Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan’s op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal about the New York City Mayor’s race and what it could mean for Nevada.
Read the op-ed here.
Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan’s op-ed for the Las Vegas Review Journal about the New York City Mayor’s race and what it could mean for Nevada.
Read the op-ed here.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote an article based on Policy Fellow Cameron Belt’s piece about a need for changing regulations in Nevada. Read the article here.
The Reno Gazette interviewed Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan about the changes to Nevada’s home insurance law. Read the full story here.
The Reno Gazette Journal featured an op-ed by Policy Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan about film tax credits in Nevada. Read the full article here.
Nevada Policy’s Policy Analyst, Anahit Baghshetsyan, was interviewed by NPR affiliate KUNR about the legislature’s options for the difficult insurance situation in the Silver State. Read the article here.
Nevada Policy President, John Tsarpalas was interviewed on the American Potential Podcast about the grassroots victory over RCV ballot question in the 2024 election. Watch the interview here.
The Las Vegas Review Journal cited Nevada Policy’s research in its article about Governor Lombardo’s vetoes this legislative session.
The Review-Journal’s editorial quotes Research Analyst Anahit Baghshetsyan.
Article written based on Nevada Policy’s 200 Boards report
Please put “Media” in the subject line and include your questions, deadline, and contact information, and we will respond as soon as possible.
Email: pr@nevadapolicy.org
A criminal conviction obtained by prosecutor and Nevada state senator Melanie Scheible was overturned Monday by Clark County District Court Judge Richard Scotti, citing a violation of the defendant’s constitutional due process rights resulting from Scheible simultaneously serving as both a legislator and deputy district attorney.
Specifically, the court ruled that Scheible acted unconstitutionally by serving as a prosecutor while simultaneously serving as a state legislator — an action which is a direct violation of Nevada’s Separation of Powers doctrine. Consequently, Scheible “did not have the legal authority to prosecute” the defendant, according to the judge, rendering the trial “a nullity.”
As the court explained, the Separation of Powers holds that “an individual may not serve simultaneously as the law-maker and the law-enforcer of the laws of the State of Nevada.”
The court further explained that the prohibition on dual-serving legislators contained within the Nevada Constitution “exists to safeguard the people against the tyranny that arises” when the same person charged with the power of writing the law is also responsible for enforcing the law.
It is on these grounds that Nevada Policy recently filed a lawsuit against every sitting state legislator who is simultaneously serving as a state or local government employee in violation of the Nevada Constitution.
While Scheible is currently evading service, and thus has yet to file a formal response to the Nevada Policy lawsuit, other defendants have already done so using the same arguments rejected by Judge Scotti.
In the case before Judge Scotti, Scheible argued that the constitutional prohibition on legislators from performing “any function” related to any other branch of government should be construed as a prohibition only on “sovereign functions,” which is described as duties exercised by public officials rather than all public employees.
State Senator and prosecutor Nicole Cannizzaro is seeking to have Nevada Policy’s lawsuit dismissed on the exact same grounds, while also advancing another line of argument rejected by Judge Scotti — that local government employees exercise some fourth, unnamed form of governmental power not listed or authorized by the state constitution and, as such, are not constrained by Nevada’s Separation of Powers doctrine.
Judge Scotti, however, responded to this line of reasoning by observing that Senator Scheible “invents out of thin air the notion” that the Separation of Powers doctrine does not apply to public employees.
In this way, Judge Scotti’s ruling echoes many of the arguments put forth by Nevada Policy’s recently filed brief — specifically, that the phrase “any function” in the state’s Separation of Powers clause should be interpreted to mean any function, and that local government employees are in fact bound by the Nevada Constitution.
“The reversal of a criminal conviction is a serious matter, but so is the faithful enforcement of the checks and balances contained in the Nevada Constitution,” said Nevada Policy Vice President Robert Fellner.
