Vol. 6, No. 15
.jpg)
June 1, 2009
Nevada's Online State News Journal-- Serving Informed Nevadans Since 2003
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| . | |||||||
 |
Find Out
More About Our Wonderful State. |
COPYWRITING
|
|
Governor’s Veto Stamp
Getting A Workout
Veto Of Washoe Fuel
Tax Bill Controversial
Civil Union Bill Takes
A Hit As Well
Governor Jim Gibbons now is in the history books as having vetoed more legislation than any other governor. Mr. Gibbons wielded that red rubber stamp 31 times in the last couple of weeks, one time more than Governor Henry Blasdel back in 1864. Blasdel, Nevada’s first governor has held the record for all these years, from the first legislative session of the new state.
The voters of Washoe County, in an advisory ballot question, approved a fuel tax for the county that the legislature granted by way of Senate Bill 201. Governor Jim Gibbons, in a flurry of vetoes, quashed the bill and seems to be saying that the voters don’t know what they are doing. The bill’s language copied the advisory referendum saying, Washoe County should “seek state legislation for the Regional Transportation Commission to obtain necessary additional funding for transportation projects that will reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and repair and maintain roads in the Truckee Meadows.”
In his veto message to the legislature, Mr. Gibbons said, “Notably absent from the language of that advisory question was a clear and concise statement that the state legislation being sought would come in the form of a fuel tax increase.” We might remember that a previous voter approved tax measure -- the room tax increase -- was accepted by the governor.
Mr. Gibbons said, “If the voters of Washoe County are being asked to support a tax increase, they are entitled to a clear and concise ballot question stating the fact that a tax increase is being sought along with the amount of that tax increase.” The governor went on to say, “I support the will of the people, but I cannot support bills premised on advisory questions worded in a manner that deliberately obscures the impact of the question from the voters.”
Mr. Gibbons had indicated, prior to the veto that he would nix the question, and raised the hackles of Washoe County officials. Reno Mayor Bob Cashell, who might just have his eyes on the governor’s office himself, called Gibbons a liar, saying Gibbons had promised to support the issue. Cashell, a former Lt. Governor and a republican, was livid when informed of the possible veto.
Can this issue, and others that have been vetoed by Mr. Gibbons be saved? The assembly has the necessary two thirds majority for a veto over ride, but the senate does not. There would have to be a republican vote or two to manage an over ride. Since the northern county has a strong republican majority, and the issue was accepted in a public vote, it is possible that SB 201 might yet stay alive. As we go to press, no over ride vote has been scheduled for SB 201 in either house.
Senate Bill 283 was shot down with the veto stamp, and it isn’t clear whether the legislature will attempt an over ride. The bill would have allowed same and opposite sex couples to become legal domestic partners. While many of the rights of marriage would go with that, it would not have allowed the partners to be considered married. The governor used a constitutional amendment passed by the voters in 2002, called the Protection of Marriage amendment, as his reason for the veto.
The measure passed in the senate 12-9, two votes short of the two thirds majority needed for an over ride, and in the assembly, the bill passed 26-14, also two votes shy of that two thirds super majority.
There have been polls taken over the last few years, some recently, that indicate that most Nevadans oppose the concept of either same sex marriage or legal union. While some question whether the state should even have the authority to determine who should or shouldn’t be married, Nevada’s constitution is very clear on the issue due to the amendment passed in 2002.
Other Veto Action
Assembly Bill 480 would have increased fees collected by the State Engineer dealing with water rights and appropriations. Mr. Gibbons has said from the day he announced for governor that he would not support any new or increased taxes or fees, and he said, “Simply put, adding and increasing these fees during tough economic times just does not make economic sense.”
The legislature did not agree, and in an over ride move, the senate voted unanimously to over ride the veto. The assembly voted 37-4 to over ride the governor’s veto.
Assembly Bill 257 dealt with making it a crime to remove “an excessive number” of certain free publications from street vending devices. Making it a crime for a person to take more than ten copies of a free or complimentary periodical would, in the governor’s thoughts, be out of line. “Our law enforcement professionals should be focusing their limited time and resources on the prevention of major crimes,” he said.
In an attempt to over ride the governor’s veto, the senate voted along party lines and the over ride failed.
Assembly Bill 122 is in direct opposition to the governor’s budget proposals. Mr. Gibbons said, “This bill would expand the authority of the Office for Consumer Health Assistance. In my executive budget, I proposed to eliminate this office.” An over ride attempt on this veto failed in the senate.
Senate Bill 394 deals with off road vehicles and an attempt to register them through the Department of Motor Vehicles and create a fee structure as well as new commissions and administrative agency. The governor said he was opposed to new fees when he vetoed the bill, and also said it would impose fees on something that has not had fees of any kind in the past.
Senate Bill 319 relates to health care and reporting of events within the system. The governor said “the bill requires publication of many reports related to sentinel events. The publication of such reports creates an opportunity for mischief from those who would seek to profit from the misfortunes of others…”
Assembly Bill 473, dealing with prisons and health care requirements within the prisons, was vetoed by Mr. Gibbons when he said the law would be redundant, that “requirements set forth in this bill are already encompassed within existing law.”
Every assembly seat will be open for the 2010 election, and there are sure to be some strong campaign comments coming from some of those looking to replace certain members. Many are facing term limits and others will surely have to justify their positions during this session. Many in the Senate are also in their final terms, and that was reflected in the way some bills, including the budget, were supported. Without the help of some republican lawmakers, Mr. Gibbons’ veto of the budget would not have been over ridden.
•••