Gov. Jim Gibbons said today that the 2003 lawsuit filed by then-Attorney General Brian Sandoval against the Legislature puts Sandoval’s anti-tax statements in serious doubt. Sandoval is challenging Gibbons in the Republican primary.
Back in 2003, after the Legislature had failed repeatedly to pass a budget for the state’s schools and a tax plan to cover it, Sandoval filed a lawsuit at the direction of then-Gov. Kenny Guinn. The lawsuit — known as Guinn v. Legislature — sought to compel the Legislature to fulfill its constitutional duty to pass a balanced budget, including asking the state Supreme Court to direct the Legislature to raise taxes.
“The attorney general is the mater of the litigation,” Gibbons said today. “The attorney general structures the litigation. Mr. Sandoval used his office to tell the Legislature they must raise taxes. It doesn’t comport with his modern-day interpretation [of the lawsuit].”
Sandoval has said during this campaign he will not raise taxes if elected governor. Moreover, he said that in 2003, he did not favor taxes, and he points to testimony he gave before the Assembly in which he said it was up to the Legislature as to how it funded the budget. But the lawsuit and a subsequent memorandum of points and authorities in support of it — filed personally by Sandoval on midnight of the first day of the 2004 fiscal year — clearly seeks to compel the Legislature to raise taxes.
“I’ve never changed my position,” Gibbons said. “I’m not a Brian-come-lately to the anti-tax position.”
Indeed, the governor is correct. The record shows then-Congressman Gibbons delivered a speech to the Legislature denouncing Guinn’s call to raise taxes, in addition to several news releases denouncing the lawsuit and its result. The issue was personal to Gibbons, as well, since he was the author of a constitutional amendment that required a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature to raise taxes. It was that two-thirds provision that prevented the Legislature from being able to pass a budget and tax plan to fund the schools.
“It [the lawsuit] was a direct attack on the will of the people and it was a direct attack on the constitution,” Gibbons said. “Here was Brian saying, ‘The people didn’t know what they were doing.’”
Arguments before the Supreme Court at the time included one that held the public didn’t consider the possibility of an impasse that would prevent state schools from opening on time due to a lack of funding when they passed the two-thirds provision.
The Supreme Court eventually issued its most controversial ruling ever, holding in Guinn v. Legislature that the constitutional requirement to fund schools and the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes were incompatible, and therefore the two-thirds requirement could be set aside for the purposes of the 2003 tax debate. The ruling sparked outrage across the political spectrum, including from Gibbons. And, it resulted in a federal lawsuit that attempted to overturn the state high court ruling. Sandoval successfully defended Guinn v. Legislature in federal court, arguing the issue was a state, not a federal, one.
The impasse was finally resolved when then-Assemblyman John Marvel changed his vote on taxes to yes, becoming the swing vote that allowed the Legislature to reach the constitutionally required two-thirds. The Supreme Court later overturned Guinn v. Legislature in an unrelated case.
Although Sandoval has said he was simply fulfilling his duty as attorney general in order to force the Legislature to f0llow the Nevada constitution, Gibbons said today the incident raises questions as to whether Sandoval may buckle in some future tax fight.
“It raises the question whether he will equivocate on his [anti-tax] statement,” Gibbons said.
Loading ...
Gibbons is right–This is just another concrete example of how we have have no idea who this Sandoval guy is. We have no idea where he stands on taxes because he paints a new picture everyday.
And enough about fulfilling his duty as Attorney General. The AG is supposed to protect the citizens and the taxpayers. It’s our taxpayer dollars that paid his salary when he was AG, and I dont want to pay his next one.
If you people agree with me, you should check out this website. http://www.dontbetonsandoval.com
it brings up some more issues and things we just cant trust this guy about.
Just a little confused about the claim that “the governor is correct” about never changing his position, presumably on his anti-tax pledge.
But in January, you wrote this:
“Technically, Gibbons didn’t stand by his promise entirely — he allowed the room tax increase for casinos in Clark and Washoe counties to go into effect without his signature.”
http://slashpolitics.lvcitylife.com/2010/01/gibbons-special-session-time/
And the only reason the increase was in the budget was because Gibbons put it in there. It was a pretty sneaky tax increase to be perpetrated by a so-called anti-tax politician.
Gibbons made one promise, and he couldn’t even keep that one.
In his State of the State Address last week, Jim Gibbons repeated over and over and over again how he wouldn’t raise taxes without once mentioning the fact that his budget included a whopping $292 million tax hike! It’s buried in the fine print within the 2,870 pages of the governor’s “Executive Budget: 2009-2011 Biennium” proposal. This is the 3rd largest tax increase in the States history. He broke his no new tax pledge.
Chuck Muth…..
Scandalmonger, John: Good questions, both. Gibbons DID include a tax increase (the hotel room tax) in his budget. And while this is a violation of the no-tax pledge he signed, he has always added a (verbal, not written) post-script: If a tax increase is voted upon and approved by the people, he will not stand in their way.
Is that consistent with the anti-tax pledge he signed? No. It is reasonable and even democratic? Yes. And is it consistent with his statement that HE will not raise taxes? Well, yes it is. That’s likely why he allowed that tax to become law without his signature; so he could honestly say he’d never raised taxes.
Some may say it’s hair-splitting, and perhaps it is. My good friend Chuck Muth will say he broke his written pledge, which contains no exemption for taxes voted upon and approved by the people, and Chuck is absolutely correct. But trust me when I say, the anti-tax rhetoric that Gibbons was using in 2003 is exactly the same as what he’s saying now, and that kind of consistency is what I was getting at in the piece above. Thanks for the questions and the chance to expand on the point.