“As the decision by Judge Scotti demonstrates, the judiciary has an obligation to defend the rights of Nevadans against government overreach and unconstitutional conduct. We are hopeful the Nevada Supreme Court will do just that when our own case inevitably reaches them.”
To learn more about Nevada Policy’s ongoing Separation of Powers lawsuit, please visit https://www.npri.org/separation-of-powers/.
For more information, please contact Robert Fellner at Robert@NevadaPolicy.org.
[sgmb id=”1″]
Today, Nevada Policy filed a lawsuit in Clark County district court against nine state and local government employees who are currently serving as state legislators, in violation of the state constitution.
The lawsuit asks the court to enforce Nevada’s Separation of Powers doctrine, which states that the Government of Nevada is divided into three co-equal branches, and no one charged with exercising the powers of one branch may exercise “any function” pertaining to the others.
As the Nevada Supreme Court previously explained, the separation of powers is “probably the most important single principle of government” safeguarding Nevadans’ liberties and, as such, not even a single “seemingly harmless” violation of the principle can be tolerated.
Despite the Court’s clear guidance, however, state and local government employees have continuously served in the Legislature for decades, a practice which has undermined the principle of representative government and eroded the Legislature’s ability to truly serve the public interest.
“Allowing those tasked with carrying out and enforcing the law to also write the law totally and completely undermines the concept of a representative government and is a clear violation of the Nevada Constitution,” according to Nevada Policy Vice President Robert Fellner.
“Few would support rules that limit their own power,” Fellner said, “which is precisely why the power to write the law must be kept separate from those tasked with enforcing the law.”
The conflict of interest that arises from dual-serving legislators was especially pronounced during the last legislative session, particularly in matters related to criminal justice reform. Even though Democrats controlled both houses of the Legislature, at least 16 Democrat-sponsored criminal justice reform bills were ultimately killed, according to the Nevada Current.
Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro’s dual role as a Clark County deputy district attorney led many progressives to question whether the interests of her colleagues in law enforcement were being prioritized over the will of the public.
Clark County Black Caucus chair Yvette Williams, for example, reportedly told the Nevada Current that the conflict posed by dual-serving legislators like Cannizzaro is obvious:
“When a legislator has a job that’s in direct conflict with legislation that’s come before them how do we deal with that to make sure that bill gets a fair hearing?” Williams asked. “This is something that needs to be addressed if the people’s voice is going to be heard.”
Assembly Bill 420 was particularly revealing in highlighting this conflict. The bill was designed to reform civil asset forfeiture — a process that allows law enforcement to seize property, and in some instances directly profit from these seizures, from innocent property owners who were never convicted of a crime.
AB420 sought to ensure innocent property owners were provided with basic due process protections. The bill enjoyed broad, bipartisan support and was passed out of the Assembly by a 34-6 margin, with every Assembly Democrat and half of Assembly Republicans voting to make the bill law.
Yet, after a hearing which saw Senators and Clark County deputy district attorneys Melanie Scheible and Nicole Cannizzaro embrace the arguments put forth by their professional colleagues lobbying against AB420, Senator Cannizzaro chose to kill the bill by preventing it from receiving a vote.
“The process surrounding AB420 highlights the exact kind of conflict of interest the constitutional framers sought to avoid through the separation of powers doctrine,” Fellner said.
“The ability to use tax dollars to fund their aggressive lobbying efforts has already allowed government agencies to become some of the best represented groups before the Legislature,” Fellner said.
“This power imbalance reaches absurd levels in cases like AB420, where tax-funded government lobbyists need only convince their professional colleagues, who are concurrently serving as legislators.
“Does anyone really think ordinary Nevadans could ever be fully and truly represented under such an arrangement?”
For more information and to stay updated with the latest developments related to NPRI’s Separation of Powers lawsuit, as well as to access copies of the relevant documents and court filings, please visit NPRI.org/Separation-of-Powers.
