else likely to survive a legal challenge if it were to happen.

This is where I can't help but roll my eyes. Yes, "ballot box budgeting" can be messy. I know from personal experience. Ralston seems to buy into Pete Ernaut's spin... Even though he's had to admit that what just happened was a complete clusterf**k!

For all the wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth over the fears of California style direct democracy coming to Nevada, we must ask this: Is it really a bad thing? California now has a budget surplus and additional education funding thanks to Prop 30. And Prop 30 was pursued because an extreme obstructionist minority refused to cooperate on realistic budget solutions.

Well, look at where we are now here in Nevada. Because the Governor and certain legislators refuse to consider realistic budget solutions, we have this impasse. How can we break that? That's why The Education Initiative will be going to voters next year.

Sure, in an ideal world, this wouldn't have to happen. However, we're not in an ideal world. We're in Nevada. In order to make this state a better place, we must build a more stable and diversified economy. And in order to do that, we must better invest in our public infrastructure. And if the Governor and Legislature can't act to make that happen, then we the people must.

So it's off to the ballot box we go.

The Evolution Will Not Be Televised?

Today offered a breakthrough of sorts. Another prominent Republican endorsed marriage equality. This time, he's a current elected official. And this time, he's a sitting US Senator. And this time, he's someone who even made Mitt Romney's VP short list.

So what compelled Senator Rob Portman's (R-Ohio) change of heart? His son came out.

"I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about," Portman said. "It has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry. And during my career in the House and also last couple years here in the Senate, you know, I've taken a position against gay marriage, rooted in part in my faith and my faith tradition. And had a very personal experience, which is my son came to Jane, my wife, and I, told us that he was gay and that it was not a choice and that, you know he, that's just part of who he is, and he'd been that way ever since he could remember."

Portman said his son's revelation led him to drop his opposition to same-sex marriage. "And that launched an interesting process for me, which was kind of rethinking my position," he said. "You know, talking to my pastor and other religious leaders and going through a process of, at the end, changing my position on the issue. I now believe people ought to have the right to get married."

Certainly, this comes during an already exciting month on the LGBTQ equality front. The Prop 8 and DOMA law suits are scheduled for oral arguments in The US Supreme Court later this month. Many prominent Republicans who had previously served in elected office, as White House staff, and/or in the last 4 Republican Presidential Campaigns recently filed amicus briefs to the Court urging pro-equality rulings in both cases. And now, we have this.

So are Republicans finally evolving on LGBTQ equality? Frank Bruni seems to think so. And he seems to think today's big announcement can help in expediting the process.

Rather than quibble with it, I’d prefer to note how profoundly emblematic his announcement is. Coming right after the widely publicized amicus brief in favor of gay marriage that dozens of prominent Republicans signed, Portman’s remarks illustrate a rapid movement by, and rising tension within, a party that has largely allied itself with social conservatives and is bit by bit breaking with them on this issue.

Seeing how this plays out over the next few years is going to be fascinating, though there’s no doubt how it will play out over the long haul. The majority of Republicans will be forced to publicly embrace same-sex marriage, because a huge majority of young Americans already do. There’s only one trajectory here—toward acceptance and equality—and to ignore that is to risk political marginalization and irrelevance.

In any case, my question for and about Portman, a decent and thoughtful man I’ve known for many years, isn’t why it took a gay son to move him to his current stance, but whether it really took a gay son to do that, and whether he was here or almost here a while back, but just didn’t say so.

What’s too infrequently noted or written is how many Republicans who aren’t on the party’s far right have privately, silently accepted and supported gays and lesbians but have stayed publicly mum, and articulated contrary positions, in the interests of political survival. A big part of what’s changing now isn’t their hearts. It’s their belief that they can be true to their hearts without committing political suicide, because America has made extraordinary progress, and because there’s no turning back.

Steve Benen, however, was not in such a generous mood. He couldn't help but ask some tough questions on today's big announcement.

[I]f Portman learned about his son's sexual orientation in 2011, why did it take the senator so long to come around? And why was he still endorsing discriminatory policies in 2012?

