Update on the Boston Marathon Attack

For 85 Nevadans, today was a day to remember. And today turned out to be quite the day to remember. Unfortunately for them, it was for all the wrong reasons.

[Tiffanie] Gaspar ran in her first Boston Marathon, finishing in 3:45.43. But about 25 to 30 minutes after she completed the 26.2-mile course, while she was cooling down in the family waiting area, Gaspar heard the booms.

“It was two explosions, unusual sounds,” Gaspar said in a telephone interview from her Boston hotel. “I thought, ‘Oh, it’s Patriots' Day. Maybe it’s fireworks from the Red Sox game.” [...]

Jerry Slater, 46, Henderson, a civil engineer and partner at the Slater Hanifan Group in Las Vegas, said he had finished the race about 45 minutes earlier and was showering in his room at the Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel when “I definitely heard the explosions go off.”

At 5:30 p.m. Boston time, Slater said the hotel was still on lockdown. Outside the hotel, which is just across the way from where the explosions took place, dozens of police, firefighters and other emergency workers were still swarming.

“I feel safe, but then I keep watching the news and seeing these reports of other devices being found,” he said.

In all, about 40 runners from the Las Vegas Valley were among the nearly 27,000 participants in Monday’s Boston Marathon. It was not immediately known whether any of them were injured in the twin blasts that took place about 100 yards apart from each other.

In his brief remarks earlier, President Obama offered his condolences to the victims of today's bombing. However, he was hesitant to assign any blame He even shied away from declaring this an act of terrorism... Yet.



However just minutes after the President spoke, a White House official said today's incident was being treated as terrorism.

"We still do not know who did this or why and people should not jump to conclusions before we have all the facts. But, make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this," [President Obama] said. "Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the full weight of justice."

Though the president understandably did not use the word "terrorism," since the motivations behind the explosions are still unclear, a White House official told NBC news, "Any event with multiple explosive devices -- as this appears to be -- is clearly an act of terror, and will be approached as an act of terror. However, we don't yet know who carried out this attack, and a thorough investigation will have to determine whether it was planned and carried out by a terrorist group, foreign or domestic."

We can't jump to any conclusions now. We still don't know who did this. And we certainly don't know why. But at this point, it's increasingly feeling like terrorism.

We'll probably experience heightened security across the nation this week. Don't be surprised if/when you see more Metro presence on The Strip. There may even be more security in other parts of the valley.

In the coming days, we'll likely reflect on the increasing "normalcy" of running into terrorism, the growing footprint of "The National Security State", possible causes of today's horrific carnage, and other ways in which today's tragedy affects Southern Nevada. But tonight, our hearts go out to all the victims. We hope survivors and their families have the chance to heal. And hopefully, Boston will emerge stronger after today.

Boston Marathon Bombing

Just as I was heading home today, this happened. I'm still in shock.

A series of bombs exploded near the finish line at the Boston Marathon on Monday, leaving two people dead and more than two dozen injured, according to the Boston Police Department. A third explosion was heard just before 4 p.m., about an hour after the first two blasts. The police were apparently aware of that device before the explosion occurred. [...]

The first blasts took place about four hours after the start of the men's race, which meant that there were still several thousand runners yet to finish the course. Several news outlets reported that a loud explosion was heard on the north side of Boylston Street, near a photo bridge that marks the finish line. Another explosion was heard shortly afterward.

The Boston police confirmed at a late afternoon news conference that they were investigating the explosions. A senior United States government official said that the Boston police and the F.B.I. had received no reports in recent days about a threatened attack on the marathon and that there was no warning on Monday.

The Boston Globe is running a liveblog on its main page with the latest updates on what's happening there. So far, over 100 people have been treated in Boston hospitals as a result of the Boston Marathon Bombing. Local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies are investigating this incident. And security has been heightened there, in New York, in Washington, in Los Angeles, in San Francisco, and elsewhere.



We'll update the blog here as soon as we know more on what happened today and what happens next.

Sunrise, Sunset

This morning at the Nevada Legislature, a few Nevada Senators were asking a critical question. Why is the state continuing this silly kabuki theater that we now know as "The Sunset Taxes"? Why place an arbitrary expiration date on something that hardly any one actually wants to expire?