[sgmb id=”1″]
Today, the Nevada Policy Research Institute, alongside 12 other public policy organizations from across the nation, have formally requested that the United States Supreme Court grant Certiorari in the Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine case.
Maine university professor Jonathan Reisman is challenging the state’s exclusive bargaining law, which requires Reisman to accept the union’s advocacy as his own, even though he objects to union representation and opposes its advocacy on his behalf.
Nevada law similarly denies public workers their basic First Amendment rights — including the 50 percent of state educators who have rejected membership with their workplace union but are nonetheless forced to accept the union’s advocacy and representation during labor negotiations.
While a plain reading of the United States Constitution makes clear that free speech rights prohibit such compelled representation, the Supreme Court sanctioned such First Amendment infringements nearly 50 years ago on the grounds that doing so was necessary to promote the compelling state interest of “labor peace” — a term the Court never even attempted to define, let alone justify.
In 2018, the Court took an important first step towards correcting this profound error when they held in Janus that it is a clear violation of an employee’s First Amendment rights to be forced to pay dues to a union they do not support. However, lower courts nationwide continue to deny many workers their fundamental right to speak and advocate on their own behalf, which is why the Supreme Court must take up the Reisman case and clarify that compelled representation is also an unjustifiable violation of the First Amendment.
“Nevada Policy believes that unions, or any organization for that matter, should earn their support through the free choices of those people they wish to represent, rather than through government coercion,” said NPRI Vice President and Director of Policy Robert Fellner.
Additional resources:
Original Petition (Filed January 2, 2020.)
Amicus brief of State Public Policy Organizations (Filed February 5, 2020.)
For more information, please contact Robert Fellner at Robert@NevadaPolicy.org.
###
[sgmb id=”1″]
Clark County teachers are understandably upset over rising PERS costs, which have gone up nearly 45 percent since 2007 and now cost the average teacher over $17,000 a year.
Given the teachers union is now threatening to strike, in part over last month’s PERS rate increase, it is worth remembering what teachers can expect to receive in exchange for paying more into the state Public Employees’ Retirement System:
Absolutely nothing.
Every PERS rate hike since 2007 has gone entirely towards paying down the system’s multi-billion dollar deficit, an added cost which provides no benefit of any kind to teachers. Making matters worse is the fact that teachers hired after 2015 are receiving reduced PERS benefits, meaning they are now being forced to pay the nation’s highest PERS rates in order to subsidize the much-richer benefits of their veteran counterparts.
“Rising PERS costs means less money for teacher salaries,” NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner said. “It would be one thing if those costs translated to richer retirement benefits, but that’s not happening.”
“Instead,” Fellner continued, “today’s teachers are seeing their paychecks docked in order to make up for the system’s past funding failures.”
In addition to eliciting complaints from PERS members themselves, such a profoundly unfair and inefficient system has been sharply criticized by experts across the ideological spectrum, including those with Bellwether Education Partners, the Brookings Institution, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the left-leaning Urban Institute.
Unfortunately, this is not a problem that can be solved locally, according to Fellner.
“Rising PERS costs burden the school district just as much as the teachers,” Fellner said. “The Legislature must reform PERS so that teachers receive the full benefit of their contributions, instead of requiring them to pay a 45 percent tax to fund the much richer benefits received by the previous generation of workers.”
For more information, please email NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner at Robert@NevadaPolicy.org
[sgmb id=”1″]
The ACLU of Nevada and the Nevada Policy Research Institute are calling on Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro to allow the Senate to vote on Assembly Bill 420, which has yet to be heard despite having passed the Assembly by a 34-6 margin.
The bipartisan, supermajority of lawmakers who voted for AB420 in the Assembly include Assembly Majority Leader Jason Frierson and Minority Leader Jim Wheeler.