While we're at it, the Cleveland Plain Dealer noted that Portman could support legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, but the senator said he hasn't done this because he says "economic policy issues are his specialty." First, senators are required to tackle a variety of issues. Second, I've seen Portman's positions on economic issues, and if they're his "specialty," he's in trouble.

But even putting all of that aside, there's also a larger consideration to keep in mind about the nature of societal change.

To be sure, I'm genuinely glad Portman has done the right thing, and can only hope it encourages other Republicans to do the same. What I find discouraging, though, is that the Republican senator was content to support discriminatory policies until they affected someone he personally cares about.

What about everyone else's sons and daughters? Why must empathy among conservatives be tied so directly to their own personal interactions?

We've seen this a few too many times. A Republican will support Medicaid cuts right up until he sees the program up close, with his own eyes. Republicans will be skeptical about federal disaster relief right up until it's their community that sees devastation. Republicans are prepared to deny basic rights based on sexual orientation, right up until it's their loved one who's gay.

It seems the key to American social progress in the 21st century is simple: more conservatives having more life experiences.

Yes, that was harsh. But on the other hand, there may be a whole lot of truth to what Benen says. As of late, it seems like the bulk of the Republicans "coming out" for equality are the ones with the most to gain and/or least to lose by "coming out".

Meanwhile in the heart of the G-O-TEA, strong resistance to equality remains. In fact, current G-O-TEA darling & Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) just boasted of his continuing strident opposition to marriage equality yesterday at CPAC! And of course, CPAC itself lists pro-homophobia/transphobia organizations as its co-sponsors while limiting the involvement of pro-equality Republican outfits.

Even here in Nevada, where one would think "libertarian" attitudes on "personal freedom" would influence Republicans otherwise, evolution has been incredibly difficult. None of the Nevada Republicans in Congress has endorsed marriage equality. Governor Brian Sandoval (R-Scared?) continues to fight equality in court. And even a certain (in)famous Nevada Republican legislator has introduced a "Trojan Horse Bill" meant to strip even the basic defenses from wrongful discrimination from LGBTQ Nevadans!

So Rob Portman's big announcement today is certainly a major step forward. It's now just a matter of whether his fellow Republicans will start moving alongside him. That question looks to be up in the air at the moment.

RGJ Hands SB 63 Election Reform a Life Preserver. (But How Long Can It Last?)

This week has been a critical one on the voting rights front. Yet another study was released this week demonstrating how voter suppression is accomplished with the kind of voter ID laws desired by the "tea party". Meanwhile here in Nevada, Secretary of State Ross Miller faced a grueling hearing for SB 63, his election modernization bill featuring an electronic poll book proposal.

After yesterday's hearing, even more doubts emerged over the viability of SB 63 in the Nevada Legislature. Will certain Republicans try to amend the bill and replace Miller's preferred electronic poll book with the very ALEC model legislation that encourages voter suppression? And if/when that happens, how long/short will it take for Democratic leadership to kill the entire bill once and for all?

Today, Ross Miller can breathe a little more easily. That's because the Reno Gazette Journal published an editorial this morning singing the praises of SB 63. Here's the key passage.

It is inevitable the state will replace those paper election books,if for no other reason than to save money in austere times; Washoe County Registrar of Voters Dan Burk estimated at a hearing on Thursday that he could save $50,000 to $60,000 every election cycle by replacing those paper books.

Although some details remain to be worked out and it will take tax money to make it work, Miller’s plan is a good start at reaching that goal. [...]

So, it’s difficult to see how including a photograph —copied from those taken at the DMV, in most cases —would make things any more difficult for a voter. It wouldn’t cost any additional money, as obtaining a government ID may; nor will it require voters to make a special trip to obtain an ID.

What it would do is make it a little easier on poll workers to meet their responsibility to determine whether voters are who they say they are.

And what Miller’s Senate Bill 63 would do is bring Nevada’s elections into the 21st century. It deserves approval.

Of course, the RGJ framed this in a conservative way. "Why, of course voter ID makes perfect sense! And that's why we just love us some Ross Miller & SB 63!" However, I doubt Miller minds this at all. After all, this fits quite well into his strategy of "election geek jiu-jitsu".

It just remains to be seen if today's RGJ editorial can convince enough Republicans to back away from ALEC and its preferred voter ID model legislation. It also remains to be seen if skeptical Democrats can be assured that SB 63 will do no harm in inviting future voter suppression and/or more immediate complications to negotiations on otherwise unrelated bills (such as the budget and driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants).

But at least for now, SB 63 is hanging on to see another day at #NVLeg. It just remains to be seen how much of an appetite legislators truly have for election modernization.

Free Reign No More (for SNWA)?

On Tuesday, we learned more about SB 232, Senator Michael Roberson's (R-Henderson) bill to subject SNWA's proposed water rate increases to the Nevada Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for final approval. For perhaps the first time ever, SNWA "Water Czar" Pat Mulroy's immense power in directing water policy for Clark County, and to a certain extent the rest of the state as well, is being challenged. Mulroy clearly chafed at this last night on "Ralston Reports". And not only that, but she came armed with a legal brief. She's now saying SB 232 is unconstitutional!

(The fun starts at 18:20 in the video below.)



According to Mulroy (and the lawyers she's talked to), SB 232 unlawfully interferes with contracts that have already been entered into. In addition, she was claiming Roberson's bill would strip away local oversight by giving the PUC special master the power to override any water rate decision that's already gone through SNWA's process.

Roberson disputed both of Mulroy's claims. As a lawyer himself, he sounded confident in SB 232 passing constitutional muster. And he said SB 232 is now working its way up #NVLeg precisely because SNWA doesn't have enough oversight. He even brought the last reviews from the cities of North Las Vegas & Henderson, and pretty much declared them proof that the only kind of "oversight" SNWA receives is of the rubber stamp variety.

Toward the end of the show, Ralston stirred the pot some more by evoking the ongoing Snake Valley pipeline controversy. SNWA had been using this as justification for last year's rate increases. In a surprising twist, Roberson actually sounded skeptical about "The Great Basin Water Grab". That seemed so unthinkable in 2010, yet here it is today. Apparently, the economic & environmental costs of the proposed pipeline are finally scaring legislators.

And then, there's this new bombshell from KLAS/8 News Now. Former SNWA employee Debra Rivero recently revealed to investigative reporter George Knapp her horrific experience on the job at SNWA's White Pine County ranches.

8 News NOW

"I kept bringing up, 'Hey, there is unethical stuff going on up here' and the Vegas office didn't seem to want to hear it. They didn't want to talk to me about it," Rivero said.

In particular, she said, SNWA didn't want derogatory information about the ranches to be leaked to the I-Team, especially to reporter George Knapp.

Rivero said the lack of oversight by SNWA meant the ranches operated as a world unto themselves. The result, for Rivero, was horrific. In a blistering complaint filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she described an extremely hostile work environment in which she was harassed, humiliated, and demeaned. [...]

One incident was a turning point. She alleges that Peterson tried to intimidate her with an electronic cattle prod.

"It was a live cattle prod, a live cattle prod, and he held it within inches of my face. When I didn't jump out of the way, I just froze out of fear, he shocked the light bar above me and sparks went flying all over. He just chuckled and laughed and walked away."

She said she reported the incident to SNWA Human Resources director Pat Maxwell.

"And she did nothing. Her answer to me was, 'Well, you need to sit down and figure out what you did to make him so mean to you.'"

Shortly after this incident, Rivero suffered a stroke. A doctor told her to go to the hospital immediately. The White Pine ranch manager drove her to a hospital in Ely, then dropped her at the curb. Less than 2 weeks later, SNWA threatened to terminate her!

This may be the final straw to break the camel's back for SNWA. The agency was seen as ominpotent and infallible for so long. When the "boom times" were here, SNWA raked in the cash from the explosive growth of Clark County. But now that Clark County's population is growing more slowly, the real estate bubble is long gone, and climate change is leading to an extended Western drought, SNWA may have to give up the free reign it's enjoyed for over 2 decades.

Taxing Times

What a year this has been... And we're only in March! Just as the 77th session of the Nevada Legislature was about to begin, tax reform looked dead as a door nail. And then, Marilyn Kirkpatrick emerged with her "Revenue Neutral Sales Tax Extravaganza!" If that was to be the great tax reform plan of 2013, then we really would have been in for a rough session. Never mind that The Education Initiative (aka IP 1) has been sitting right there, ready for legislators to act upon.

Last month, even SJR 15 seemed to be in deep trouble. After their surprise setback in 2011, the mining industry has been juicing up to shut this down. Then on what was thought to be a mundane Tuesday, Michael Roberson unleashed what's become March Madness in Carson City with his proposed mining tax alternative to IP 1.

Now, all of a sudden, we're seeing a frenzy of talk and action on what was once "The Dirty T Word". Of course, the "tea party" radical right still sees it as a dirty word. And it's escalating what was already an ugly civil war in the Nevada Republican Party over it. Yet now, despite that, there's a growing desire to take some sort of action on tax reform in Carson City.

But funny enough, the initiative that sparked the new tax talk presents a curveball for #NVLeg. Nevada law is clear that the Legislature can approve the Governor's recommended alternative should they not approve the actual initiative. Yet as we've discussed before, Roberson doesn't have Brian Sandoval's support for his mining tax alternative. And now, Legislature leaders don't even want to vote on The Education Initiative. So what happens next?

Amicus Nevada didn't mince words earlier today in giving #NVLeg leaders a stern warning.

Whereas Ralston sees one problem with that part of Article 19, Section 2, (namely, what does “approved by the Governor” mean?), I see other problems: (1) may the Legislature propose an alternate measure after the 40-day consideration period on the petition has expired without expressly rejecting it; (2) must the Governor recommend an alternate before the Legislature may enact one; (3) would the Governor have an absolute (or even a qualified) veto over an alternate; and (4) what constitutes “a different measure on the same subject”?

In my view, if the Legislature does not affirmatively reject the petition within 40 days of its submission, the Legislature loses power to propose an alternate measure. Remember, the Constitution requires that the petition “shall be enacted or rejected by the Legislature . . . within 40 days.” Nev. Const. art. 19, § 2(3). If the Legislature does not enact the petition, the Constitution instructs “If [the petition] is rejected by the Legislature, or if no action is taken thereon within 40 days, the Secretary of State shall submit the [petition]” to the voters at the next general election. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, there is an operational distinction between rejection and rejection by default. In both cases, the petition goes to the voters. But in the case of rejection by default (i.e. the Legislature failing to act within 40 days), the Legislature loses power to propose an alternate. [...]

The last issue I want to briefly (ha!) discuss is whether a mining tax measure could be an alternate to IP 1. Steve Sebelius is of the opinion that yes, a mining tax could be the legislative alternate to the margin tax in IP 1. The Senate Republicans who proposed a mining tax measure as an alternate seem to agree. I don’t think that’s correct, at least not without some creative drafting. Senate Joint Resolution 15 of the 75th Session proposes to repeal the constitutional limitations on mining taxation. That measure, should it pass this legislative session, will go on the ballot in 2014. It cannot be the alternate to IP 1 primarily because they are separate measures, one proposing a change to law, the other a change to the Constitution. Both could be enacted as they are not mutually exclusive options, unlike a true alternate under Article 19, Section 2. The only way I see a new mining tax (or a higher tax rate) being a proper alternate to IP 1 is it must be conditioned on S. J. Res. 15′s ratification by the voters, or it must propose changes to law that do not implicate S. J. Res. 15 or the underlying provisions in the Constitution.

