Election

major parties and campaigns,” Minow wrote in the New York Times. “This was once true. … Once derided as a creature of the parties, the commission has gradually become independent of them. In 2004, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry tried to force us to accept a 32-page ‘memorandum of understanding’setting out debate details. We refused, and they backed down. In 2008, Senator John McCain asked for a postponement of the first debate, citing the turmoil in the financial markets. We said we would hold it as scheduled, and he agreed to participate as planned.”

But refereeing among teams is not the same thing as opening the tourney to other leagues—much less to independent teams. There is no danger that the Commission is evolving from bipartisan to nonpartisan. Chairing the Commission are former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry and former Nevada and national Republican chair Frank Fahrenkopf. Fahrenkopf was one of the founders of the Commission.

The Commission makes only candidates with more than 15 percent of the vote in opinion surveys eligible to participate in presidential and vice presidential debates. This exclusionary rule was originated by the League of Women Voters, former presidential debate sponsor.

It creates the paradox—small party and independent candidates need recognition to qualify for the debate but being kept out of the debate denies them recognition.

Critics of both the League and the Commission say their exclusionary rules guarantee that money is always the determining factor in participation. They also say that the eligibility standard should be whether a candidate is on enough state ballots to get an electoral vote majority.

In 1996 and 2000 the Commission barred Green Party nominee Ralph Nader, whose repu-

tation matched or exceeded those of his opponents (Time magazine named Nader one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century) and had ballot status in all 50 states. In 2000, he was even barred from the debate audience by the two-party Commission, though he held a valid ticket.

Last week three supporters of the Commission—ad agency BBH New York, tech conglomerate Philips North America and the Young Women’s Christian Association— withdrew their support in response to letters of complaint.

“This is a triumph for the debate reform movement,” Open Debates director George Farah, said in a prepared statement. His group has been pushing for debates without partisan ownership. Ω

“If I was no threat to these mainstream politicians, why not include me?”

David Lory Van Der Beek U.S. Senate candidate

Real challenge

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, “Evolutionary theory and the teachings of Christ are incompatible,” and some JWs have been on the University of Nevada, Reno campus trying to get that message across. They are set up outside the student union building.

Separation of powers battle

Ballot Question 1, an amendment to the NevadaConstitution, is the only statewide measure on Nevada’s ballot this year. If passed, it will allow two-thirds of the by Legislature to call itself into special session for extraordinary purposes. Bethany Deines “Extraordinary occasions” is defined as “unexpected conditions or emergency situations, to conduct impeachment, removal or expulsion proceedings for misconduct in office, or to reconsider bills vetoed by the Governor after the adjournment of a regular session.” It’s an idea that has been kicking around for years. In the 1980s, Sen. Jean Ford of Clark County introduced it but was unable to get it through the difficult process required to amend the state constitution. Her intent was shown in 1985 when an Alaska grand jury recommended removal of that state’s governor and the legislature was able to call itself into session. In Nevada, the governor has the sole power to call the lawmakers into special session—and he controls their agenda. Sponsored by Assemblymember Harry Mortenson of Clark County as Assembly Joint Resolution 5, Question 1 was approved by the 2009 and 2011 legislative sessions, which is required before it can go on the ballot. Mortenson said requiring the Legislature obtain the governor’s permission to convene a special session is counterintuitive to the proper Nevadans watch the 2011 Nevada functioning of state government. With only the Assembly from the balcony. governor able to call special sessions, the ability of all three houses of government to function independently and equally is diminished, he said. “In Illinois, the governor was discovered trying to sell a U.S. Senate seat,” Mortenson said. “The Illinois legislature convened itself to proceed with impeachment of their governor. This could not happen in Nevada.” In addition to requiring two thirds of each house sign a petition calling a special session, Question 1 requires that the petition must clearly state the business to be discussed. The session’s agenda would then be limited to that list. It would allow the same Legislature that first processed vetoed bills to vote on the override. Currently, bills vetoed after the Legislature adjourns are voted on by the next Legislature two years later. The Legislature would be allowed to stay in special session for a maximum Question 1 can be read of 20 days, except in cases of impeachment or expulsion from office. However, at the Legislature could call for additional special sessions, potentially allowing the http://nvsos.gov/index legislature to convene for an indefinite period of time. .aspx?page=1016 AJR 5 passed the Assembly in 2009 by 28-13 and in 2011 by 28-13. It passed the Senate in 2009 by 17-4 (a bipartisan vote) that became 11-10 (a straight party-line vote) in 2011, with every Republican voting no. Sen. Moises Denis, a Clark County Democrat, said he supports Question 1 because on occasion, there is a need for the Legislature to convene itself without the express approval of the governor. “I think it’s an opportunity for us to do things that we didn’t do at the legislature that are important,” Denis says. “The governor shouldn’t be the only one able to determine that.” Question 1 has met with a fair amount of opposition. Republican legislators have been particularly outspoken. Sen. Don Gustavson, R-Sparks, fears that the passage of Question 1 will change the very character of the Nevada Legislature. He says Question 1 is the first step in the direction of a year-round legislature. “The Republicans generally do not want a year-round legislature like California has,” Gustavson says. “This is one step more in that direction.” Legislators like Gustavson believe allowing the Legislature to call a special session is contrary to a part-time “citizen legislature.” “It’s a dangerous precedent to set, to have the Legislature meet whenever they want to,” Gustavson says. But supporters say the idea that legislators who have to interrupt their work and home lives would casually sign onto a special session is nonsense. Nevada is one of 18 states whose legislatures cannot call themselves into session and one of 11 that cannot decide its own special session agenda. Ω

PHO TO /DENNIS MYERS