‘NO’ ON STATE QUESTION NO. 1: A backdoor attack on vital checks and balances
The core of state Question 1 is a huge expansion of legislative power. Let's take a look at this proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution, some of the arguments in favor of it, and why you should vote against it.
If approved, the Legislature could call itself into special session with a two-thirds vote of each chamber. On the surface, this seems to be a strong argument in favor. When are you ever going to get that many legislators to agree on anything?
However, if you step back and look at the current makeup of the Legislature, you will find that a mere three-seat swing in the Senate and a two-seat swing in the Assembly will put the Democratic Party in supermajority control. Five seats. That's less than 10 percent of the body. The remote possibility of that kind of concentrated legislative power, combined with the authority being sought in this ballot question, should make any Nevadan very aware of the need to vote no on Question 1.
A second argument in favor of passage: The governor loses nothing. His authority to call the Legislature into special session is intact under Question 1. But if the Legislature can call itself into session, it will already have the supermajority it needs to override any gubernatorial veto. Do any of us really want to see the Legislature, in special session, doing whatever it wants to do without this crucial check in pace? Question 1, intentionally or not, is a brutal backdoor attack on one of the most important protections we have against abuse of power and one of the most fundamental principles of our system of government: checks and balances between three co-equal branches.
A third argument in favor of passage: The Legislature has been losing power to the governor, and Question 1 will restore some balance. This argument is factually incorrect. Want proof? Our previous governor, Jim Gibbons, chose to ignore the Legislature. He treated the institution and its leaders with a level of disdain that was painful to watch. The result? His programs and proposals were largely dead on arrival. His budget was dead on arrival. His administration was reduced to almost total irrelevance. The Legislature has lost nothing it can't take back at will, and it doesn't need to mess up our constitution with Question 1 to do it.
Yet another case for passage: There are extraordinary occasions when immediate action is necessary. But Question 1 does not define "extraordinary." The Legislative Counsel Bureau indicated "extraordinary" would be defined by the dictionary, which is remarkably subjective and open to all kinds of interpretations - particularly by a supermajority of elected officials with an agenda.
A fifth argument in favor: The special sessions are limited to 20 days. Not exactly. On this point, everyone involved, including the Legislative Counsel Bureau, agrees. Once lawmakers are in special session, they can just keep calling additional 20-day sessions. Let's be real. That probably won't happen. But it could, and that is just another reason to reject Question 1.
The final argument in favor of passing Question 1: Lawmakers need the power to call themselves into special session so they can impeach an out-of-control, rogue governor who would never call a special session for his own impeachment. If that's all lawmakers want, then why not ask for that provision alone? This is a smokescreen. This argument is built on what happened with the governor of Illinois, which has nothing to do with Nevada. From 1864 until today, there has been exactly one, repeat, one impeachment in Nevada, and it did not involve a governor.
Tellingly, one of the most passionate supporters of Question 1 testified at a legislative committee meeting that Illinois and other examples he didn't name might allow the Legislature to "push the people to support" Question 1 even though voters have rejected it once before.
How about it, folks? Are you in the mood to be pushed into supporting this dangerous and unnecessary change in our constitution? For our sake as citizens, for the sake of the integrity of the constitution and our system of checks and balances, please vote no on Question 1.
Las Vegas resident Knight Allen served on the committee to write the ballot argument against Question 1.
STATE QUESTION NO. 1
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to expressly provide that the Legislature may, on extraordinary occasions, convene a special legislative session upon a petition signed by two-thirds of the Legislators of each House; to limit the subject matter of bills passed at a special session; to limit the duration of a special session to 20 consecutive calendar days except for proceedings involving impeachment, removal or expulsion from office; and to require the Legislature to adjourn all sessions on their final day not later than midnight based on the actual time on the clock?
