Brian Sandoval’s rise in Nevada politics has been meteoric, so much so that he almost reminds me of that young fellow in Washington whose rise was built on blinding speed and little else. Although well grounded in the law and running as a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor, Sandoval should be prepared to explain his role as Governor Guinn’s Attorney General in 2003.
Some background is in order: In 1994 and 1996 Nevada voters overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the Nevada Constitution that required a 2/3 supermajority vote in the legislature to pass any tax increase. This amendment was added to a constitution that also required undefined funding for education.
In 2003 the Democratic majority in the legislature orchestrated a budget impasse by passing all budgetary items except for its proposed increase in funding in education which was blocked by over one third of the Assembly, all Republicans. The impasse continued through two special legislative sessions since the Democrats refused to cut the otherwise bloated budget and the Republicans refused to increase taxes.
Attorney General Brian Sandoval as the state’s chief legal officer advised Governor Guinn to sue the legislature in the Nevada Supreme Court. Sandoval personally delivered the petition to the high court seeking to get the court to intervene and get the increased public school budget passed.
Well, intervene the Supreme Court did, and in spades: In the infamous case of Guinn vs. Legislature, the court found a conflict between the two constitutional provisions and directed the legislature to ignore the 2/3 requirement and pass the increased taxes with a simple majority. The decision was ridiculed nationally by legal experts and by a majority of Nevada voters who found out that their vote meant nothing to Guinn and Sandoval. Governor Guinn a RINO would not face the press and had Sandoval take the heat. Sandoval’s explanation: “Everyone is going to have a different opinion on this, we just asked the court to require the legislature to balance the budget and fund education.”
The $836 million in additional taxes passed in 2003 produced such and embarrassing surplus that Guinn sought and got the Democrats to agree to a $300 million “give back” in 2005. The court’s decision was allegedly tainted by contact between Guinn and a couple of the justices so much so that Sandoval should have suspected the outcome before the petition was filed. The decision was subsequently repudiated by a succeeding Nevada Supreme Court.
The episode presents some serious questions as to Sandoval’s qualification for office.
Does Sandoval believe in the right of voters to expect that their vote means something? Over two thirds of the Nevada voters twice passed the constitutional amendment requiring a legislative super-majority to pass tax increases.
Does Sandoval believe in the separation of powers, legislative, executive and judicial provided by the Nevada and US constitutions? Legal scholars and the subsequent court decision confirm that courts have no more a right to compel legislation than governors do. Yet Sandoval asked the court to so compel the Nevada legislature. Political impasses demand political solutions–like budget cuts–which is exactly what the voters expected by passing the amendment twice!
Finally, and very troublesome, does Sandoval have any concept of economics and the effects of bloated state budgets and excessive taxes? His participation in the Democratic charade in 2003 would suggest he is as ignorant as Guinn in this regard.
I’m sure that the campaign for the nomination will vet these three important issues and more and I hope that our vigilant press will report them clearly and fairly.
Tom Motherway
#1 by renohayektjm2 on December 3, 2009 - 12:15 am
Well Guest (guest@guest.com), I see that you are a Brian Sandoval fan like many others. I may join you in that regard but there are matters that need to be cleared up first. So, onto my response to your comment:
I apologize for suggesting that Brian may be as ignorant as Guinn on the bloated government and the need to cut it. As you know Nevada’s budgets exceeded population growth and inflation for several years. We do need to know if Sandoval is a tax and spend advocate like Guinn.
An attorney general should understand that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. In 2003 the most recent pertinent expression of that consent was the voters amendment of the constitution to require a 2/3 supermajority of the legislature to pass any tax increase. The voters twice voted by substantial majorities to limit tax increases.
An attorney general should also understand that our government is one of separation of powers, legislative, executive and judicial. These are separate and co-equal; one branch has no power over the other. The remedy for the failure of a branch to act is at the ballot box.
Evidently Brian Sandoval had a different view; by going to the court he assumed the court had the constitutional power to compel legislative action. He filed a writ of mandamus to force action. You admit this in your comment. Under our constitutional government a court cannot compel legislative performance. Admittedly, under the doctrine of judicial review it can test the constitutionality of legislative acts and if necessary declare them unconstitutional; but this is dramatically different from ordering the legislature to act. The very fact that Sandoval advised Guinn to take the action indicates that he believed the court could force action.
Well, as we unfortunately know the court did take action emasculating the will of the people by subordinating the last amendment the people enacted by substantial majority. Brian as an intelligent lawyer would logically have known this was the only method available to the court. The justices themselves realized that they could not order a duly elected legislature to enact a law. They could only say that the last expressed will of the people did not apply. Lucky for our constitution that this was reversed by a later supreme court. So if you want to characterize my assumption that Sandoval is an intelligent attorney as asinine and biased that is your prerogative. But I think Brian knew exactly what he was doing to affect Guinn’s bidding.
I’ve reviewed my post for facts, clarity and fairness and don’t see where it is lacking in these aspects. I do thank you for your comment.