Outside the law?

The spitball fight between Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons and Democratic lawmakers has taken an interesting turn.

Recall that the governor and legislative Democrats have been squabbling over who should control all the federal "stimulus" money that Washington will bestow upon the state. Gov. Gibbons wants a newly created "stimulus czar" -- charged with overseeing the money -- to report to his budget office. But the Democrat-controlled Interim Finance Committee instead gave the governor a one-finger salute and voted to move the new position into the office of the state controller, a Democrat.

Gov. Gibbons responded last week by issuing an executive order going around the committee. So far Democrats haven't contested the order, but Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, a Las Vegas Democrat, has continued to take a combative tone on the issue.

But does Mr. Horsford really want to ramp it up?

There is a legitimate question of whether the Interim Finance Committee has any constitutional authority to meet at all. And if Mr. Horsford wants to continue this game of tit-for-tat, some worry that the governor's next "tat" may be a formal legal challenge to the panel's very existence.

"I don't think we should invite that," said Senate Minority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno.

Sen. Raggio's trepidation is well-founded. The state constitution limits lawmakers to 120-day sessions every other year and specifically states that any actions taken outside those sessions are "void, unless the legislative action is conducted during a special session called by the governor."

This clear limitation has been completely ignored for more than 40 years simply so as not to inconvenience the governor and lawmakers.

Lorne Malkiewich, director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, argues the Interim Finance Committee is legal because it doesn't pass new legislation, thus staying "within a box that the delegation is defensible."

Perhaps. But the fact remains that the panel routinely shifts money around throughout the budget and takes other "actions" involving state spending, which seems to run counter to the constitution's straightforward language.

We'll see if Gov. Gibbons moves ahead with a challenge. But even if he doesn't, lawmakers should cut the charade and take the steps necessary to either abolish the panel altogether or bring it in line with the state constitution.