Important differences between 2003, 2015 legislative sessions

The similarities between the 2015 Legislature and the 2003 Legislature are well-documented by now.

A Republican governor, after cruising to re-election, proposes record tax increases, including a gross receipts levy on businesses. A contingent of Assembly Republicans declares unconditional opposition. Lawmakers suggest alternative tax proposals amid a budget crisis and warnings that schools will face Draconian budget cuts without new revenue.

Those common story lines have led many in Carson City to predict that the 2015 session will end just as the 2003 session did: in chaos, after multiple special sessions keep lawmakers working through July.

But there are important differences between 2015 and 2003, differences that point to a different ending this year — and, hopefully, a different long-term outcome for the state.

Difference No. 1: Gov. Brian Sandoval’s 2015 agenda is reform-oriented. Gov. Kenny Guinn’s 2003 agenda wasn’t.

Guinn proposed more than $1 billion in tax increases without much of anything in the way of education or government reforms. His budget was all spending and no accountability. School choice wasn’t on his radar. Sandoval has proposed more than $1 billion in tax increases, but he has been clear that more funding, by itself, will not improve educational outcomes across the state. He wants more charter schools. He wants to strip control of failing campuses from school districts, he wants to appoint school board members, he wants to end the social promotion of illiterate schoolchildren and more. And he supports reforming the state’s pension system and collective bargaining laws, which squeeze government budgets and demand ever-higher taxes.

Guinn wanted a larger, better-paying status quo. And he got it. Sandoval wants to remake public education and reform governments at every level. That’s an easier sell to lawmakers, business leaders and the public.

Difference No. 2: Guinn didn’t have the votes for his tax increases or his budget until the last day of the last 2003 special session. Sandoval already has the votes for tax increases.

The 2003 session was defined by Guinn’s angry, condescending attacks on the “Mean 15” — the 15 Assembly Republicans who circled their wagons to block tax increases. Then, as now, tax increases required two-thirds support in both chambers of the Legislature to pass. That coalition of 15 was just enough to block all tax-increase plans. So Guinn and his legislative allies spent all winter, spring and part of summer squeezing and pressuring the Mean 15 until one member finally cracked. Sandoval, who has belittled no one, clearly has two-thirds support in each house for his two-year, $7.3 billion budget and its increases in K-12 spending.

However, he doesn’t necessarily have two-thirds support for the core of his tax increases, a new business license fee based on gross receipts. It will take the right terms and trade-offs for Sandoval to close the deal — which could require overtime.

Difference No. 3: The “Mean 15” of 2003 were on higher ground than opponents of Gov. Sandoval’s budget.

Throughout the 2003 session, those Republican holdouts argued the tax increases that ultimately were approved were too high. They were vindicated in 2005, when those tax increases led to a massive budget surplus and Guinn championed $300 million in vehicle-registration tax rebates. This year, the state’s budget hole — and the bulk of Sandoval’s tax increase plan — is largely a result of expiring, temporary tax increases approved in 2013. To argue for no tax increases is to argue for sizable spending cuts.

Difference No. 4: Education First.

In 2003, the public schools budget was tied to the tax increases and held hostage. Voters subsequently approved a constitutional amendment to require the Legislature to fund public schools before any other part of the state budget. The cynical tactics of 2003 can’t be repeated in 2015.

Here’s hoping these differences lead to a different ending — and an on-time conclusion to the 2015 session.

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s senior editorial writer. Follow him on Twitter: @Glenn_CookNV.