The Nevada Supreme Court's decision last week to disregard a section of the state constitution was labeled a "surprise" by most.
But it was the third time in a year this court has decided Nevada voters just can't be trusted to decide what's best -- not for their neighborhoods, not for their cities and not for the state as a whole.
The issue at hand was a two-thirds majority requirement of Assembly and Senate -- approved overwhelmingly twice by voters -- before taxes could be raised.
With a wave of its hand, the Supreme Court made the will of the voters go away.
It has performed the same trick with the Fuji Park controversy in Carson City and the train-trench project in Reno. The court did uphold a vote in Douglas County on growth, although allowing the issue to be challenged in district court.
While there are particulars to each situation (for example, Carson City supervisors eventually went ahead with the desires of the voters on Fuji Park), the common thread is that the public voted one way and the Nevada Supreme Court brushed off those votes as irrelevent.
The court also made clear in last week's ruling it is not above politics. Instead of deciding the matter on legal grounds, Chief Justice Deborah Agosti made political choices. "The Legislature, faced with a rapidly increasing population, a substantial budget deficit and record-high needs, was unable to reach a two-thirds majority and left its constitutional obligations unfulfilled," she wrote in the opinion with which five other justices concurred.
With the exception of the "rapidly increasing population," the remainder of her assertion is based on political choices. The most fundamental is this: Does the government of Nevada best serve the state's residents by increasing taxes to pay for services?
Voters already had clearly stated their preference in 1994 and 1996: No higher taxes without a supermajority -- a two-thirds vote of each house -- of support from their elected representatives.
The simple logic apparently escaped the Supreme Court. If there isn't enough support for raising taxes, then the only alternative is to cut the budget.
The court, however, wasn't trying to bring a logical or legal conclusion to the budget question. It was trying to find a way to allow the Legislature to raise taxes.
The greatest irony can be found on Page 12 of Agosti's ruling: "Finally, constitutional provisions should be interpreted to avoid absurd consequences and not produce public mischief," she wrote.
Nevada's Supreme Court has dismissed its voters. The voters should respond in kind.
An editorial in Friday's edition of the Nevada Appeal incorrectly stated none of the briefs filed with the Supreme Court over the budget impasse had called for the two-thirds majority to be struck down.
The State of Nevada Education Association's brief, in fact, made exactly the argument later adopted by the court.
This is also the brief which repeatedly referred to a "radical minority" of legislators "holding hostage" the schoolchildren of Nevada. The political motives of the teachers union were transparent -- and, we must admit, effective.