The ferociously fought battle over the 2011-2013 state budget is now history, with about 80 percent of the legislators, lobbyists and observers expressing satisfaction ... and relief.
No "special sessions" (at least on the budget) on the horizon, most burning issues settled (for now), and Carson City once again preparing for a period of respite.
Thanks to a most unusual interjection of itself into the fray (well, looking back to 2003, maybe now the norm), the Supreme Court broke a tense log jam with a ruling that forced Gov. Brian Sandoval to back off his previously firm "No New Taxes, No New Fees" pledge. No one should think that the decision by the Supremes came to the fore "coincidentally" just eight days before the session was slated to end. That ruling, which came after several contacts with Legislators, declared a specific grab by the Legislature in 2010 of $62 million set aside in Clark County for Clean Water as unconstitutional.
No one is certain if that decision was meant only to apply to the water coalition case, or for all or some of the other sweeps passed by the Legislature taking funds from local coffers. The attorney general refused the governor's request to ask the court for clarification, which leaves us guessing whether the decision retracted just $62 million, or if it would apply to all takings from local government, which could tally over $1 billion.
Sandoval expressed outrage at the court decision, but one can't help but sense that he was more than a little relieved to have a rationale for backing off his firm stand against extending the sunsetting taxes. His advisors assert the contrary, and rail unconvincingly about the convenient timing of the court's decision, but it did give the governor an out and a way to reach an agreement with Assembly Speaker Oceguera and Senate Majority Leader Horsford. And, of course, the latter two seemed equally pleased to accept the extension of the "sunsetting" taxes as a victory, although the Democrats own very ambitious plan to impose a "Texas franchise tax" and a services tax fell flatter than a pancake.
The Nevada Appeal editorial on Wednesday raised concern over the role played by the Supreme Court in this session, not just ruling on the legality of laws but being "involved in the budgeting process." The court traditionally has not played an activist role, but that changed in 2003 with the "timely" intervention by the courts on a tax ruling then and it certainly occurred again in this session. Whether one believes that it was "coincidental" that the Supremes issued their ruling on the monetary grab of Clark County funding just a week before the end of the session and broke the log jam (few do), the Court's ruling clearly represented the most important development in the 2011 session. The court forced the compromise to happen; they will decide the election format for CD-2; and they will now redraw Congressional and Legislative boundaries to resolve the redistricting impasse. Call it excessive judicial activism, or as the Appeal describes the legislative session as "judicially oligarchic," there is no doubt the court has become a major player in Nevada political dealings.
Sandoval comes out of this session with enhanced prestige and more leverage for future political clashes. Although the governor had to back off his "No New Taxes" pledge, he was able to claim that the agreement brought "historic reforms in education, collective bargaining, public employee benefits and construction defects. ... It balances the state budget, includes no new taxes and partially extends the sunsetting taxes by only two years." The compromise did not sit well with some conservative activists, but then labor leaders and liberal groups found equal fault with the agreement. Well, as President Reagan would day, getting 80 percent support for your efforts is a good day, and methinks the governor would agree.
• Tyrus W. Cobb is former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.
