Staying positive, winning big

No matter how much voters complain about nasty, negative campaign ads, election after election, candidates keep slinging mud by the truckload.

Why? Because polls, research and a whole lot of election results show they are brutally effective.

So when the state Democratic Party began dumping buckets of slime on Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, she carefully considered the mood of the electorate and the tone of the campaign. Then she took a leap of faith.

Cegavske decided to put a big, fat smiley face on her campaign. She would not throw a speck of mud.

"My campaign manager said, 'What if we lose?' I said, 'What if we win?'" Cegavske said last week.

The stakes of her race against Democratic challenger Tammy Peterson were huge. Before Nov. 2, Democrats enjoyed a 12-9 majority, and picking off Cegavske would get them closer to the two-thirds supermajority needed to pass tax increases and override vetoes.

Moreover, registered Democratic voters actually outnumbered registered Republicans in District 8, meaning Cegavske would have to win lots of support outside her conservative base to be re-elected to her third and final term. Peterson was a well-known, highly regarded former prosecutor and attorney -- with no voting record.

Amid a campaign dominated by vicious exchanges between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle in the U.S. Senate race, voters' reaction to Cegavske's no-mud promise was stunning.

"I actually had Democrats calling me, thanking me for staying positive, and saying I had their vote," Cegavske said.

On Nov. 2, what was once expected to be a nail-biter wasn't close at all. Cegavske coasted past Peterson, 56 percent to 44 percent.

The Democratic Party attacks that worked so well in legislative races in 2008 were rejected by voters not only in Cegavske's district, but across the state.

Will Cegavske's successful strategy carry over to 2012? Will Democrats stay with the nasty tactics? Did this year's longer general election campaign, the result of June primaries, send too many Nevada voters over the edge and running to the showers?

It will be interesting to see what lessons the pollsters and political consultants ultimately take from 2010.

Free to move

My Sept. 19 column reported that Democratic legislator Ruben Kihuen had moved out of Assembly District 11 in May, six months before his two-year term expired.

While a handful of Nevada lawmakers have fled their voters' turf for nicer neighborhoods over the years, they've generally been sneaky about it, taking great care to maintain records that reflect residency in the districts that elected them. Kihuen was totally honest about his move, however, filing a change of address notice with the Clark County Election Department that declared his new home was well outside the borders of District 11.

The column prompted a citizen to file a formal complaint with the attorney general's office and request an opinion on whether Kihuen had violated Nevada law. The office's response last month confirmed my suspicions: There is nothing in Nevada law to deter state legislators from moving out of their districts once elected -- provided they don't lie about it.

Election laws only require legislative candidates to live in the districts they seek to represent for a few weeks before filing to run, and to stay there throughout the campaign. If they're caught lying to the state about the location of their primary residence, they can face criminal charges of perjury and filing a false document.

"The Nevada Constitution provides that each House of the Legislature is empowered to judge the qualifications of its members. ... Therefore it appears that this is a legislative matter that is left to the Assembly to determine," Deputy Attorney General Kevin Benson wrote on Oct. 11 of Kihuen's move.

Benson was kind enough to add that even if Kihuen were breaking the law, his office "is not authorized to provide legal advice or opinions to private citizens." Don't we pay the office's bills?

On Nov. 2, Kihuen was elected to the state Senate in District 10, making his lack of residency in Assembly District 11 moot.

It's not good for Nevada or democracy in general if our elected representatives do not have to live among us and witness our standard of living. The question is, will any lawmaker be brave enough to introduce a bill that punishes his colleagues for seeking nicer digs?

Poor Bill Raggio

The political establishment reacted with predictable anguish and outrage over the ouster of Bill Raggio as Senate Republican leader. Please. The guy had it coming. Anyone who thinks otherwise believes in a double-standard for Democrats.

Would the Senate Democratic leader have been allowed to retain his post for the 2011 redistricting if he had so thoroughly botched the 2001 redistricting, concentrating the opposition's power while watering down his own, as Raggio did? Of course not.

Would the Senate Democratic leader have kept his post if he had voted against tax increases in 2003 and 2009, and personally delivered the other votes needed to kill them? No chance. Raggio twice ushered the passage of tax increases, while demanding little of significance in return.

Finally, a question I posed to Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., last month: "What would've happened to Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford (D-Las Vegas) if he had endorsed Sharron Angle over Harry Reid?" Heller's response: "He wouldn't be majority leader anymore."

Democrats have no tolerance for the kind of "courage" Raggio supposedly displayed in selling out his party. That lack of tolerance is a result of projecting party strength, not the kind of weakness Raggio personified -- the kind of weakness that state Republicans finally appear to be willing to put behind them.

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is a Review-Journal editorial writer.