AB420 would reform Nevada’s civil asset forfeiture process, which allows police to seize — and directly profit from — personal property based on the mere suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. In certain instances, neither a criminal charge nor conviction is required for forfeiture to apply. Such laws upend due process and are known to be rife with abuse. Further, NPRI’s own research has illustrated that forfeiture has a disparate impact on marginalized communities.
“Protecting Nevadans’ civil rights is not a partisan issue,” ACLU of Nevada Executive Director Tod Story said. “We commend Majority Leader Frierson and Minority Leader Wheeler for voting in favor of AB420 and ask that Senate Majority Leader Cannizzaro act swiftly to ensure her colleagues have a chance to vote for AB420 as well.”
The current, amended version of AB420 reflects a compromise between proponents of forfeiture reform and law enforcement, and would likely pass the Senate with bipartisan support. However, the bill has yet to advance in the Senate, creating questions about Majority Leader Cannizzaro’s reluctance to hold a vote before the Legislature adjourns this Monday.
“AB420 would ensure all Nevadans have the full protection of due process, as is their fundamental right,” NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner said. “We would like to thank Assemblyman Steve Yeager for advancing AB420 and ask that Majority Leader Cannizzaro ensure the bill receives a vote in the Senate immediately.”
[sgmb id=”1″]
The Legislature cannot effectively serve the public if policy is being shaped based on outright falsehoods and misinformation, which is why it is illegal to knowingly submit false testimony before a legislative committee.
Nevada Policy has alerted Legislative Counsel Bureau Director Rick Combs and the attorney general’s office to what appears to be a clear violation of NRS 218E.085(2) — the state law that makes it a crime to knowingly misrepresent any fact when testifying before a legislative committee.
The false statements were made by lobbyist Marlene Lockard during the March 1, 2019 Senate Government Affairs Committee hearing on SB224 — the PERS secrecy bill.
Ms. Lockard appeared on behalf of the Retired Public Employees of Nevada (RPEN), and was featured as part of Senator Julia Ratti’s formal presentation for Senate Bill 224.
As part of this formal presentation, Ms. Lockard relied almost entirely on known falsehoods when explaining why the secrecy proposed by SB224 is ostensibly necessary.
Specifically, Lockard told the committee that passing SB224 was necessary because of a recent court order that allegedly requires PERS to disclose its members’ passports, addresses of ex-spouses, birth certificates and other similarly invasive information. In reality, no such court order exists and none of that information is, nor has it ever been, public under Nevada law.
Given the status bestowed upon her by Senator Ratti, Ms. Lockard’s demonstrably false comments were accorded extra weight. Indeed, the first time a member of the committee had a question about SB224, that question was posed to, and answered by, Ms. Lockard rather than the bill’s sponsor, Senator Ratti.
More information about that hearing can be found here.
Because the knowingly false statements were made specifically to justify the secrecy proposed by SB224, and were made by a paid lobbyist invited by the bill’s sponsor to help present the bill, they represent precisely the type of deception NRS 218E.085(2) was designed to prevent, according to NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner.
“It is fine to have different policy views and argue those differences vigorously,” Fellner said. “But I think we all would agree that enacting law based on falsehoods and misinformation is wrong, and erodes confidence in our public institutions.”
“It is hard enough for ordinary Nevadans to be engaged with the legislative process thanks to the proliferation of tax-funded government lobbyists and other special-interest groups,” Fellner continued. “Requiring that citizens fact-check all of the claims made by those who help introduce bills is an impossible task, which is precisely why Nevada state law prohibits the making of knowingly false testimony before the Legislature.”
“NPRI has long fought for transparency in government,” Fellner added. “Nowhere is transparency more important than in the legislative process. We hope that legislators remember their duty to serve the public and ensure any bills brought on behalf of lobbyists are done so in an open and honest manner.”
A copy of the complaint can be viewed by clicking here.
For more information, please contact NPRI Policy Director Robert Fellner at Robert@NevadaPolicy.org.
[sgmb id=”1″]
Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.