Ethics decision

Last year, a complaint filed with the Nevada Ethics Commission alleged Sen. Warren Hardy, R-Las Vegas, repeatedly broke state law by voting on matters that benefitted the state's Associated Builders and Contractors.

Sen. Hardy is president of that organization.

The Ethics Commission dropped 11 of 12 charges but found sufficient cause to conduct a full hearing on the final allegation.

But when the Ethics Commission attempted to organize that hearing, lawyers for the Legislature filed a lawsuit, arguing that under Nevada's constitutional separation of powers, only the Legislature can set rules and discipline its members on matters involving voting.

During an April hearing before the Supreme Court, Ethics Commission lawyer Adriana Fralick argued that lawmakers in 1985 gave the commission power to punish legislators.

Thursday, however, the state's highest court ruled 7-0 that the Legislature had no power to delegate away its authority in that area to the Ethics Commission, which operates as part of the executive branch.

The justices said the Ethics Commission was barred from taking any action against Sen. Hardy based on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Just as the legislative lawyers had argued, the unanimous court held that only the Legislature can determine whether its members can vote on an issue, or if they must disclose potential conflicts of interest before voting.

A mere six hours before the Supreme Court decision, Sen. Hardy said he would not vote on Senate Bill 427 -- a mild public employee pension reform measure -- because of the court case and the opinion from legislative lawyers that he should abstain.

But Sen. Hardy said late Thursday that lawmakers now can do their business "and be assured that there won't be an unfair, politically motivated attack on their ability to vote."

Putting aside Sen. Hardy's voting intentions, it's nice to see Nevada's highest court rediscovering the constitutional separation of powers.

In this light, Nevada taxpayers anxiously await the court's re-consideration of how on earth schoolteachers and professors with the state university system can continue to serve in the Legislature, when the constitution clearly states: "The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments ... and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases expressly directed or permitted in this constitution."

In case that's not sufficiently clear, on May 9, 1955, Nevada Attorney General Harvey Dickerson ruled what that means is that a part-time public school janitor, having been elected to the state Assembly, could not assume that legislative seat until he retired the executive branch position -- be it ever so humble -- of part-time school janitor, foreswearing any income whatever from any state-subsidized school district during his term of legislative service.

Nevada's taxes were much lower -- and government interventions in the citizens' lives much less onerous -- in 1955. Any idea why?