PHOTO/DENNIS MYERS
Voters must navigate two Nevada laws designed to exclude some voters.
Utility receives award NV Energy placed seventh on a list of the top ten electric utilities adding new solar power to their systems, compiled by Smart Electric Power Alliance, formerly called the Solar Electric Power Association. “This year’s utility solar market survey truly shows the dynamic nature of the sector, and the positive, proactive role utilities are playing in the energy transition in our country,” said SEPA President Julia Hamm. “Utilities are responding to consumer interest in solar with cost-effective, innovative programs that provide benefits to their customers and the grid.” NV Energy is currently in a dispute over its request, granted by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission, to reduce the payments homeowners receive for supplying solar power to the utility and adding a fee homeowners must pay for access to the grid. NV Energy said customers with rooftop solar were being subsidized by other customers, but an independent study said no such thing was happening. A referendum petition to overturn the payments and fee is being circulated for signatures.
Laxalt prays for Missouri Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt has joined an 18-state brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Missouri should subsidize a religious pre-school. At issue is a Missouri program to reimburse schools that pave playgrounds with recycled rubber tire pavement. Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia applied for funding to pave its playground and was denied. The brief filed by the 18 state attorneys general argues that the program is not religious and so does not run afoul of any prohibitions on state-funded religion. “[C]hurch status was irrelevant to the program’s purposes and … in this case Missouri offers no supportable basis for its actions.”
Perceptive press A U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving Nevada seems to have confused journalists. Forbes and the San Jose Mercury News said Nevada won and the Los Angeles Times and Courthouse News Service said California won. Forbes: “Supreme Court Says Nevada Court Can Hit California Tax Officials—Within Reason.” San Jose Mercury News: “High court tie benefits Nevada inventor in tax dispute.” Los Angeles Times: “Supreme Court shields California from ‘hostile’ Nevada juries.” Courthouse News Service: “‘Unfair’ Nevada Ruling Against California Nixed.” Decide for yourself: The case is Franchise Tax Board of California vs. [Gilbert] Hyatt and the opinion can be found at http://1.usa. gov/1WhZM4I.
Money shot A pro-gun group wants supporters of guns to send their tax refunds to help pay campaign costs to fight Question One, which provides for background checks before gun purchases and will appear on the November ballot. “Stand with us in opposition [to] federal background checks in the November election and Vote NO on Question 1,” said Nevadans for State Gun Rights president Don Turner in a prepared statement. The group is a political action committee created in response to Question One.
—Dennis Myers
8 | RN&R |
APRIL 28, 2016
Soviet-style elections Nevada laws limit some elections to one party’s voters A little known 1997 Nevada law bars some Nevadans from voting on who their “elected” representatives are. It by has come back to public attention Dennis Myers because a recent change in the law has made those races more frequent, with the result that more races this year will be settled without most voters getting a chance to cast their ballots.
One-party races reduce electorate to that party The original measure was sponsored by Sen. Dean Rhoads, an Elko County Republican who represented several small counties. Before his law was enacted, when only three or more members of one party filed for an office, and no members of other parties, they faced off in the primary, and the winner was elected without ever facing a general election electorate. If only two members of the same party ran, they went into the general election without a primary election. Sparks Tribune columnist Andrew Barbano last week wrote that Rhoads “got tired of beating the same opponent twice each cycle. Only Republicans usually file in Elko County where Democrats are
shot on sight. Rhoads got the law changed so single-party elections could be settled in primaries.” Using state law to solve one’s personal political problems was not original, but was nevertheless still relatively unusual, yet the ploy attracted almost no news coverage. Rhoads’ bill, Senate Bill 10 of the 1997 Nevada Legislature, provided that if only members of one party ran for an office, one of them could be elected in the primary and the race settled without further action. Members of the other party, plus voters registered as non-partisans or third party members, would not be allowed to vote in that race. The matter first came into play in a 1998 Washoe Assembly race in which Republicans Dawn Gibbons, Patty Cafferata and Horace Lucido faced each other, with Gibbons emerging the winner by a narrow margin. As a result, Gibbons was elected in that primary, and Democrats, third party members and non-partisans were excluded from voting in the race. In a Clark County race the same year, Sen. Joe Neal won a Democratic primary against two other Democrats and was elected. Republicans, third party members, and nonpartisans were not permitted to vote in the race. Gibbons then introduced a 1999 bill, Assembly Bill 40, to repeal Rhoads’ law. Cafferata, her principal competitor in the race,
twice journeyed to Carson City to join Gibbons in testifying for repeal. Also testifying for repeal were James Hulse of Common Cause, a citizen lobby group, and Lynn Chapman and Janine Hansen of Nevada Eagle Forum, a conservative organization. The Gibbons bill passed the Assembly but was blocked in the Senate. In the hearing in the Senate Government Affairs Committee, Hulse’s testimony was characterized by the minutes this way: “He continued by commending the eloquence of Ms. Cafferata and Assemblywoman Gibbons. He believes that the Legislature made a mistake in changing the law during the last session to enable the kind of race that occurred here. Not only was Ms. Cafferata denied the opportunity to carry her campaign forward, but also a very substantial number of voters were disenfranchised. The dialogue that is normally expected and entitled to in a political election was cut short. Therefore, for the reasons put forward, this bill should be passed.” The minutes then continue: “Senator [William] Raggio interjected that Mr. Hulse’s language troubled him. The act of the Legislature last session did not disenfranchise anyone. These are partisan races, particularly in the Legislature. The Democrats could have put a candidate forward, so they were not disenfranchised, and had the Democrats done so, this situation would not have developed. In a partisan race, the primary election is the method by which that party nominates its candidate for that office. Therefore, Senator Raggio stated, he would take exception to anyone saying that the legislative act in changing the law disenfranchised anyone.” Raggio was essentially holding members of a party hostage to its organization and its recruiting. But many people who register with a political party do not consider that party “their” party. They register with it in order to be able to vote on more offices in primary elections. True party loyalty is rare. The notion that everyday voters must lose their right to vote because of what a private political organization does is a fairly novel one. The Senate committee approved the repeal bill and gave it a “do pass” recommendation to the full house. But once the bill arrived in the Senate, it was set aside with a technical maneuver so no senator would have to vote on it. In effect, it was killed without a vote.