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee are questioning why the state keeps extending taxes that are set to expire instead of just making them permanent.

The question was raised Monday as the panel considered SB475, a bill authorizing a continuance of taxes that should have expired two years ago.

Lawmakers in 2011 agreed to extend the sunset on those levies through June 30 of this year.

SB 475 is the bill addressing "The Sunset Taxes". But again, the bill only extends them for another two years. At the Senate Finance Committee hearing this morning, Ralston caught this telling moment of truth from Senator Debbie Smith (D-Sparks).

RalstonReports: Now @sendebbiesmith points out how loony it is to keep extending taxes set to expire. Yes, either repeal or make permanent. #nvleg

This isn't quite the revenue reality check I was hoping for, but at least it's now happening. Nevada needs revenue for a functioning state government. And right now, the current "Sunset" kabuki theater just isn't working.

Right now, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and his right-hand people are engaged in a semantics argument with the "tea party" over whether an extension of "The Sunset Taxes" really constitutes a "tax increase". Does it really matter? Again, why is Governor Sandoval even insisting on this arbitrary expiration date to them, especially when he's so afraid of touching anything else "T Word" related?

And that leads us to the bigger problem. Remember how we resulted in this in the first place? In 2009, the late Senator Bill Raggio (R-Reno) wanted "The Sunsets" so he'd have another convenient bargaining chip handy in 2011. Then when he was no longer in Carson City in 2011, Governor Sandoval rather conveniently brought them back when the Nevada Supreme Court forced his hand on the state budget.

Long story short: This is yet another fiscal gimmick. And really, can Nevada afford any more silly, nonsensical fiscal gimmickry? Think about that.

And think about what we discussed back in May 2011.

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

Fast forward to 2013. We've seen bickering over pennies. And we've seen shouting over the definition of "rejection". Now, we just need some real action on revenue. And yes, that means we need another "T Word Reality Check" in Carson City.

If only we can see that continually "sunrise"...

Finally, Shortchange No More?

Back in January, we looked at the burgeoning campaign by powerful Southern Nevada interests to redo the state budget in a way that redirects money south. So far, there's been some success as the higher education finding formula will likely be changed. And with the threat of SB 322 clearly being felt, Clark County is already receiving 80% of state transportation project funding this year.

So there's already progress underway in redirecting state funds. Yet even with this, the Nevada Legislature's Southern leadership still seek more.

“If Southern Nevada gets a cough, the whole state gets a cold, and if you think about that analogy, when things don’t go well in Southern Nevada, everybody else feels the repercussions, as well,” Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, said.

“Fair” can work like this: Behold, northern counties, as legislators shift money to Clark County, the most economically important county in the state.

“We want to be fair to everyone, but part of being fair to everyone is being fair to the south,” Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-Henderson, said.

And we know the facts & figures behind their rhetoric. Clark County has over 70% of the state's population. And Clark County funds over 80% of the state's budget. Yet despite this, Clark County is "lucky" to muster just over 50% of state investment.

Again, some changes are now underway. And there will certainly be even more in the works by the time sine die approaches. Yet with this being said, there are even more areas where Southern legislators see inequities that must be fixed.

One such area is K-12 education. In Clark County, many can't even access full-day Kindergarten. Clark County schools have also been struggling to properly provide required English Language Learner (ELL) programs. This is why Senate Majority Leader Mo Denis (D-North Las Vegas) has pretty much threatened to do whatever it takes to secure more funding for Clark County schools. It's now just a matter of how much backup he will get from Kirkpatrick & Roberson.

Southern leaders also caution that more needs to be done, even on higher education & transportation funding. Just a couple sessions worth of more money can't make up for historic funding inequities and continuing drawbacks in current funding formulae. So what can be done? And how does that happen?

This is why many education activists have called for not just funding formulae fixes, but also more revenue to actually make it work. And this is why The Education Initiative will be going to voters next year.

Yet this year, legislators have not been ignoring the demand for restoring revenue. And in particular, Southern legislators have been noticing how Clark County funds over 80% of the state's budget, only to get about 50% back. This is why we've been hearing more calls for mining tax reform, even from some previously unlikely sources. After all, why should Las Vegas Strip casinos do nearly all the heavy lifting (as in tax collecting) while rural Northern Nevada mines pay mere pennies on the dollar for all the gold they strike?

We're just over halfway through the 77th session, so there's not much time left for legislators to agree to some dramatic overall of "GovRec" (Governor Brian Sandoval's proposed budget). Is there enough time to secure more funding equity now? Or is there at least time to lay more of a foundation for future major reforms?

There's not much time left, but there's also not much patience left.

Why AB 230 & SexEd Matter

Earlier this month, a whole lot of controversy arose over AB 230. Its first hearing at the Nevada Legislature was already full of fireworks. But when a few opponents of comprehensive sex education (SexEd) actually made death threats (??!!) against Assembly Member Lucy Flores (D-North Las Vegas) for simply sharing her own story on the matter, it just brought even more attention to the cause.

And this past Wednesday, the Assembly Education Committee passed AB 230 with a friendly amendment from Assembly Member Dina Neal (D-North Las Vegas). So another bill passed the first test at the Nevada Legislature this week. Why are we talking about this one today?

Here's why: According to the Guttmacher Institute, Nevada has the fourth highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. And teen parents are more likely to drop out of school than their peers. And high school dropouts are less likely to earn living wages than their peers & more likely to need public assistance.

And we're incurring these costs now because we can't guarantee decent SexEd. Just providing proper SexEd can ultimately save our state loads of money while also saving many kids' lives and opportunities. Yes, this is what's actually at stake with AB 230.

But in case you need a better understanding of what's in AB 230 and why it's necessary, read this from Sin City Siren.

AB230 is not creating a new standard out of whole cloth. There is already an antique sex ed law on the books. It’s just bringing it from the tapedeck era into the blue-ray era. And don’t let the NIMBY’s fool you. According to a January 2013 poll, 67% of Nevadans are in favor of sex education in schools, including teaching age-appropriate information about birth control. And the majority — we’re talking above the 90th percentile — of parents nationwide support sex education. Plus, research shows that sex education is linked with delayed first-time sexual experience. The more kids know, the longer they wait! [...]

In fact, 88 percent of teens said they support sex education. And need I remind you, research shows that sex education is linked with delayed first-time sexual experience. So the truth is, talking about sex does the exact opposite of making kids have sex! Talking to them and giving them the information they need to make healthy choices actually does just that… helps them make healthy choices! It can also help prevent the spread of STDs and AIDS. It can prevent unwanted pregnancies. And it can potentially save someone from remaining in dangerous situations that can turn violent, or even deadly. Look, I don’t exactly look forward to sex talks with my kid. I have the same fears that many parents do that my kid might make bad choices or wind up in bad situations. But if she does, DEAR GOD I want her to be armed with knowledge and confidence to act on that knowledge! I want to give my child a full voice in her life and the power to back it up! Why would you want anything less for your kids? [...]

Nevada has the fourth highest rate of teen pregnancy. Our current law, which mandates abstinence-only education, is a failure at preventing unintended pregnancies as well as informing youth about things like rape, domestic violence, sexting, cyber-bullying, and much more. A Congressional study already confirmed that abstinence-only education does not work and the American Academy of Pediatricians has recommended a comprehensive sex education approach, which includes but is not limited to abstinence education. And, let’s face it, parents don’t know everything (don’t tell my daughter!). We get intimidated about talking about certain subjects. Or, in some cases, parents just aren’t equipped or emotionally available to have those conversations. Does that mean that kids should grow up ignorant just because some parents cop-out or don’t have the latest information? I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid.

Got it?

Perhaps enough people in Carson City finally are. For everyone's sake, they must. We can either fix this problem now or continue to pay the consequences of the broken status quo. The Assembly Education Committee decided to finally fix it this week, and hopefully other legislators are paying attention to this.

With AB 484 Dead, UMC Plan Reignites Clark County Controversy

Back in January, we looked at the stark divide that was beginning to emerge on the Clark County Commission. On a host of critical issues, there's seemed to be a persistent 4-3 split. Perhaps the one issue this has most often been manifesting itself has been the ongoing struggle over UMC, Southern Nevada's only public hospital.

Earlier this week, the Assembly Health & Human Services Committee heard testimony on AB 484. This bill calls for a new governing board for UMC, but opponents fear it threatens the hospital's mission as a critical health care provider for those who can't access care anywhere else. And opponents fear this bill may actually be a back door route to privatizing UMC.

Yet what truly surprised nearly everyone this week was the appearance of three County Commissioners... To testify against AB 484! No one saw this coming.

“This is a slippery slope. We have a moral obligation to make sure we take care of the needy people in our community,” [County Commissioner Chris] Giunchigliani said. “I would caution that no matter what happens with this bill, which I hope does not pass, that we be very cautious about unintended consequences.” [...]

[Commissioners] Giunchigliani, [Tom] Collins, and [Lawrence] Weekly told legislators that changing UMC’s governance structure wouldn’t address underlying revenue issues that cost the county tens of millions of dollars per year.

Collins called the proposed changes “unproven” and said it was an instance of “government trying to pass the buck.”

Weekly said the proposed legislation wasn’t “genuine” and was being fueled by special interests. He said commissioners should spend more time working on hospital issues before offloading those responsibilities to an independent board.

“If you move forward with this … what you’re going to see down the line is a whole bunch of special interest folks coming out of the woodwork and UMC won’t be that safety net hospital anymore,” Weekly said. “I don’t think enough time has been spent as a board caring for this hospital like we should.”

Giunchigliani said county commissioners need to have the “courage” to take serious action to fix UMC’s financial situation, including possibly creating a countywide tax to help pay for hospital operations.

“We have to clean up our own house to some extent and we don’t need AB484 to do that,” she said. “This bill diverts us from that discussion. We’re not dealing with how do we fund the hospital or add to our payer mix.”

Yes, that actually happened this week. What was supposed to a "Clark County backed bill" drew opposition from three sitting Clark County Commissioners. And yes, the Nevada Legislature took notice.

And as a result, another surprise occurred. AB 484 died in committee yesterday. Remember that yesterday was the deadline for bills to pass from their originating committees. So because the Assembly Health & Human Services Committee took no action yesterday, AB 484 will likely go nowhere this session.

Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick [D-North Las Vegas] said part of the reason the bill failed was legislators were reluctant to get involved in an issue that could be solved at the county level.

“Anytime that any county comes before us and they have a split vote, we try to send things back to them so they can work on them,” she said. “It's really their issue that they need to resolve amongst themselves.”

So it's back to the drawing board for the Clark County Commission on charting the future of UMC. And going forward, UMC will likely remain a county issue for some time. Since AB 484 is no more, the county will probably have to give up any plans to privatize the hospital for now.

Now, it's just a matter of whether the Clark County Commission can overcome this 4-3 divide and come together for a holistic solution for UMC. Again, this is Southern Nevada's only public hospital. And it's the only source for health care for many in Clark County who have the legal right to access health care somewhere in the county.

So what happens next? For now, that big question moves out of Carson City and back to Clark County HQ in Downtown Las Vegas. Good luck with that.

Invasion of the NV Energy Bill Snatchers

On Wednesday, NV Energy reached a breakthrough. Its stock hit a 52 week high. And it did so due to a strong first quarter earnings report... And talk of NV Energy's NVision plan.

When Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) and Assembly Member David Bobzien (D-Reno) originally proposed SB 123, they offered a bill to strengthen Nevada's renewable energy standard. It was amended today... To become NV Energy's NVision plan. And the Senate Commerce, Labor, & Energy Committee just approved the new SB 123 (that is, NV Energy's) language unanimously and moved it to the Senate Finance Committee.

So what just happened? Long story short: NV Energy got its way. Its lobbyists demanded this, so this is what the committee agreed to do.

So now, the SB 123 that's been gutted and amended into NV Energy's NVision (For more renewable energy? Natural gas fracking? Higher electric rates? All of the above?) moves to the full Senate for consideration. And one can only hope the full Senate really considers what this means.

Sure, Nevada needs more of its own renewable energy generation. Nearly everyone (except a few "tea party" radicals) agrees on that. And nearly everyone (with same above caveat) is ready to move beyond dirty, scary, nasty coal. Farewell, Reid Gardner, once and for all.

However, NV Energy's NVision plan doesn't stop there. It also calls for more natural gas power plants. So where will the natural gas come from? Does NV Energy want fracking in Nevada?

And how will this plan be paid for? As mentioned at the top, NV Energy's finances certainly are not hurting. Yet on KNPR earlier this week, the Bureau of Consumer Protection's Dan Jacobsen called out NV Energy's fuzzy math and revealed NVision likely means 9% (on top of inflation) higher electric rates for consumers while NV Energy further pads its profit margin.

So who really benefits from NVision? Why was SB 123 so quickly gutted and amended to morph into NVision? And who will stop this speeding gravy train to ask the tough questions on this?

(Hint: The rest of the Nevada Legislature is now on notice.)

No Change on Gun Safety @ #NVLeg?

I know the Senate has been getting plenty of attention in the last 36 hours, but there's also been plenty of action in the Assembly lately. Here is an example of what's happening on the other side of the Nevada Legislature. Apparently, this is what Carson City thinks of gun safety reform.

A bill allowing people with concealed weapon permits to carry guns on Nevada college campuses appears doomed to the same fate two years ago, going down in defeat without a committee vote.

Another major gun bill sponsored by Democratic Majority Leader William Horne of Las Vegas also appeared dead Friday without a vote in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Horne's bill would have created civil liability for a seller of a gun that was used to harm someone else if no background check was performed. It also taxed sales of firearms and ammunition.

Friday is the deadline for most bills to pass out of committee.

Assembly Member Michelle Fiore (R-Las Vegas) was championing AB 143, which would have allowed for unchecked concealed carry of firearms on college campuses. Many students and public safety officials testified against it because of the security concerns of having so many guns on campus. Apparently, that had an effect on Assembly Judiciary Committee Chair Jason Frierson (D-Spring Valley). He decided to table the bill, which effectively kills it today.

However, there was also a gun safety bill that met the same fate. Assembly Member William Horne was championing AB 234, a bill that called for expanded background checks, bans on certain ammunition, and a firearms transaction tax. The bill also essentially died today, as no action was taken in committee.

So far, there no signs yet of progress on gun safety reform in Carson City. However, pro-NRA bills don't seem to be moving, either. So we may end up seeing the status quo hold.

And we may very soon return our eyes to Washington for action on gun safety.

SB 192 Is AMENDED, Passes Committee

Last month, we took a closer look at SB 192. It claims to "preserve religious freedom", but it's actually a pernicious plan to undermine anti-discrimination laws in order to attack others' freedom. Early on, SB 192 gathered plenty of co-sponsors and looked like a sure bet to pass.

But over the past month, that's changed. In particular, the increasing talk of this as a "Trojan Horse Bill" has forced lawmakers to rethink their support for the bill. But is it enough to stop the bill?

Perhaps so. I've been monitoring the Senate Judiciary Committee all morning. And while they've been dealing with a full load of bills (tackling everything from betting on federal elections to repealing "crimes against nature"!), I've yet to hear a peep on SB 192.

And just minutes ago, AP reporter Sandra Chereb tweeted that only one bill remains on Judiciary's docket. And that bill is... Another gaming bill, specifically regarding sports kiosks. So what just happened?

So far, SB 192 has not come up in this committee, its originating committee. And remember, today is the deadline for a bill to pass its originating committee. So if SB 192 does not pass committee today, it's officially dead.

For a bill that suddenly generated plenty of controversy over religion, discrimination, and civil rights, SB 192 looks to be suffering a rather quiet death. But funny enough, this quiet death somewhat resembles its quiet birth. Ah, poetic justice...

UPDATE 10:50 AM: Doh! I should have noticed Steve Sebelius' tweet two hours ago. SB 192 was dropped from Senate Judiciary's agenda. So it's officially dead. I'll express my condolences to Senator Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) over the loss of her bill. (/snark)

UPDATE 11:00 AM: Whoops! Not so fast. Steve Sebelius just had to retract what he tweeted, as Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) is insisting that SB 192 is still on the agenda and will get a vote today. So we may have to wait a little longer, and we may even have a committee vote on public record soon.

So stay tuned, since this story isn't over yet.

UPDATE 11:10 AM: Senator Cegavske apparently agreed to work with Senators Aaron Ford (D-Spring Valley) and Mark Hutchison (R-Las Vegas) to amend SB 192 to clarify it can NOT be used as an end run around anti-discrimination laws. And apparently, that's good enough for everyone on the committee. It passed unanimously.