Assuming the Legislature timely rejects IP 1 this session, it will preserve its power to propose an alternate measure. Should the Legislature propose an alternate relating to mining, I’d expect nothing less of a full on legal onslaught to prevent the alternate from appearing on the ballot, whether it be through a gubernatorial assist (with a veto) or through legal challenges, on constitutional and procedural grounds, should the Legislature find itself caught up in a dispute with the executive branch over the scope of the veto power in the case of initiative measures. And with most of these tax issues decided in the 11th hour of a session as part of the endgame, I agree with Ralston: 2013 could be 2003 all over again.

¡Dondé los yikes! Indeed, this is increasingly feeling deja vu. Just as it was in 2003, this 2013 tax fight may head to the courts very soon if Roberson's IP 1 alternative catches enough fire to pass. Yet despite this striking similarity, there may be one major difference now. We'll get to that in a moment.

There are certainly many challenges ahead in Carson City. There are definitely plenty of legal questions. And there are many political hurdles to overcome. But now, finally, "The T Word" has become THE WORD in the Nevada Legislature. Mining industry lobbyists are finally shaking in their boots... Along with other big "bid'ness" lobbyists. And progressive activists have an unprecedented opportunity to change the game in Carson City for good on the entire subject.

Just eight weeks ago, this all looked like the ultimate taboo in the Nevada Legislature. Why rock the boat, especially when "Captain Sandoval" won't accept any of the sort? But now, a unique combination of "budget cut fatigue", uncertainty in federal funding, pent up frustration over certain corporate special interests getting away with paying next to nothing, and the changing political landscape of Nevada has created this historic opening. Regardless of the fate of Roberson's IP 1 alternative, "The T Word" is no longer taboo.

The opening is here. So who will take it? And what will ultimately pass?

It just remains to be seen what can be taxed, what will be taxed, and what the courts will allow the people to decide to be taxed next year.

Can "Jiu-jitsu" Save SB 63? The Real Voting Rights Fight Behind the Theatrics.

Back in December, we discussed martial arts. Yes, that was something else. What was really impressive was analyzing Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller and what the University of Minnesota's Doug Chapin famously proclaimed to be "election geek jiu-jitsu".

In January, we came to know this "election geek jiu-jitsu" as SB 63. Miller even hosted a symposium on this and larger issues of election reform & voting rights. Mayhem then erupted when "tea party" agitators screamed about nonexistent "VOTER FRAUD!!!" At that point, I sensed trouble ahead.

And today, that trouble emerged. And of course, it emerged from Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-ALEC).

MT @SandraChereb: Cegavske says cheaper, easier, to require voters to get own ID card. /Thus does GOP turn @rossjmiller's plan to voter ID.

That is, it's cheaper and easier for the radical right to initiate voter suppression. We know Cegavske is a member of ALEC, the "Tea Party, Inc." clearinghouse for radical right legislation. She must have been upset over Ross Miller supporting his own bill instead of ALEC's model legislation for voter suppression.



Remember that this is what Barbara Cegavske and the rest of the "tea party" are demanding when they call for strict voter ID laws. They want voter suppression.



When Cegavske and her "TEA" fueled allies cry "VOTER FRAUD!!!", they're crying about a virtually nonexistent problem that's already taken care of under current law. And the "solution" they're peddling disenfranchises young & minority voters. It just so happens that young & minority voters typically don't vote for Republican candidates. I'm sure you can do the math from here.

If not, then pay attention to this.



That's what's really at stake here.

Going back to SB 63, conservative support for Ross Miller's bill had always looked suspect. Pat Hickey may have tipped his hand back in December when he drove a wedge between Miller and Democratic Legislature leaders by trying to tie SB 63 to unrelated legislation regarding driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Now, Barbara Cegavske is confirming what we've been suspecting all along.

If conservatives really want election integrity, Ross Miller is serving it to them on a silver platter with SB 63. It has modernization. And it has visual verification. And it's not meant to disenfranchise legal voters. But wait, that may be the real problem certain radical right lawmakers have with SB 63. That explains Cegavske's call for (more) ALEC model legislation.

