Coalitions’ tax fight turns on ‘single’ law

So it's the We Decide Coalition versus the Coalition for Nevada's Future, then.

The We Decide Coalition, led by conservative activist Chuck Muth, is trying to get a referendum on the November 2016 ballot to let voters either reject or affirm the tax package approved by the 2015 Legislature.

The Coalition for Nevada's Future, represented by former Deputy Secretary of State Matt Griffin, is fighting repeal efforts.

And even though nobody has signed a single petition yet, the coalitions are already trading lawsuits.

First, the We Decide Coalition is asking a judge to declare that its petition — which would repeal the entire tax package found in Senate Bill 483 — doesn't violate Nevada's single-subject rule. That's a state law that says citizen initiatives can only address one topic, to prevent confusion at the polls and the fraud of mixing a popular measure with an unpopular one, known as "logrolling."

But that motion calls for an improper advisory opinion, and it would foreclose the rights of other voters to challenge the petition in court. It's not likely to succeed.

The We Decide Coalition also has asked the judge to declare that SB483 violates another single-subject rule, the one found in the constitution that limits the Legislature to writing and passing bills that embrace only one subject. That's a more legitimate claim to make, but it's ultimately not likely to succeed, either.

Why? Griffin acknowledges in a lawsuit that seeks to prevent the referendum from going forward that SB483 encompasses a wide swath of taxes. But he says it's fine for the Legislature to pass those taxes in a single bill, even while it's impossible for citizens to repeal them all in a single petition.

"Therefore it is unremarkable that SB 483 can comply with [the constitutional single-subject rule that applies to the Legislature] while this petition violates [the statutory single-subject rule that applies to citizens]," Griffin wrote. "It is not unlike the situation where a person commits an act that harms another, and is found liable in a civil suit under a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, while being acquitted of criminal charges under the 'reasonable doubt' standard, even though the criminal charges are based on the exact same act."

So, no double standard, because O.J. Simpson!

Griffin also argues the We Decide Coalition petition is defective because it doesn't tell voters what would happen if they sign.

State lawmakers have the benefit of hours of hearings, tax presentations, visits from pro- and anti-tax lobbyists, caucus meetings and floor debates. But voters standing in front of Target have to rely on the petition's description of effect. The We Decide Coalition didn't write one; it just used the text of SB483's title.

"It is understandable that [the We Decide Coalition] does not want voters to know of the impact this petition would have on Nevada's education system, or the upheaval that it would create in the state budgeting process," Griffin wrote. The We Decide Coalition "does not own the petition process for the benefit of themselves. Nevadans own it, and Nevadans are the ones who would suffer under an unclear and incomplete description."

Muth acknowledges Griffin's point, and says he'll submit a revised petition that explains the repeal. But he says voters don't need to know every detail of the tax debate to make up their minds. "I don't know that you have to understand how an internal combustion engine works to make a car go," he says.

Odds are Muth's revised petition won't so much end the debate as much as launch a new round of legal action between the coalitions, which will carry on their fight until the petition deadline. Next June.

It's going to be a long year.

— Steve Sebelius is a Las Vegas Review-Journal political columnist. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.