Just a thought, not that anyone would ever raise the issue in court.
The specific section of the Constitution has been flouted before, but never more so than after midnight on Monday when legislative dithering, and nothing else, caused a special session. It was not an extraordinary event, by any definition.
That adjective is important because here is what the Constitution says: ".... the Governor may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the Legislature by Proclamation and shall state to both houses, when organized, the business for which they have been specially convened."
Gov. Brian Sandoval's proclamation convening the special session, attached here, repeats that langauge and explicitly states he is calling one, "believing that an extraordinary occasion now exists which requires immediate action by the Legislature."
This, of course, is not true. And not just because none of the bills considered in the session was essential -- i.e. the budget.
The situation is all too ordinary -- lawmakers unable to get their work done within the constitutionally allotted 120 days. But this canard has been used before, and because "extraordinary" is not defined in the Constitution, a governor essentially can call a session (and now two-thirds of lawmakers have the same ability) on virtually any occasion.
Does this make any sense? Of course not.
But during a 2013 Legislature in which the often quirky Nevada Constitution's wording consistently has come into question, whether it is mining taxation or gubernatorial approvals, this seems a fitting end. (I wonder why no one thinks "extraordinary" needs a definition. Could it be because they want to be able to come back whenever they want, or a governor so calls them?)
I feel pretty confident in positing that Nevada's framers did not have excessive tributes to the lieutenant governor and a legislative backbencher, poor communication between the houses and the parties and general incompetence among the Gang of 63 as being the kind of "extraordinary" events that should justify a special session.
Just a thought, not that anyone would ever raise the issue in court.
The specific section of the Constitution has been flouted before, but never more so than after midnight on Monday when legislative dithering, and nothing else, caused a special session. It was not an extraordinary event, by any definition.
That adjective is important because here is what the Constitution says: ".... the Governor may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the Legislature by Proclamation and shall state to both houses, when organized, the business for which they have been specially convened."
Gov. Brian Sandoval's proclamation convening the special session, attached here, repeats that langauge and explicitly states he is calling one, "believing that an extraordinary occasion now exists which requires immediate action by the Legislature."
This, of course, is not true. And not just because none of the bills considered in the session was essential -- i.e. the budget.
The situation is all too ordinary -- lawmakers unable to get their work done within the constitutionally allotted 120 days. But this canard has been used before, and because "extraordinary" is not defined in the Constitution, a governor essentially can call a session (and now two-thirds of lawmakers have the same ability) on virtually any occasion.
Does this make any sense? Of course not.
But during a 2013 Legislature in which the often quirky Nevada Constitution's wording consistently has come into question, whether it is mining taxation or gubernatorial approvals, this seems a fitting end. (I wonder why no one thinks "extraordinary" needs a definition. Could it be because they want to be able to come back whenever they want, or a governor so calls them?)
I feel pretty confident in positing that Nevada's framers did not have excessive tributes to the lieutenant governor and a legislative backbencher, poor communication between the houses and the parties and general incompetence among the Gang of 63 as being the kind of "extraordinary" events that should justify a special session.
Comments: