Tag: Nevada

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall too much government

The People Speak

Mainstream media often become so fixed on the major players in Washington, DC, that journalists miss the most telling democratic action: At state and local levels, regarding initiatives.

Nicely, there are exceptions. An editorial, last week, in The Washington Times was subtitled “Ballot initiatives advance a limited government agenda in the heartland,” and explained how “voters showed their displeasure with the country’s direction with their votes” . . . on particular ballot measures.

The editorial lists numerous important initiatives around the country:

  • Oklahoma’s and Arizona’s nullification of Obamacare provisions (and Colorado’s failure to do so);
  • Nevada citizens killing “a sneaky amendment designed to undermine protections from eminent-domain seizures for private gain”;
  • Several states blocking our president’s union-vote rule revisions, known as card-check;
  • Louisiana “stopped public officials from voting themselves a salary boost until after they stand for re-election”;
  • Washington citizens overturned sales taxes on foodstuffs that left-leaning folk regard as sinful, such as soda pop and candy and the like.

Washington State sported an even weightier initiative, one famously sponsored by Bill Gates’s dad. TV ads featured Bill Sr. getting dunked. It wasn’t a baptism. He was pitching for a “soak the rich” income tax in the state. The ad didn’t make a great deal of sense, and Evergreen State voters nixed the income tax once again.

The Times editorial ends advising Democrats that they need “to listen to what the public has to say.” But, obviously, Republicans need to listen, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense insider corruption political challengers

Vote Absurdly If You Wish

Today is Election Day, with primaries or runoffs in 12 states. Let’s hope at least a few incumbents fall, from both parties.

Most Americans would cheer that. But we’ll then hear TV talking heads and pundits in the press tell us how crazily we’ve voted.

In 1994, ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings condescendingly reported that “The voters had a temper tantrum last week. . . . Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”

Were our choice so limited, I’d say give the two-year olds a shot.

Jennings’s snooty attitude has been echoed again and again this year. Mike Allen, Politico’s chief political writer, said after Utah’s Senator Bennett flamed out in a GOP convention, “There was no reason for his state to turn on him. Nobody delivers for Utah the way he does.”

Allen went on to rant about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s unpopularity in his home state: “Voters are not thinking . . . the idea of Nevada kicking out Harry Reid is absurd! He’s the #1 senator: #1 out of 100. Nobody delivers for Nevada like Harry Reid.”

Apparently, Mr. Allen knows best. Utah and Nevada voters? Fools, the lot of them — for not liking all the presents their big-shot politicians delivered for them.

Common sense, on the other hand, has it that anyone who votes to please the Washington press corps is truly crazy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Carson City Cakewalk?

It’s a heady time in Nevada. Next year’s election will be the first in which sitting legislators will be ousted under the state’s legislative term limits.

Politicians have begun to think hard about this. Quite a few lower-house reps have set their sights on the state Senate. Well, by “quite a few” I mean “nearly a dozen,” which is how David McGrath Schwartz of the Las Vegas Sun puts it. He also reports that “at least one senator forced out by term limits is seriously considering running for a seat in the Assembly.”

Is this news? Well, it was printed in a newspaper. But it’s hardly earth-shattering.

Yet, in that paper, it was made to seem earth-shattering. Schwartz led with this: “Nevada voters who passed term limits in the 1990s might have imagined it would bring a clean sweep of veteran politicians from office. What they’re likely to get will instead look more like musical chairs.”

Really? Musical chairs?

As analogies for elections in term-limited legislatures go, this falls a bit short. It implies that nearly all legislators will scramble for nearby seats. So far we have less than 13 out of 63.

And it forgets the voters. Who decide. When politicians “hear the music,” the music is played by voters.

Oh, and by the way: Switching chairs — competing for a new position — is one of the reasons for term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

A Law to Be Named Later

Nevada’s legislators have long desired to do something that they haven’t been able to do.

I understand. It happens in baseball. Two teams want to trade a player, but can’t decide who to trade for that player. So, one team hands over, say, their left-fielder for “a player to be named later” from the other team.

These deals require tremendous trust.

I wonder how much the people of Nevada trust their state legislature.

I wonder because what their legislators want is to make the ballot initiative process much, much harder to use.

Years ago, the federal courts struck down a requirement that petition signatures be gathered in three-fourths of Nevada’s counties. So the state legislature passed a new law requiring signatures from every county.

Yes, the court struck that law down, too.

Nevada solons came back with legislation mandating that petitions be gathered in each of 42 legislative districts. This makes a petition drive actually 42 drives — greatly increasing costs and the opportunity for error.

Worried that scheme wouldn’t pass court review, legislators amended the bill to require petitions to come from every U.S. congressional district. But only for this election cycle. There’s a kicker: By 2011, legislators will create “petition districts.” How many districts? They’ll decide later . . . as many as they determine can get away with.

The bill passed in the last days of the just-completed session. It’s sort of a policy to be named later.

Unlike that bill, this is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Long Time (1996+12=2008) Coming

Been a long time coming. The twelve-year term limits law passed by Nevada voters in 1996 is finally taking effect.

Except for state lawmakers elected in 1996, that is.

Nineteen ninety-six plus twelve equals 2008. But in 1996, legislators seized on a technicality to claim that — unlike for other office-holders — for them the count didn’t start until 1998. That’s because, under Nevada law, state lawmakers take office the day after the election. Yet it takes more than a day to ratify ballot results. So the argument goes that it would be unfairly “retroactive” to include the 1996 term in the twelve-year limit.

Inspect the Nevada constitution, and you’ll see provisions stating that no person may be elected to legislative or other elective office who “has served in that office . . . twelve years or more. . . .” Nothing about starting the clock on the date the ballot measure is ratified.

But in 1996 politicians and courts pretended the new law was not retroactive, and got away with it.

Come 2008, non-legislative office-holders finally facing term limits scavenged for yet another technicality. They claimed that the law is unconstitutional and should be thrown out altogether. Fortunately, the Nevada Supreme Court didn’t play along with the latest scam, so Nevada voters must wait only two more years for state lawmakers to be ousted by it.

Better late than never.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.