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
For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
LAS VEGAS, NV — The Nevada Policy Research Institute sends its deepest regrets to the thousands of families that will be left without educational options, now that Education Savings Accounts are officially dead in the state legislature.
“It disheartening to see that, for many lawmakers, politics are more important than the needs of individual children,” said NPRI Communication Director Michael Schaus.
According to Schaus, political games and backroom deals ultimately killed the Governor’s proposed ESA fix, SB506.
“It was disheartening to see so many political special interests cheering the fact that 10,000 families won’t have educational options that better suit their children,” Schaus said.
“It’s equally as disheartening to see that Governor Sandoval has refused to entertain a special session — essentially waving the white flag on what would have been the single most impressive educational choice program in the nation.”
While ESAs were killed in a back-room agreement among senators of both parties, a one-time increase was given to the current tax-scholarship program for low-income families, The Opportunity Scholarship Program, of $20 million over the next two years.
“It’s being portrayed as a silver lining to an otherwise outright surrender by Sandoval and a handful of pro-ESA Republicans. But, for more than half the students who were counting on ESAs for their educational future, it is no such thing.” said Schaus.
“At the end of the day, political expediency got in the way of lawmakers standing up for all Nevada students in need of choice.”
The loss will have a long-lasting impact on Nevada’s future generations, according to Schaus.
“We were on the verge of seeing a gold rush of innovation flood the state with universal ESAs. Now, we’ve taken a giant step back toward the tried-and-failed status quo,” Schaus said. “It’s a sad narrative for a state that has repeatedly failed to provide quality education for our younger generations.”
###
For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
CARSON CITY, NV — In its legal fight to make the state’s political class and government agencies respect the Nevada Constitution’s separation of powers clause, the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation on Friday responded to filings by state senator Heidi Gansert and the University of Nevada Reno.
“In her motion to dismiss, Ms. Gansert essentially tried to unilaterally rewrite the Nevada constitution,” commented CJCL Director Joseph Becker. “But, as the late Justice Scalia once pointed out, the Constitution is like any other legal document. It says some things, and it doesn't say other things.”
Representing plaintiff Doug French, CJCL filed the suit February 21st, alleging Gansert is violating Article 3, Section 1 of Nevada’s State Constitution by occupying a seat in the state legislature while also working in Nevada’s executive branch. Mr. French seeks the position currently held by Ms. Gansert at the Nevada System of Higher Education.
Gansert asked the court to dismiss the suit, alleging that because she does not serve any “sovereign” function of the executive branch in her role at the University, the constitutional separation of powers clause does not apply to her.
However, as NPRI noted when Gansert originally filed her motion to dismiss, Article 3, Section 1 of Nevada’s constitution specifically states that it is illegal for one person to exercise any function in more than one branch of government — not merely a “sovereign” function.
“It’s difficult to imagine how much clearer the constitution could be on this issue,” commented Becker. “It says clearly that any member of one branch shall not exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others.”
“If, as Ms. Gansert alleges, the constitution doesn’t mean what it says, how exactly would she re-word it so it is clearer on the issue?” asked Becker.
In addition to blatantly disregarding the clear language of the constitution, Gansert’s motion to dismiss highlights, ironically, one of the reasons for the provision in the first place.
“In fact, not only does the term ‘sovereign function’ never appear in the Nevada constitution, the word ‘sovereign’ only appears once — and at that, only in reference to stopping political careerism,” commented Becker.
The corruption and appearance of corruption brought about by political careerism is destructive to the proper functioning of the first branch of our representative government. Congress has grown increasingly distant from the People of the States. The People have the sovereign right and a compelling interest in creating a citizen Congress that will more effective [sic] protect our freedom and prosperity.
— Congressional Term Limits Act of 1996 as Added in 1998 (emphasis added).
“It’s fitting that Ms. Gansert not only tries to rewrite the constitution to fit her argument, but she does so by using a word that only appears in the constitution once — in a clause espousing the dangers of career politicians,” said Becker.
Both the Term Limits Act of 1996 and the separation of powers clause have a similar aim, according to Becker.
“Nevadans deserve a citizen legislature — not a political class of ruling elites. Both the separation of powers clause, and the Term Limits Act were aimed at limiting the potential for career politicians to profit off the taxpayers,” explained Becker.
“Perhaps some of these limitations on the ruling class are inconvenient for Ms. Gansert, but Nevadans deserve a form of self-governance. Not political elitism.”
Click here for NPRI’s full Opposition to Gansert’s motion to dismiss
###
For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael Schaus, 702-222-0642
CARSON CITY, NV – Last week, State Senator Heidi Gansert filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation (CJCL) filed against her for violation of Nevada’s constitutional Separation of Powers clause.
“In her motion to dismiss, Senator Gansert essentially (and unilaterally) rewrites the relevant section of the Nevada constitution, then alleges her rewrite warrants dismissal of the suit,” commented CJCL Director Joseph Becker.
Representing plaintiff Doug French, CJCL filed the suit February 21st, alleging Gansert is violating Article 3, Section 1 of Nevada’s State Constitution by occupying a seat in the state legislature while also working in Nevada’s executive branch. Mr. French seeks the position currently held by Sen. Gansert at the Nevada System of Higher Education.
Gansert’s motion to dismiss asserts that because she does not serve any “sovereign” function of the executive branch in her role at the University, the constitutional separation of powers clause does not apply to her.
“However,” explained Becker, “Article 3, Section 1 of Nevada’s constitution doesn’t require that someone must be serving a ‘sovereign’ function in order for the clause to apply.
“In fact, it actually reads ‘any’ function.”
The full text of Article 3, Section 1 — the separation-of-powers clause in Nevada's constitution — reads:
The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments,—the Legislative,—the Executive and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others… [Emphasis added.]
“Apparently, Senator Gansert feels that she can simply rewrite the constitution to exclude herself from its constraints,” said Becker.
In addition to ignoring the plain text of the constitution, Gansert’s interpretation of the clause runs counter to that of many legal experts — including now-Governor Brian Sandoval.
In 2004, then-Attorney General Sandoval wrote in an AG Advisory Opinion that the “Nevada Constitution bars any employee from serving in the executive branch of government and serving as a member of the Nevada State Legislature.” (Emphasis added).
“Looking at the text of the constitution — not to mention the AG Advisory Opinion — it seems pretty clear,” said Becker. “She is a person. She’s in the legislature. And, as an employee of the public university, she exercises functions appertaining to the executive branch.
“It might be inconvenient for Senator Gansert, and the many other lawmakers in similar circumstances, but the fact is, the constitution means what it says. Even if she wished it didn’t.”
CJCL will file an opposition to Gansert’s Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Mr. French early next week.
###
Today, 11 state senators — most of whom are PERS members themselves — just passed a completely unenforceable law aimed at making private their taxpayer-funded pensions.
Such a singular focus on keeping the public in the dark, and perhaps a lack of proper understanding of the subject matter, resulted in language that plainly states the names of all public employees in Nevada would be confidential under the just-passed SB384.
Passing laws that place every Nevada government in a continual state of lawbreaking and, thus, subject to legal action, is bad policy.
“In their zeal to place the public pension system — not to mention their very own pensions — under a shroud of secrecy, Nevada senators have just passed a bill that would place an unenforceable requirement on every government agency,” explained Nevada Policy Research Institute Transparency Director Robert Fellner.
10 senators — all 9 Republicans and Democratic state Senator Nicole Cannizzaro — stood up for transparent government and sound policymaking by voting against SB384 today.
“NPRI applauds the Republican caucus and Senator Cannizzaro for supporting the principles of a transparent and accountable government,” commented Fellner. “But, unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to keep this blatant affront to transparency from moving forward.”
If SB384 passes the Assembly and is not vetoed by the Governor, Nevada will have undone the will of multiple legislative bodies who fought for a transparent and accountable government.
“Unfortunately, the law was so poorly written, it goes even further,” explained Fellner. “This vote shows just how blindly focused on reducing transparency many of our elected representatives seem to be.
“Does this Legislature really want to reverse Nevada’s history of bipartisan agreement on the importance of a transparent and accountable government, particularly for a bill that was rammed through the Senate on the narrowest of margins, and is based entirely on a claim that is demonstrably false? Especially given the blatant conflict of interest illustrated by the fact that almost all of the 11 senators who voted in favor of SB384 are PERS members themselves.”
For more background on SB384 — and its unintended consequences — click here.
Having long championed the principles of a transparent and accountable government, the Nevada Policy Research Institute is dismayed to hear that some lawmakers are working to weaken the state's public records law.
With taxpayer contributions to the state public employees' retirement system (PERS) hitting a record-high $1.5 billion last year, the Legislature should be seeking to increase transparency, not reduce it.
Senate Bill 384, however, would weaken Nevada's public records law by carving out a series of exemptions for PERS. The bill was passed out of committee earlier this month and is now set to be voted on by the state Senate in the coming days.
NPRI’s Robert Fellner, director of transparency research for the organization, stated:
“It is deeply troubling that lawmakers are seeking to shroud PERS in even more secrecy, particularly at a time when costs are soaring to unprecedented heights, siphoning funds that could otherwise be spent on teachers, public safety and other vital services.
“The arguments in favor of SB384 disintegrate the moment one acknowledges the fact that more than two-thirds of states nationwide have already embraced the specific form of transparency SB384 seeks to destroy.”
Fellner also noted that SB384 has been sharply criticized by all of Nevada's major news organization, with the Las Vegas Review-Journal Editorial Board calling it an “obvious affront to transparency and accountability,” and the Reno Gazette-Journal Editorial Board declaring that SB384 “is a bad idea, based upon unfounded fears, that weakens scrutiny of government fraud, abuse and waste and creates a slippery slope to more government secrecy.”
To read NPRI's full commentary on SB384, please click here.
CARSON CITY, NV — Senate Bill 384 is designed to make secret the names of every retiree collecting a taxpayer-funded pension from the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS). If passed as written, however, it would place virtually every level of Nevada government in a continual state of law breaking.
Although the intent of SB384 is already a tremendous blow to transparency in government — while raising serious concerns over whether it is appropriate for lawmakers receiving six-figure PERS pensions to vote to make that information private — poor language has created a much larger problem.
“In the final, amended version of the bill that was passed out of committee yesterday and is now set to go to the Senate Floor, the bill inadvertently makes confidential the name of every single public employee in the State of Nevada,” explained Nevada Policy Research Institute Transparency Director Robert Fellner.
This inadvertent error is the result of language that appears to not recognize that active public employees are all PERS members, regardless of whether or not they are currently retired.
Consequently, when delineating the few pieces of information that are public, but making “all other information” about a PERS member confidential, SB384 makes confidential the name of all retired and active public employees.
As damaging as SB384’s original intent is to transparency, the actual result of the current language would place every Nevada government in a position to continually violate state law. The unintended consequence of SB384 would make it impossible for most government entities to even function.
“Imagine a school district being legally required to keep the names of teachers secret,” said Fellner. “This law would do just that. As worded, even the names of judges and other elected officials would have to, somehow, be made confidential.”
“It isn’t hard to see that, beyond the transparency issues, this bill would make it impossible for government to function in a lawful manner.”
Sign up for Nevada Policy’s weekly emails to stay up to date on the most pressing issues facing Nevada today.