Using tax dollars to keep us from voting

A group headed by former state Treasurer Bob Seale is circulating petitions for two ballot initiatives designed to reallocate hotel room taxes away from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. You can find one being offered in front of almost any public library during daylight hours.

If qualified for the ballot and OK'd by voters, the two initiatives, filed with the secretary of state's office by the School Funding Solutions Ballot Advocacy Group, would transfer room taxes from tourism marketing and elsewhere to help fund either the public schools or public safety improvements.

Room tax rates now average 9 percent in Clark County. According to the convention authority, room taxes collected in fiscal year 2007 exceeded $397 million, and revenues are projected to reach $456 million in fiscal 2009 and $571 million by 2012.

The convention authority uses 47 percent of that total, while the rest flows to other government uses, including $72.6 million directly to Southern Nevada municipalities.

Seale's group is promoting their plan as a way to increase funding for schools and public safety without raising taxes.

Needless to say, the convention authority, along with elected officials in charge of Clark County and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City and Mesquite -- all of which have representatives on the authority's board -- have reacted as though they believe these monies are theirs by right. They've filed a lawsuit in Carson City District Court to block the petitions of Mr. Seale's group, using the current favorite argument among those hoping to keep the voters from having a say on just about anything: They claim the initiatives violate the state's new "single subject" requirement, designed to prevent the inclusion of "Trojan horse" provisions unrelated to an initiative's main subject.

Last Wednesday, Mr. Seale's group struck back, filing a lawsuit in the same court, arguing the public officials' challenge should be summarily tossed out, since Nevada law prohibits government entities from using taxpayer dollars to support or oppose a ballot question.

State law does and certainly should bar elected or appointed officials from using taxpayer money to prevent or discourage the same constituents who put them in office from going back to the polls to express their will on other matters. It's to be hoped the court will summarily slam these tax-funded entities for trying to do so.

It would be bad enough, and just as wrong, for taxpayers to watch their own dollars being used to run a public advertising campaign against their own position on an initiative -- violating their freedom of speech by forcing them to subsidize speech with which they disagree. But using tax dollars to go to court and prevent voters from even having a say is, if possible, even more insidious.

None of this is to say Mr. Seale's proposals are good ideas, worthy of public support. That's a separate question, which hasn't yet been reached.

Yes, the public has every right to demand ongoing audits of how effectively the authority's marketing funds are used -- demonstrable return on investment. But whether the city can afford to see its marketing efforts reduced; whether other public programs should be made dependent on this revenue stream (making it harder to reduce room taxes if necessary at some future point to keep Nevada competitive), and if so where portions of those revenues would best be shifted, are separate matters that deserve a full public debate.

The wisdom of the steps Mr. Seale's group proposes have not yet been determined. They may turn out to be deeply flawed. That's what campaigns are for.

But it's the voters -- who can sign the petitions, or not -- who should get to decide whether these questions go on the ballot, and then whether they're worth supporting.

These elected officials are trying to use our own tax dollars to prevent us from having that say. For that, the court should slap them down hard.