Comments (31) | Add a comment
Steve Sebelius
It's long past time to stop ignoring the constitution
Mo Denis is an unlikely candidate for tyrant.
The Democrats' incoming Senate leader is universally described as nice, a consensus builder and somebody who won't attack Republicans even when baited.
But Denis now finds himself thrust to the center of a decades-old constitutional debate over the meaning of Nevada's separation-of-powers doctrine, thanks to the fact that he's also a full-time employee of the Nevada Public Utilities Commission.
On Wednesday, the Nevada Policy Research Institute's new Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation filed a lawsuit against Denis, asking the courts to remove him from his job as a computer technician at the PUC on the grounds that he can't serve both as an elected official and a state government employee under Article 3, Section 1 of the Nevada Constitution.
(For those who don't have their copy handy, that passage reads: "The powers of the government of the state of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of the powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others.")
Two things must be said right away.
First, although liberals criticized NPRI for yet another whack against public employees, the conservative think tank has actually done us a service. There have been conflicting attorney general and Legislative Counsel Bureau opinions about whether government employees may serve in the Legislature going back more than 40 years. No Nevada court has definitively addressed the issue. Now, thanks to NPRI, we will get that chance.
Attorney Joseph Becker -- who brought the case -- should be commended for his careful approach. By suing on behalf of an individual, William Pojunis, who says he seeks the PUC job Denis now holds, Becker avoided two major pitfalls. This ensures there is an actual controversy, so the courts cannot reject the lawsuit on the grounds that it seeks merely an advisory opinion on a question of constitutional law. And by attacking Denis' full-time employment rather than his legislative service, Becker avoids the conflict between the separation of powers clause and Article 4, Section 6, which stipulates the Legislature itself is the final judge of its members' qualifications.
That's what stymied the last real attempt to resolve this issue.
Second, we must focus on the real issue. Immediately after news of the lawsuit broke, a common objection surfaced, that it's simply not fair to disallow state executive branch employees to serve in office when everyone else presumably has that right. What is the harm of a schoolteacher or a highway patrolman or, yes, a computer technician, serving when it's perfectly OK for the head of a mining trade group or a lawyer whose firm represents the state's largest casinos?
This we may classify as an irony, but irony is no defense to a constitutional violation.
There are attorneys general and legislative lawyers who have opined that government employees can serve in the Legislature. If state lawmakers who hold government jobs are so confident in that reasoning, they should order their lawyers to intervene in the case. Let all arguments be heard!
In Nevada, we tend to ignore constitutional problems rather than confront them. A split-roll property tax cap (3 percent for residential property and 8 percent for commercial) is very likely unconstitutional, but it remains on the books. The Interim Finance Committee might not pass constitutional muster, but it continues to meet. By failing to establish a method for medical marijuana patients to get their medicine, the Legislature has flat-out ignored the express will of the voters for a decade. But we whistle past the constitutional graveyard, hoping nobody upsets the apple cart.
That's no way to live in a constitutional democracy. And by filing this lawsuit, NPRI has forced the courts -- and we the people -- to finally answer a legitimate question that's been ignored for far too long.
Good for them.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@ reviewjournal.com.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Hamster Jack relishes being insulted. We aim to please.
Oh lookit! Chipmunk Alvinjh, The Total A - h, is trying to be profound again. How long will it be before it reverts to being "cute" or "clever"?
Would a table of beer chuggers sharing a pitcher at the back table of Frankie's Tiki Room near UMC qualify as a "think tank"?
I mean, they're conservative, they're thinking, and they're getting tanked.
So what is it exactly, that make this gaggle of Republibaggers, the "Nevada Policy Research Institute", a "think tank" as opposed to, say, the Frankie's Tiki Room Policy Research Institute?
A Constitution is a broad outline that is the minimum test as to whether a government can be
constrained to uphold common principles. If they fail that simple set of guidelines, then
power arrangements become a network where people concentrate said power in the hands of
those that can help them and theirs with few constraints.
The issue here is--can those that work in the public sector--where pensions, benefits, work
rules, and the receipt and expenditure of the public purse in general--also be trusted to
make the rules about such matters that affect them, their friends, and family directly?
