We at Various Things & Stuff have just learned — after we read a Review-Journal news flash on the subject — that the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the Nevada Resort Association’s appeal of a decision to allow a gambling tax increase to go on the ballot.

That hearing will be July 1.

That’s assuming, of course, that the Nevada State Education Association can gather the required 58,836 valid signatures by the deadline of May 20.

As you can see by those dates, if the high court rules the petition is invalid — or suggests the union needs to change the petition’s wording to make it valid — it’s very likely game over, since there will be no opportunity to go back and collect signatures again this year.

Sure, the union could still pivot and try a legislative referendum, which asks the state Legislature to consider passing a gambling tax increase, but we don’t see that being an effective strategy. First, it’s doubtful very many lawmakers would sign on to a gambling tax increase. Second, even though the measure would automatically end up on the 2010 ballot anyway, it would only be a statute, not a constitutional amendment. And after three years, that statute could be changed.

So, how will the high court rule? The initiative, as written, has already passed muster with Senior Judge Miriam Shearing, a former member of the high court, which tends to argue for its constitutionality.

But let’s not forget the politics involved: The court may want to side with the state’s No. 1 industry, given the fact that that industry can help unseat a justice who doesn’t see things the way casinos do. On the other hand, the court may be reluctant to interfere with a (by then) duly qualified ballot initiative, given what happened the last time a voter-approved measure was upended by judicial fiat. (Read — justices bounced from their seats by voters after trying to set aside the two-thirds requirement for the Legislature to raise taxes.)

Or, the high court could rule that the wording is insufficient, but edit it just enough to leave it on the ballot. And given that Shearing in an earlier ruling identified a bit of “logrolling,” when the union linked the gambling tax increase with a salary boost, it could very well end up that the court says:

a.) the petition is legal;

b.) proceeds of the increased tax can go to education; BUT

c.) the money doesn’t necessarily have to be spent on salaries.

In that way, nobody would be happy. Casinos would see taxes in the top tier of the gross gambling tax rise from 6.75 percent to 9.75 percent, and teachers would see money flow to schools but not necessarily to them. And the court would look like it’s splitting the Solomonic baby.

We can’t wait for the fallout on this one.

UPDATE: The Review-Journal, in an editorial that clearly shows somebody’s been reading too much Ann Coulter, comes out against term limits. Lawmakers are old and showing signs of Alzheimer’s? Ha. We get it. Funny.  What we don’t get is why the editorial didn’t make a cogent case for term limits beyond “government = bad.”

Oh, that’s right. This editorial was a signal to the state Supreme Court, that the R-J would look with disfavor on anybody who votes to strike down term limits (regardless of the legal merits involved in doing so). They’re prepared with the Guinn v. Legislature treatment for anybody who dares show anti-term limits thinking, so as to perpetuate not good government policy, but R-J power over government policy. It all makes sense now.

In late March, we told you how the lack of a permanent home field and limited practice space were skewing the odds against a third season for the Las Vegas Showgirlz. After two bone-crushing seasons, the state’s first and only professional women’s tackle football team was facing a premature end to its successful run.

What a difference two weeks makes. Since our story ran, the Showgirlz tell CityLife they’re now sporting that coveted home-field advantage, which they used to trounce the visiting Southern California Breakers, 22-12, in Saturday’s season opener.

The Showgirlz say Season No. 3 (and four home games here in Vegas) should go much more smoothly, now that the good folks over at Valley High School and the Clark County School District have hooked the team up with a regular place to play in town. If only local parks officials could carve out some routine practice space for the team, this third regular season could be the team’s first championship one.

Congressional candidate Robert Daskas today confirmed that he is not — we repeat, not — in a band. Well, that pretty much means his upstart campaign against U.S. Rep. Jon Porter is over. Porter, you may know, is in two bands. One of his bands is made up of fellow members of Congress. So how the band-less Daskas thinks he can challenge Porter is beyond us.

But whatever: It’s not our job to decide who should run. It’s our job to ask them tough questions once they do. (First question: “Are you in a band?”)

Daskas may not be musically inclined, but he totally gave a little talk on taxes today at the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades building this morning. There, he railed against the tax policies of “George Bush and Jon Porter,” clearly implying the two are somehow connected, like, say, through a voting record or something.

The would-be congressman especially targeted the president’s soon-to-expire tax cuts, noting they affect the wealthiest 1 percent of America, people who’s average incomes are $1.5 million a year. “When did it become OK to fight for 1 percent?” he asked. (Note to Daskas: Right around the time the Republicans took over.)

If he’s elected, Daskas promised to let the Bush tax cuts expire, repeal oil company subsidies and use the proceeds to fund research into alternative energy and give tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States, rather than those that send jobs to foreign countries. He’d also favor a child care tax credit, tuition tax deduction, home ownership tax deduction and preserving the sales tax deduction.

“We cannot afford two more years of Jon Porter,” Daskas said. “I’m asking you to send me to Congress because I know a good deal from a Halliburton deal.” (That’s Halliburton, as in oil field services and not high-end briefcases.)

Later, chatting with reporters, Daskas said he supports beginning to bring troops home immediately, but he refused to set a date for when all the soldiers would return to the United States. And he ruled out getting troops home by refusing to fund more wars in Iraq.

He refused to call allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire a “tax increase,” as Republicans argue. (Their reasoning: People will be paying more once the temporary cuts go away.) He also refused to say anything along the lines of, “yeah, but they’re rich, they can afford it so fuck them.” We, however, have no problem saying that, given that our income isn’t $1.5 million per year. (At least not yet!)

On health care, Daskas said he supports affordable health care for everybody, but not “universal health care,” because — we’re paraphrasing again — some slimy GOP consultant A-hole might claim he’s for “socialized medicine.” But he does support allowing all Americans to buy into a plan similar to the one congressmen enjoy; reimporting prescription drugs from Canada; allowing the government to negotiate for prescription drug prices and stressing preventative care.

Hey, you know, that’s funny, because Porter voted not to let Medicare negotiate for prescription drug prices or re-import drugs from Canada. Hey, maybe that will be a campaign issue, huh?

We forgot to ask Daskas if he supports allowing Americans to grow their own all-natural drugs, say in backyards or basement rooms with grow lights. We’ve got to remember to ask that one, although the dude was a prosecutor for 12 years who put murderers on death row, so we’re guessing no.

Oh, and Daskas wouldn’t say who he’s supporting for president, but he did make the radical suggestion that whoever wins the popular vote should get the nomination. So that means “Obama, baby!” Besides, if Hillary Clinton steals the election from Barack Obama, say by use of superdelegates, the clear winner would be … Jon Porter, since many disappointed Obama fans might very well sit the 2008 elections out. And even though Daskas enjoys a registration lead today of 77,278 active voters, he still needs everybody to turn out.

But again, we must stress, Daskas is not in a band. “I’m too busy to be in a band,” he said.

Hey! Do you think that might have been a shot at Porter? We think it could.

Well, of course, my first word of advice to the Las Vegas Sands Corp. and the Nevada State Education Association et al. would be, oh, not to hire on some shady group embroiled in legal trouble that’s apparently fond of sketchy tactics for getting people to give up their John Hancocks.

My second word of advice, however, is even simpler: Is there any way to screen signature-gatherers a bit more aggressively, so, uh, that every time I exit the Clark County Library I’m not accosted by what appears to be a prune-toothed, sun- and sweat-ripened Fisher King waving a goddamn clipboard in my face? I’m like, “Ack! Your direct democracy is scaring the shit out of my nostrils!”

Yeah, yeah, I’m all about fellow-feeling for Joe Bus Stop and how he needs to scrum out a living, even if it’s soliciting chicken scratch on public sidewalks. But if these special-interest groups are so supposedly enamored of the inherent dignity in the idea of giving power back to the people, how about giving some dignity and power back to their own contracted employees in the form, oh, I dunno, combs and toothpaste? Or — let’s circulate this petition — better wages?