From Citizen Outreach:

By: Chuck Muth

‘TIL DEATH DO US PART

As reported here yesterday afternoon, Assemblywoman Francis Allen (R-Bates Motel) was arrested over the weekend for stabbing her husband of seven weeks during an argument and then telling him to call his mother when he asked for help with the wound. Late yesterday her lawyer, Richard Wright, issued the following statement: “Francis Allen denies the allegations set forth in the criminal complaint filed today. At the appropriate time, the true facts will become known and she will be exonerated.”

Wright is a high-profile attorney well known for defending elected officials in trouble; however, many Nevadans will remember him best as the guy who represented cocktail waitress Chrissy Mazzeo in 2006 after she accused now-Gov. Jim Gibbons of sexually assaulting her in a parking garage in Las Vegas just before the election. Wright also defended Clark County Commissioner Mary Kincaid in the G-Sting corruption case which landed her and former commissioners Dario Herrera, Erin Kenny and Lance Malone in the clink.

Despite having Wright on the case, many folks think “Psycho” Allen’s nascent political career is now kaput. “Today we mourn the death of the political career of Francis O. Allen, Republican Assemblywoman from Clark County,” writes Wally Edge in Politicker Nevada. “The career was a tender three years, six months old.”

Edge then reminds everyone that Allen was embroiled in the flap over legislators who accepted free Rolling Stones tickets from mortgage giant Ameriquest a couple years back. More recently, of course, was what Edge refers to as the “Assemblywoman Bridezilla” brouhaha surrounding her wedding back in March.

“(Allen) encouraged someone to donate liquor to her wedding in a way that made the gift giver feel the encouragement had pressure behind it,” writes Edge. “Then, there was the fiasco of stopping payment on the check to cover several thousand dollars in flowers for the event. The wedding was a scandal two-for-one.”

Knowing Allen’s blind political ambition, there’s no doubt she will try to hang onto her legislative seat rather than withdraw from the race and seek honest work as a door-to-door Ginsu saleswoman. But should she prevail against all the odds, we’re fairly certain the tension in the air surrounding those in the Assembly chamber seated near her will be thick enough to cut with a knife.

Um, sorry about that one.

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER TERM LIMITS LAW

My friend Sig Rogich and I disagree on the term limits issue. He was the author and chief proponent of Nevada’s term limits law in 1994 and I’ve always believed we already have term limits; they’re called “elections.” Conservatives of good conscience can disagree on this one.

That being said, he and I agree that Nevada’s term limits law should apply equally to all elected officials who were on the ballot in 1996. For Sig’s part, he doesn’t believe anyone elected in 1996 should be subject to the term limits law which was passed that same year, telling Jon Ralston yesterday that the law’s effective date shouldn’t be until the 1998 election cycle. For my part, I’m OK with that interpretation; however, if the law is going to apply to SOME of those elected in 1996, then it ought to apply to ALL of those elected in 1996.

As it is right now, the Secretary of State is relying on an old Attorney General’s opinion to kick some local school board and county commission candidates who were elected in 1996 off the 2008 ballot citing the term limits law, while allowing state legislators elected in 1996 to remain on the ballot. My position mirror’s Rogich’s, who said yesterday, rightfully so, that “to hold some elected officials to the rule and not others, as is being discussed now, is absurd and completely contrary to the concept of equal protection of the law.”

So either let everyone who was elected in 1996 stay on the ballot…or kick everyone who was elected in 1996 off the ballot. Some politicians shouldn’t be more equal than others.

THE ART OF THE BACKROOM DEAL

Make no mistake: Nevada’s voters and taxpayers have not been clamoring for an increase in the room tax to pay teachers higher salaries. This was a backroom deal struck by one special interest (the teachers union) which wanted more money from another special interest (the gaming industry) that didn’t want to pay it. So they’ve teamed up (not all gamers, just some) in an effort to sock it to Nevada’s lifeblood – our tourists – who will not even get a vote on the scheme.

This deal sucks on so many different levels it’s hard to know where to start.

Let’s begin with the fact that if education in this state needs more money (it doesn’t) and if higher taxes are required to get more money for education (they aren’t), then that tax burden for Nevada’s citizens should be born by Nevada’s citizens, not our tourists. And if more money does need to be put into education (it doesn’t), then the first thing we should do is set some spending priorities and take money from non-essential government operations, such as the Nevada Arts Council and the Civil Rights Commission.

But what’s done is done. The deal-makers now must draft an advisory question on raising the room tax and convince all 17 Nevada county commissions to put the question on the ballot. Nevada citizens who oppose this effort to raise taxes on our tourists should contact their county commissions immediately and urge them not to do so.

But this matter won’t end even if the commissions choose not to put the advisory question on their ballots. The teachers union and the gamers will be collecting signatures this summer for a legislative initiative should the advisory question gambit not pay off. That legislative initiative would force the Nevada Legislature to vote on the tax hike scheme as one of the first orders of business when it reconvenes next year. And if the Legislature fails to approve the measure, it will automatically go on the ballot in 2010.

So for those who oppose this backroom deal – or ANY tax hike for that matter – you should urge your elected state legislators to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge promising to vote against this measure should it come before them. Fortunately, any such tax hike proposal must have either a 2/3-super majority vote of the Legislature or a Supreme Court willing to shred the state Constitution for political purposes.

And finally, Nevada voters should contact Gov. Jim Gibbons and remind him that the Taxpayer Protection Pledge he signed in 2006 requires him to veto any and all efforts to increase taxes passed by the Legislature regardless of whether or not any “advisory question” put on the 2008 ballot by county commissions passes or not. He seems to be waffling a bit on his promise these days.

If the Legislature really wants to raise taxes, they may do so by simply overriding the governor’s veto – and then voters will decide if the Legislature or the governor did the right thing at the ballot box in 2010.

Or if the Legislature refuses to pass the room tax hike, the teachers and the gamers are free to gather signatures from enough citizens to force the issue onto the ballot in 2010 as a constitutional amendment – the same process Gov. Gibbons went through to put his Tax Restraint Initiative on the ballot in 1994 and state Sen. Bob Beers went through to put his Tax and Spending Control initiative on the ballot in 2006 and what the teachers originally tried to do with their gaming tax grab this year.

It shouldn’t be easier to put a tax hike on the ballot than it is to put a tax restraint measure on the ballot. And county commissioners shouldn’t short-circuit the process by doing the special interests’ dirty work by putting any “advisory question” on this year’s ballot. Just…say…no.

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

“The governor’s stated reason for the (Iraq) trip is a noble one…but we have a feeling that, while most of (the troops) were likely smiling and shaking hands, they were probably wondering like us why you just didn’t send an email. It’s cheaper and it gives you more time to spend on your real job – finding solutions to the problems suffocating Nevada’s economy, schools and work force.”

- Nevada Appeal editorial, 5/21/08