Commentary - October 2006

The Nevada Supreme Court has been in the news again recently, with its decisions regarding two ballot initiatives that were supposed to go before the voters on the November ballot. The justices ruled that sections of Question 2, The Peoples’ Initiative to Stop Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) had to be removed. It’s now doubtful whether the shortened version of Question 2 will make it to the ballot. They then threw out Question 3, Tax and Spending Control for Nevada (TASC), in its entirety, depriving voters of their chance to vote on reining in government spending. Maybe it’s a coincidence that both these measures would have given more power to private citizens and less power to government officials. However, I’m not much of a believer in coincidences.

On the other hand, the justices didn’t throw out Questions 1, 6 or 7. Question 1 would require the Legislature to approve spending for public schools before any other part of the state budget. Ask any liberal politician: it’s all about "the children."

Question 6, a measure sponsored by the AFL-CIO, aims not only to increase the minimum wage, but also to ensure that it increases every year. Economists have noted that this would hurt the very people it’s intended to help, as it would mean fewer jobs for entry-level workers. In addition, it would hurt the small business people who hire them. The justices haven’t touched Question 7, violated her First Amendment rights because the Pledge contains the words "under God."

We can’t do much about the Ninth Circuit because its appointed judges (16 out of the 24 were appointed by Democrat presidents) serve for life. However, Nevada Supreme Court justices must stand for re-election, which does give Nevada voters an opportunity to effect change.

Three Supreme Court seats are on the November ballot: Seat C is currently occupied by retiring Chief Justice Robert Rose. District Judge Michael Cherry is running unopposed to fill that vacancy.

Justice Michael Douglas was appointed in April 2004 after the death of Justice Myron Leavitt to fill his unexpired term. He is now up for election in Seat F, facing Cynthia "Dianne" Steel, who is currently serving as a district judge. Justice Douglas can’t be blamed for the 2003 Supreme Court ruling allowing the Legislature to pass a tax hike without a two-thirds majority vote. Luckily for him, he was still serving in District Court when that disaster occurred. However, just this month he wrote the majority opinion that gutted the PISTOL initiative.

Justice Nancy Becker, the incumbent in Seat G, is the first of the justices involved in the 2003 legislative fiasco to run for re-election. Although she made it through the primary, she faces a tough race in the general election because voters remember her part in the Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the Constitution so the state government could spend money over the objections of its elected representatives. I’m sure she doesn’t see herself as an "activist judge." In answering questions posed by the Reno Gazette Journal, she said, "We need experienced, honest jurists who are not afraid to make tough calls." Yes, we do, but maybe some calls are "tough" because they involve bending the rules to promote a particular ideology.

Bob Beers, one of the principal supporters of the TASC measure, insists his group will bring it up again at the next opportunity. I hope they do, and maybe they will learn a lesson from this experience and make sure they don’t get tripped up by the courts and their liberal supporters next time.

Nevada voters can do their part, as well. Although voters have lost their chance to speak out on TASC, and possibly on PISTOL, they do still have an opportunity to be heard on November 7th. They can vote against the incumbent Supreme Court justices who played a part in silencing them.