This will need closer examination. But so far, it looks like the most egregious aspects of SB 192 are gone. In the coming days, we will be investigating this further to see what's now in SB 192 and what it now means. So stay tuned, as this story is now far from over.

SB 49 Campaign Finance Reform Passed Committee, Now Moving to Full Senate

Last month, we discussed the importance of the campaign finance & ethics reform bills pending in the Nevada Legislature this session. One such is bill is SB 49, Secretary of State Ross Miller's bill that calls for more campaign finance reporting. Believe it or not, SB 49 also moved out of committee yesterday. And that's no small feat.

So what happened? Yesterday, the bill had its final day in the Senate Legislative Operations & Elections Committee. A few members grumbled over the reporting requirements.

And then, the bill was amended. Secretary Miller already changed the minimum amount of immediately reportable contributions from $1,000 to $2,000. He also decided to include internet advertising as required expenditure reporting, and he agreed to exclude charitable and educational events from gift reporting. But on top of that, Senator Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) further amended the bill by delaying the start of the new reporting rules to 2014.

And then, finally, it was time to vote. Senators Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) and James Settlemeyer (R-Minden) voted against SB 49. Meanwhile, Senators Atkinson, Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), and Mark Manendo (D-Paradise) voted in favor. So SB 49 passed as amended.

So was it watered down some? Yep, though it was also strengthened in other ways (like required online ad reporting). But ultimately, it passed committee. It's moving onto the full Senate. And finally, something may happen.

How often have we seen ugly corruption scandals emerge? And how often have we seen the exact same reaction of petty finger pointing while offering no real solutions?

It's time for a chance. And SB 49 starts to move Nevada in a new direction of transparency. Knowledge truly is power. And the more we know about the flow of money in and out of campaigns, the more we can do to identify the problems in our campaign finance system and change them.

High Times: SB 374 Passes Committee, Moves to Full Senate

Last month, a road trip to Arizona, a bunch of crude jokes, and sensational media coverage helped bring attention to the serious issue of medical marijuana. Oh yes, and it also helped that the ACLU filed a law suit against the state over Nevada's convoluted marijuana laws. While Nevada voters approved the use of medical marijuana in 2000, subsequent efforts to clarify the law only resulted in more confusion... And more police arrests of patients trying to access the medicine they need.

This is why Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) introduced SB 374 this session. And this may be why SB 374 received its first signal of approval today in the Nevada Legislature.

Sen. Mark Hutchinson, R-Las Vegas, said the initial fee for licensing a clinic will be $20,000 with an annual renewal of $5,000. The fees would give the state Health Division money to regulate dispensaries, and any excess would go to aid to public schools, he said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee today endorsed the bill, which would permit 40 dispensaries in Clark County and fewer in other counties.

Under the bill a lottery will be set up if applications exceed the limit. Nevada companies would receive preference.

Hutchinson said Senate Bill 374 establishes a system of “tight controls” to track the marijuana from seed to sale.

Sen. Greg Brower, R-Reno, said there was a “disconnect” between the federal law that prohibits the sale of marijuana and the proposed state law. But he called allowing dispensaries the “next logical step” in carrying out Nevada’s constitutional amendment to allow medical marijuana.

Committee Chairman Sen. Tick Segerblom, sponsor of the bill, said he has seen press reports that the governor would be open to considering the measure, which now goes to the full Senate.

Ultimately, it was amended. The license fee was raised from $5,000 to $20,000. And for-profit companies will be allowed to run dispensaries. (The original language only allowed for non-profit organizations to run dispensaries.)

But at least now, SB 374 has cleared its first hurdle. And not only that, but it did so with flying colors. SB 374 passed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It now moves onto the full Senate.

And from there, its prospects are actually quite bright. So far, we've yet to see major signs of resistance in the Assembly. And even Governor Brian Sandoval (R) has signaled willingness to sign this into law.

So can Nevada finally fix this messy and embarrassing medical marijuana problem? We shall see. But so far, it's looking like high times.

SB 229 "Save Tahoe Bill" Passes Committee

Earlier today, we discussed the ongoing saga over the fate of Lake Tahoe and the regulatory agency (TRPA) that protects it. In March, SB 229 was introduced to repeal SB 271, the bill passed in 2011 that allows Nevada to withdraw from TRPA if it "goes too far" in protecting Lake Tahoe from overdevelopment and other forms of environmental harm. And today, SB 229 also had its ultimate day in committee.

