Not signing away

The pledge is sure taking a beating in Nevada this year.

That's the Americans for Tax Reform pledge in which candidates pledge "... that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes."

According to the list of 2012 pledge signers on the Americans for Tax Reform's website, only eight Nevada lawmakers have signed the pledge. Three have already left the Legislature (state Sen. Elizabeth Halseth quit) or will soon (Assemblyman Ed Goedhart chose not to run for re-election, and Assemblyman Richard McArthur lost a Republican primary for state Senate).

Citizen Outreach, the group that tracks the state pledge here in Nevada, lists 21 candidates who have signed the pledge, although some were defeated in primaries.

But get this: When it comes to candidates signing the pledge, Republicans in five districts key to controlling the state's upper house in 2013 have all made a point of declining to sign.

Republicans Steve Kirk (Senate District 5), Mark Hutchison (Senate District 6), Mari Nakashima St. Martin (Senate District 9), and Scott Hammond (Senate District 18) have all withheld their signature. And while state Sen. Greg Brower (Senate District 15) signed the federal anti-tax pledge when he was mulling a bid for Congress last year, he's refused to sign the state pledge this year.

The issue came into stark relief last week, as VegasPBS held a series of state Senate candidate debates, and Democrats tried to pin down their Republican foes on taxes. Instead of Tea Party anti-tax oaths, the Republicans gave moderate replies.

Kirk went out of his way to say he hadn't signed, although he said he'd been under pressure to do so. "If we determine that we need to raise taxes, let's do our job," he said.

Hutchison said he would first try to determine the state is spending its money prudently, then determine exactly what's really needed before he'd talk taxes. But then? "Am I willing to talk about revenues? Of course I am. I will always fund public schools," he said.

St. Martin said she, too, would refuse to cut public schools - even after her Democratic opponent brought up a 2011 comment in which she allegedly said education cuts hadn't gone far enough.

If Democrats were hoping to portray their Republican foes as intransigent opponents of all progress using the tax issue, they came up empty.

So what's behind this pledge phobia? A few things.

First, there's criticism to be had in breaking the pledge. Gov. Brian Sandoval never signed the anti-tax pledge, but he repeatedly came out against taxes in his 2010 campaign. (Sandoval defined extending a tax set to expire as an increase, even if nobody actually paid more money.) And when the governor agreed to extend temporary taxes in 2011, he had to go back on that promise.

State Sen. Michael Roberson signed the pledge in 2010 and kept it in 2011, voting against extending the taxes (and against the governor). But this time around, he's embraced extending the sunset taxes.

Second, while there's political pressure to sign the pledge, there's also political pressure not to sign. Lobbyists for high-profile interests - interests that may not be averse to a potential tax increase - have reportedly spread the word that pledge signers may find themselves left off contribution lists.

And third, there's political advantage in not signing, as those would-be Republican senators discovered in their debates.

Whether any of these candidates, if elected, would actually vote for taxes is another matter. But at least the door is not closed. Declining to sign the pledge allows a candidate to deal with unforeseen circumstances, and to fashion a solution with all the facts, and all the potential solutions, actually on the table. And waiting until one comprehends the question before providing an answer? In Nevada, that's almost unprecedented!

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.