Defending a more visible, available Legislature

To the editor:

In response to your May 8 editorial, “A full-time Legislature — without a vote”:

The Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board expressed its limited view of state government in a recent editorial regarding our proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution to establish annual legislative sessions. Clearly, the Review-Journal opposes a more effective and efficient legislative branch of state government. An informed reader should question the newspaper’s motives. We write this letter to share ours.

We support modernization of the Nevada Legislature, one of only four remaining state legislatures to meet biennially. The Review-Journal advocates a system to govern this state that may have served Nevadans in 1864, when the population was 35,000 people and the state general fund was little more than $225,000. With a population of 2.75 million and a biennial state general fund budget of more than $6 billion, this structure no longer provides the Legislature, the branch of government most accessible to the people, the time or the resources to balance the powers of the executive or judicial branches.

The editorial asserts that the Legislature should prioritize its policy goals, “sticking with the business of funding essential state services.” Yet it insists not only that the Nevada Legislature should not have annual sessions, but that there should be no committee work between sessions. Unmistakably, the Review-Journal does not understand that the people’s branch of government must consult the people in order to develop policy and identify essential services. The most efficient means to consult the people is through committees, whether in session or during the interim.

The Legislature has the constitutional authority to determine its own proceedings and the statutory authority to investigate any issue of public policy. The editorial asserts that the Legislature is overreaching by holding committee meetings between legislative sessions “without the involvement of the governor.” Rather, we hold the view that the 2011 gubernatorial veto of a bill that would have changed the legislative interim committee structure was a violation of the spirit of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

Unfortunately, the Legislature had no capacity to convene to consider an override, one of its constitutional checks on excessive executive power. The intrusion into legislative prerogative went unchallenged.

The editorial helpfully suggests the Legislature should limit the number of bills it considers. This will do nothing to reduce the complexity of issues, however. To understand and develop public policy, one of the most important resources is time, something that is often in short supply during a 120-day regular session.

The Review-Journal claims the 120-day limitation was added to the Nevada Constitution “specifically to slow the erosion of our freedoms.” We suggest that the real erosion of our freedoms stems from the elitist view of state government held by a select few, who see limiting the interaction of the people with the Legislature as one means to maintain their control.

We don’t apologize for proposing to give Nevada a legislature that can act to meet the needs of this state and its people.

The balance of power is currently out of balance, and it is time that the first branch of government is restored to its rightful place.

RICHARD “TICK” SEGERBLOM

LUCY FLORES

LAS VEGAS

Mr. Segerblom, a Democratic state senator, represents District 3. Ms. Flores, a Democratic assemblywoman, represents District 28.