Comments (20) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
Separation of powers
Tools
The language is clear and concise, explaining what every child learns in civics class. The state government "shall be divided into three separate departments; the legislative, the executive and the judicial."
Furthermore, notes the Nevada Constitution, "no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions appertaining to either of the others ... ."
Yet for the past 40 years, scores of public employees in Nevada -- along with the judicial system and the rest of the political establishment -- have turned a blind eye to the separation of powers clause and served in the Legislature while collecting paychecks from their taxpayer-funded day jobs.
Not only has this resulted in a lawmaking body filled with members who have a direct interest in expanding the size and scope of the state at the expense of taxpayers -- public employees currently constitute about one-third of the Legislature -- it ignores the very real concerns this nation's founders expressed about the preservation of liberty and the dangers of consolidated power.
But may this affront to the rule of law finally be coming to an end?
Last week, the Nevada Policy Research Institute -- a libertarian-oriented think tank based in Las Vegas -- filed suit in Carson City District Court challenging state Sen. Mo Denis' right to hold a job with the state Public Utilities Commission while also serving in Carson City. The legal action has the potential to dramatically alter Nevada's political landscape.
The lawsuit is grounded in the state constitution's plain wording. Sen. Denis is poised to become the top Democrat in the Legislature's upper chamber, and he also works as a computer technician with the PUC. As a lawmaker, he is "charged with the exercise of powers." Therefore, he is prohibited from exercising "any functions" in the executive branch, which includes the PUC. It should be cut and dried.
But Nevada's political institutions -- including the state's judiciary -- have an unfortunate track record of rationalizing the status quo, regardless of constitutional concerns. Witness the state Supreme Court's willingness in 2003 to let lawmakers ignore the voter-approved supermajority requirement to pass tax increases. Or the very existence of "interim" legislative committees that meet and act outside the state constitution's 120-day limit on biennial sessions.
Not even when Attorney General Brian Sandoval (now our governor) issued an opinion in 2004 holding that an executive branch employee may not also serve as a lawmaker did anything change. Instead, the wink-and-nod game continued.
Until now.
Critics of the lawsuit argue it's unfair to prevent an entire class of Nevadan from serving in the state's part-time citizen Legislature. Really? Unfair to whom? Certainly not to the private-sector taxpayers who fund the entire enterprise. Besides, the honorable recourse then is to amend the state constitution, not pretend the clause doesn't exist.
In fact, any conflicts of interest a private-sector business owner or accountant might encounter while serving in the Legislature will rarely if ever rise to the level of the myriad endemic conflicts a government employee will face every day operating in Carson City.
Nor is this just about conflicts. The precise point of the separation of powers doctrine -- also enshrined in the U.S. Constitution -- is to ensure that the great and vast power of the state be spread far and wide, among as many hands as possible. There are very good reasons, after all, why we don't allow police officers to simultaneously serve on the bench.
The founders -- with help from Montesquieu -- understood that the very notion of liberty depended on the deconsolidation of state power. "The accumulation of powers ... in the same hands," observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers, No. 47, "whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
This lawsuit has been a long time coming. The legal case is sound, the state constitution clear. Now it's time for a judge to do the right thing.
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
Originally, the constitution limited regular sessions to 60d (Article 4 §9). Fifty years ago the duration was expanded to 120d; the BIG Government types won't be satisfied until it's 24x7, 365.
Note those are *max* durations. If the Legislature wanted to it could vote to adjourn sine die as soon as it completed its constitutional obligations, which are actually quite few. For example, funding:
the three branches
a militia
assorted constitutional officers
18 public schools
3 UNR applied science departments
prisons and juvenile hall
institutions for the blind and disabled
maybe one other thing I can't think of offhand
and that's it. Minimum government. Minimum problems. Minimum oversight. Like I said, $200M/bien; done in 15 mins.
Instead, the Legislature spends its every working moment piling on as much new government as it can think of (beyond the current biennium's baseline), in order to control any aspect of our lives it had not already done so. Nobody should be surprised that after ~115 days. when the cost of funding all of that government, is finally tabulated, that taxes need to go UP by 10%.
the conflict of interest resolution is simple. resign one when your take on the other job. should a corporate employee simultaneously work for two competitors ? nor should a legislator oversee in any way, any business in which it might have employment. same as the embarrassing issue of congressional, "insider" investment info. all legislators, elected or appointed, should turn over their investment holdings to a third party/blind trust. btw, did the empty suit even disclose ["make transparent"] its financial holdings, previous employment, university transcripts, or health status ? if not, why not ?
Of course private sector lawmakers are going to be conflicted at times. Government *is* conflict. But at least private sector workers -- even DEMs -- can be persuaded that BIG Government is their common enemy. Government workers are obviously much less sympathetic to that argument. It's crazy to give them the power to make government BIGGER. And it's unconstitutional.
The ban on government workers should be extended to those private sector types whose domestic partners are government workers. That's right. Traditionally, marrieds were looked upon as inseparable units.
We also need to ban government contractors, and those who receive material, special interest benefits from government programs. For example, welfare reciepients and parents of kids in public schools and colleges (I repeat myselft).
The reason we have so few truly private sector lawmakers is because regular sessions last so long. If we had small government ($200M/biennium) regular sessions would only last four days. That's right. It would take about 15 minutes to reauthorize the mining and sales taxes necessary to cover it. The other 3d 7h 45m would be spent debating those silly resolutions.
Guys as busy as Wynn could afford to take time off to serve.
Oh, and get the lawyers OUT of the non-judicial branches.
Nancy you talk stupid; Nevada constitution is simple and even you should be able to understand it; IT IS ABOUT CROSSING over the 3 branches of government as a one who exercises the powers of one branch (like politicians who can vote on their own salaries in a 2nd branch)
god you r dumb. u should go into politics; seems just right 4 u
Any money from government should = mandatory disenfranchisement. Don't like it? Don't accept the stolen goods. Simple.
Nancy, a limited Constitutional government would have very few of the problems you just pointed out.
Jon H...where do put a stop to some one who get tax money from serving....your spouse is out of work you get unemplyment? You work for gov contractor? your a constuction worker building a highway? you work at MGM and the gov. held a meeting there? You get SS or medicare? your son or daughter uses gov. grant to help at school ..you do realize that there is hardly no one who does't receive tax money and that hardly no one doesn't pay taxes.
Obama’s Top 10 Violations Of US Constitution http://bit.ly/sZ0zlH
Have we so quickly forgotten Josh Reid? Would anyone have a problem with conflict of interest the next time Harry THE CROOK wants to steamroll Henderson?
VegasCitizen wrote: “With your logic here them no business owner or anybody who works can serve in the legislature since they control the taxes that businesses have to pay and their regulations.” AND “Just sayin your old tune against public employees is getting old.” No, VegasCitizen what the LVRJ is saying is the only group in the country that has a legitimate say in what services the government provides and how much they, the taxpayers, are going to pay for those services are the persons who pay taxes. Those who receive those taxes do not have a legitimate right to determine the scope of government or how much those services are to cost the taxpayers. A note to the public sector, we know how you have gamed the system and we are putting and end to your improper pillaging of our society.