EDITORIAL: Carpetbagger cleaning

If a candidate seeking election to the Legislature doesn’t live in the district he or she seeks to represent, that candidate should be prohibited from taking office. It shouldn’t matter which party the candidate is affiliated with or which party is in the Legislature’s majority.

Unfortunately, it does matter which party the candidate is affiliated with and which party is in the Legislature’s majority. And that means a completely sensible, appropriately strong bill intended to sack carpetbaggers might not work at all.

The Nevada Constitution includes a provision that allows lawmakers to ignore some of the laws they pass: “Each House shall judge of the qualifications, elections and returns of its own members.” In 2013, that allowed the Assembly’s majority Democrats to seat Democrat Andrew Martin, despite a judge’s finding that he did not live in the district in which he claimed to reside and therefore was not eligible for the office. Democrats effectively said, “He won anyway, so he’s in.”

Last year, two other Democratic Assembly candidates were ruled ineligible for the offices they sought because they didn’t reside in the districts. They remained on the ballot and lost their races. But had they won, and had Democrats retained control of the Assembly, they likely would have been sworn into office, just like Mr. Martin.

Assemblywoman Victoria Seaman, R-Las Vegas, defeated Meghan Smith, one of those two candidates, and has sponsored Assembly Bill 177, which aims to discourage future carpetbagging. It would expand the length of residency required for eligibility, invalidate votes for a candidate ruled ineligible and increase the punishment for submitting a false declaration of candidacy. AB177 was passed by the Assembly and is awaiting action in the Senate.

But the constitution trumps statute. And if a caucus has the votes to seat a carpetbagger who wins election regardless, no law can stop it — not existing law, not AB177.

A new law could help shame a party’s leaders into doing the right thing. And, more importantly, it would give the attorney general the tools to prosecute carpetbaggers more aggressively. Indeed, new Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt is pursuing a perjury charge against Smith after obtaining a grand jury indictment. Good for him. But if a Democrat were attorney general, would we see such a prosecution? Probably not.

The Senate should pass AB177, if only to remind themselves and future lawmakers that they must follow the law, too.