The lawsuit is about exactly that.
Wow. I agree with Steve Sebelius about something yet again.
The salient point has profound implications for the state on many levels.
This state has a history of violating its own Constitution in the name of the greater good
(remember the tax issues?)--the Supreme Court violated the Constitution then had to
backtrack after Sharon Angle took them on--Angle prevailed in her suit where she used her
own funds to challenge a violation,and in 2006, the state supreme court reversed its 2003
decision and restored the Nevada Constitution's two-thirds vote provision on matters of
raising taxes.
When it's a matter of written law--either follow the Constitution or change it properly.
Even the Supreme Court is constrained to certain guidelines. When it gets too easy to do
what you want rather than following written law all kinds of things began to be possible.
The "living document" crowd can make plain language mean anything they want and laws become
meaningless.
Hamster's living up to his usual standards this morning.. insipid, pointless, vapidity on display daily!
Need a dose of wretchedness to get going in the morning?
Hamster's there for ya--ready to standout like an Egg McMuffin at Delmonico's Steakhouse.
Wow. I agree with Steve Sebelius about something yet again.
The salient point has profound implications for the state on many levels.
This state has a history of violating its own Constitution in the name of the greater good (remember the tax issues?)--the Supreme Court violated the Constitution then had to backtrack after Sharon Angle took them on--Angle prevailed in her suit where she used her own funds to challenge a violation,and in 2006, the state supreme court reversed its 2003 decision and restored the Nevada Constitution's two-thirds vote provision on matters of raising taxes.
When it's a matter of written law--either follow the Constitution or change it properly. Even the Supreme Court is constrained to certain guidelines. When it gets too easy to do what you want rather than following written law all kinds of things began to be possible.
The "living document" crowd can make plain language mean anything they want and laws become meaningless.
A Constitution is a broad outline that is the minimum test as to whether a government can be constrained to uphold common principles. If they fail that simple set of guidelines, then power arrangements become a network where people concentrate said power in the hands of those that can help them and theirs with few constraints.
The issue here is--can those that work in the public sector--where pensions, benefits, work rules, and the receipt and expenditure of the public purse in general--also be trusted to make the rules about such matters that affect them, their friends, and family directly?
The lawsuit is about exactly that.
I am just a working class person, but, just because someone wants someone else's job they're holding, we should see a lawsuit due to a loophole? Could this mean that if any question to ponder at the legislative level would come up regarding ANY outside job being held by a legislator that said legislator would have to resign his legislative position for the sake of the question? There are folks who do recues themselves from some things I'll bet because they believe & know it's the right thing to do. What about that? I just wonder if the only folks who should make decisions about any question for change are those who have no knowledge of the things in question. Just asking......Just saying….
The guiding principle incorporated in the constitution is tht those with questionable (and especially, BIG Government) loyalties should be prevented from acquiring powers which can be used (abusively) against us. This is not such an uncommon provision.
I think there are at least several states who have constitutional prohibitions against *Catholics* serving, although I highly doubt such restrictions have been enforced since JFK.
The Nevada constitution prohibits those who are employed by Washington and *foreign* entities from assuming power (Article 4 §9). Nothing against my monotheistic friends, but I would interpret this to mean that Priests and Rabbis are prohibited from serving; the USA has "diplomatic" relations with the Vatican and the Jewish State of Israel.
Berkley, a card-carrying member of AIPAC, should not be ruled ineligible because she is Jewish but rather because her husband earns a very nice living as a government contractor.
I have no problem with physicians in signficantly private practice serving, but I would absolutely BAN those on the Board of Medical Examiners and guys like Hack who are employed by publicly funded hospitals.
There is no more sworn "loyalty" to the judiciary among attorneys, than there is any sworn "loyalty" to any company that employs pilots (some of them have no union which protects them from their large conglomerate employer don't you know) The qualifications for attorneys, regulated by state bars, are intended to protect the public and the clients of the attorneys. In case people here are unaware, while attorneys have duties (zealous representation, attorney client privilege, and competent representation) they have no such duty to any court) Similar to the duties that doctors have to their patients, but certain not to the AMA or any other medical oversight board.