Unfortunately for Ross Miller, SB 63 may become "collateral damage" should Republican legislators demand the kind of voter ID legislation that promotes voter suppression. Democratic leaders clearly don't want that. Even Harry Reid has stomped his foot down on it. And not too many in Carson City seem to have the appetite to invest in modernizing Nevada elections. So Mr. Secretary and SB 63 may be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

It remains to be seen if any kind of martial arts can save SB 63 at this point.

#NVLeg Gut Check on Gun Safety

It happened again yesterday. There was another mass shooting, this time in upstate New York. And yet, there was also uncertainty regarding the fate of gun safety legislation in Congress.

Yet while even the most overwhelmingly popular gun safety legislation faces challenges in Washington, something may be happening in Carson City. There has been talk of reform amidst the Steven Brooks scandal, February's gruesome Las Vegas Strip shooting, and other recent events. But now, there's finally legislation that's attracting support and promising action: SB 221. Senator Justin Jones (D-Enterprise), the author of SB 221, went on "Ralston Reports" last night to explain his bill and why he's pursuing gun safety reform in Carson City now.

(Skip to around 21:00 for the segment.)



So what does SB 221 propose, exactly? Oh, just the very basic gun safety reform that's stalled in Congress.

Jones’ bill would require a private person who wants to sell a gun to another individual to ask the state Central Repository for a background check to clear the purchaser. If the seller does not follow the law, he or she could be charged with a gross misdemeanor and would be prohibited from possessing a gun for two years.

“Background checks may be a little difficult for some,” said Jones, who is not a gun owner. “But it is supported by a high 80 percent of Americans and probably by Nevadans, as far as I could tell.”

Under the bill, SB221, courts would have five days after finding a person had mental problems to notify the repository for criminal history records. And a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist who learns while treating a mentally ill patient that he or she is a threat to another individual would be able to notify law enforcement. [...]

“There were other states, particularly after Sandy Hook, that jumped on the issue and passed legislation and they got criticized by mental health professionals because it really didn’t address the issue,” he said.

So we finally have a background check bill moving... In the Nevada Legislature. Yet even here, there are challenges. The NRA opposes this, just as it opposes any other state or federal attempt to expand background checks. So of course, this will be a test for those legislators who attended the NRA's Battleground Vegas lobby day in January. Will they agree to something that over 80% of Nevadans support? Or will they stand with the NRA in allowing criminals and those with troubled mental health backgrounds access dangerous firearms?

Consider this a key "gut check" moment in Carson City.

Yet Another Horrifying Reminder

So it happened again. Yes, sadly, it happened again.

As firefighters made their way to battle the blaze, the police said, a man made his way to a barbershop at the heart of the village and then a carwash, about one mile away, in the neighboring village of Herkimer, killing four people and wounding two others before fleeing and setting off a manhunt that still was unresolved by late afternoon. [...]

"We saw a guy walking around the shop," one woman who was at the gas station told WKTV. She said she saw two people who were shot on the ground.

"Then he took off in a Jeep Wrangler," she said of the gunman, adding, "There were empty rifle shells on the ground."

Greg Beasley, 70, who was near the carwash when the shooting took place, said he heard at least five gunshots around 10 a.m.

"I saw people running out from the one-store building in panic," Mr. Beasley said when reached by phone.

Another day, another mass shooting. This is just so wrong on so many levels.

Just yesterday, a group of citizens from Connecticut rode their bicycles from Newtown to Washington to ask Congress to act on gun violence prevention. One of the riders, Monte Frank, explained to Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC last night why he took part in this.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Remember, the Newtown massacre happened last December. And since then, we've seen even more gun violence across America. Yes, we've even seen it happen here in Nevada. Just last month, four people died in a shooting on the Las Vegas Strip.

Yet despite the growing demand for action and the overwhelming public support for expanded background checks, Congress still can't get its act together on even the most basic plank of gun safety reform. Even with the overwhelming supermajority of gun retailers demanding action to curb illegal gun trafficking, Congress still can't get its act together on that, either. See a pattern here? Isn't it looking awfully disturbing?

How many more of these massacres must occur before Congress takes action? How many more shootings must happen in New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, Southern California, and elsewhere before Congress takes action on gun violence? How many more innocent people must die?