Leave it to California to provide the best example of a bad precedent -- in this case, passage by the Legislature of a budget for the fiscal year which started on July 1
Nevada doesn't have one, nor do California and a handful of other states. That's never happened before in Nevada. Not surprisingly, it's happened 13 out of the last 16 years in California.
The "crisis" and "impasse" and "controversy" of the Nevada Legislature's budget have made for great reading in the newspapers and, generally, a headache in state government. But, as much as we'd like it to be, it ain't over until it's over.
So we agree with the Legislative Counsel Bureau's legal brief, brilliantly written by Brenda Erdoes and staff, which argues the decision on the state's budget-and-tax plan remains with the Legislature. There is no deadline in the state constitution, and the dire consequences of what may happen if there is no budget this week or next are mere speculation.
"Members of the Legislature continue to meet and discuss the issues at hand, negotiations are still under way and resolution of the issues could be reached at any time," says the brief. "The Legislature's efforts in this regard should not be frustrated by the unnecessary distraction of this petition. For this reason alone, intervention by this court, even if permissable, would be wholly premature."
Anyone who doubts the history-making potential of this budget struggle should immerse himself in the hundreds of pages of legal briefs, available online at www.nvsupremecourt.us.
It is, for Nevada, unchartered territory. The arguments swing from logic to passion, and most are written with an appreciation for the fundamental questions at stake.
The Nevada State Education Association, for example, carries an angry tone, lashing out at "publicity-seeking legislators" who are "using Nevada's schoolchildren as the pawns in their game."
The Legislative Counsel Bureau's is most vivid when it defends the messy -- but vital -- methods of democracy. "The democratic process of compromise and conciliation is difficult, dynamic and fluid as contrasted to alternative forms of government, such as a dictatorship where decisions are easily made," it notes.
The most cogent point for taxpayers, however, is quoted from another court's opinion: "It was well understood that for a democratic government to function democratically, our elected officials, when acting in their legislative capacity, must answer only to their constituents and only on election day."
Not the Supreme Court. Not the governor. But the voters.