Just minutes ago, the Senate Natural Resources Committee voted 3-2 in favor of SB 229. Senators James Settlemeyer (R-Minden) and Pete Goicoechea (R-Eureka) voted against SB 229. Meanwhile, Senators Aaron Ford (D-Spring Valley), Mark Manendo (D-Paradise), and Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) all voted in favor.

So SB 229 passed committee, and it's now going to the full Senate.

So what happens next? We're not quite sure yet. There may be enough votes in the Senate to pass SB 229. And there may even be enough votes in the Assembly. However, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) has recently reiterated his support for 2011's SB 271... Which means he opposes 2013's SB 229.

But at least for now, SB 229 will live to see another day.

Motion to Proceed

Apparently, Carson City isn't holding a monopoly on legislative action this week. Just minutes ago, something fairly amazing happened in Washington, DC. For the first time in nearly two decades, the US Senate voted to proceed debate on gun safety reform legislation.

With families of victims of the Newtown, Conn., massacre watching silently from the chamber, the Senate thwarted a threatened filibuster with a vote of 68 to 31 and will proceed next week to debate a package of legislation that would expand background checks for gun buyers and increase the penalties for criminal sales, in addition to a variety of other amendments. Those include the renewal of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

Twenty-nine Republicans voted against the measure, as did two Democrats.

"Americans across this great country are looking to us for solutions and for action," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "not for filibustering or sloganeering." [...]

The vote, while a short-term victory for gun-control advocates, in no way presages passage of new gun laws. The impending bill will again need 60 votes to end the debate after consideration of contentious amendments offered by both supporters and opponents of new laws.

This has been a long time coming, but we're finally here. And by the way, Senator Dean Heller (R) ultimately voted to end the filibuster on the motion to proceed with official debate. So he essentially voted with the majority to allow for formal debate to Senator Harry Reid's (D) gun safety bill, and to allow for potentially many votes on many amendments to it.

Remember, this is far from over. And although it doesn't feel as such, this is officially only just the beginning of the US Senate's official consideration of Senator Reid's gun safety bill. We're certainly still a far distance from a final cloture vote on a final bill.

So what will Senator Heller ultimately vote for? We don't know yet.

And what will Senator Reid allow to be added to his bill? We don't know completely just yet (though we know he is open to at least some amendments).

So what will finally happen here? You tell me. Otherwise, we must wait & see.

SJR 13 Clears Committee... & Now Direct Vote for Marriage Equality

Yesterday, Governor Brian Sandoval (R) reiterated his opposition to marriage equality. However, that was not enough to stop the advancement of equality at the Nevada Legislature.

At last month's explosive SJR 13 hearing, there was plenty of moving testimony in favor of marriage equality. And there were still a few howls of protest against. And while it was hard to miss the charged emotion on either side, there seemed to be much more energy in favor of equality both in Carson City and at the satellite hearing in Las Vegas.

Today was do-or-die for SJR 13 & marriage equality. That's because today is Work Session for the Senate Legislative Operations & Elections Committee. Oh, and the deadline is tomorrow for bills to pass from their originating committees.

However today, we saw a twist. In a bit of a surprise, Senator Tick Segerblom (D-Las Vegas) came into the committee to briefly discuss an amendment to SJR 13. Basically, it was amended to repeal the Question 2 marriage ban and enact marriage equality outright.

For some reason, this outraged Senator James Settlemeyer (R-Minden). He claimed he was ready to simply give the people the opportunity to repeal Question 2 in 2016. But for some reason, he refused to also give the people a chance to vote for marriage equality in 2016.

So then, it was time to vote. Senators Settlemeyer and Barbara Cegavske (R-Spring Valley) voted against the amended SJR 13, while Senators Pat Spearman (D-North Las Vegas), Mark Manendo (D-Paradise), and Kelvin Atkinson (D-North Las Vegas) voted in favor. So it passed. And now, the full Senate will be given an opportunity to vote to give Nevadans the opportunity to vote in civil marriage equality in 2016.

This should be fun.

Why Aren't We Disturbed by This?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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