For all the grief that right-wingers in Nevada give to California, we think we’ve found at least one idea that Silver State Republicans might want to pilfer from the Golden State. Next week, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to cut state worker pay to deal with California’s budget crisis.

The Sacramento Bee reports the move comes as the governor strives to deal with a $15.2 billion deficit in a budget that’s one month overdue. An executive order that Schwarzenegger will sign next week will reduce the salaries of more than 200,000 government workers to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour.

Apparently, California has budget reserves to continue to pay employees through September; after that, if no new budget is passed, the state will be forced to the equivalent of getting cash advances on its credit cards.

Here in Nevada, no state workers have been laid off nor has pay been reduced for anyone despite budget cuts and accounting maneuvers that total about $1.2 billion. Worker layoffs have been mentioned if deeper cuts are required; universities have indicated that faculty contracts won’t be renewed next year; and the Clark County School District is holding some positions open in case budget cuts are needed. But the Legislature last month rejected a plan advanced by Republicans to take back a 4 percent cost-of-living adjustment for state workers and teachers.

Nobody tell state Sen. Bob Beers or conservative activist Chuck Muth or the Review-Journal editorial page about this, however. They’d all love to see Nevada’s government employees making minimum wage.

Back the halcyon days before his primary occupation became feuding with state “Chief Operating Officer” Dianne Cornwall, Mike Dayton found himself working for the Las Vegas law firm McDonald Carano Wilson. He was in charge of government affairs.

It was a good job for Dayton, probably even better than he could have expected after being ousted from then-Congressman Jim Gibbons’s office under a cloud of financial impropriety. And what an ironic turn of events it was in 2006 that Dayton would join Gibbons’s gubernatorial office as chief of staff, when the man who had replaced Dayton back in Washington D.C. and guided Gibbons to victory in what should have been a much tougher race, Robert Uithoven, was thrown to the wolves.

But now things are back to normal. Uithoven is advising Gibbons informally, and Dayton was finally tossed from the Sinking Ship Gibbons under cover of news about the one-day budget-cutting special session last month.  It was simply reported at the time that Dayton was to rejoin the private sector, signaling that perhaps Cornwall had finally won their long-fought power struggle. (After all, she got to stay in state government!)

Where did Dayton end up? Thanks to the “Inside Business” column in the Review-Journal, we now know: Back where he started, at McDonald Carano Wilson! Dayton will be vice president of government affairs, i.e. a lobbyist.

Wait. A lobbyist?! A refugee from the serially incompetent Gibbons administration is going to be hired to persuade lawmakers to do things? That seems very, very odd.

You may laugh, but lobbyists need credibility. In Carson City, among the corps of lobbyists, a word is a bond. Any perceived mendacity prevents you from making deals, and thus compromises your effectiveness. And did we mention that Dayton helped to helm the Gibbons administration, that was literally born in a lie? Or that Dayton personally fibbed fibbed to a Review-Journal columnist?

Frankly, we’re surprised. McDonald Carano Wilson is a respectable firm, home to a state senator (Terry Care, Democrat of Las Vegas) and a former United States attorney improperly fired by the politicized Bush administration in a scandal that’s still being investigated by Congress (Daniel Bogden). Plus, the firm already has a big-name lobbyist, ex-Clark County and University Medical Center advocate Dan Musgrove.

We just don’t get it. Why re-hire Dayton, after all that’s happened, in a position requiring trust and competence?

Well, folks, it’s finally over. The unholy, ridiculous and totally bizarre “non-aggression pact” between Nevada U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign is crashing down.

It happened in the very last paragraph of a story today in the Review-Journal, in which Reid finally decided to take on well-known Senate obstructionist Tom Coburn, R-Okla., (pictured in the story looking a lot like the Unabomber). Apparently, Coburn likes to block Senate bills for long, pointless debates.

But Reid is calling him out, bringing a package of 35 bills that have broad support in both parties to the floor, even if it means voting on Saturday or Sunday. Coburn is objecting, and looking for a way to stall the bills.

Ensign, of course, is taking Coburn’s side because, well, Ensign is a tool.

“Individual senators have rights, and to try to destroy some of the traditions of the Senate, I think is a dangerous precedent to be setting,” Ensign said.

Got that? Ensign is saying Reid is out to destroy Senate traditions, and creating dangerous precedents. Translating the Senate speak to English, it’s as if Ensign is calling Reid an A-hole.

Is Reid going to take that? From Ensign, a man whose greatest accomplishments in Washington have been on various athletic fields? A man who held up mortgage reform, even though Nevada leads the nation in home foreclosures? (Finally, he was out of town when the final bill was passed!) A man who leads Senate efforts to elect Republicans, but who has mostly whined about how getting his ass kicked slightly less hard than expected will constitute victory? A man who … well, you get the idea.

Anyway, we fully expect Reid to reply, although the senator has been very, very good about holding his fire on Ensign, whom he defeated in 1998 by a mere 428 votes. (Ensign later won the seat vacated by the retiring Richard Bryan in 2000.)

Anything, Sen. Reid? Anything to say to the man who’s accused you of destroying Senate traditions and setting dangerous precedents? Perhaps something along the lines of, “If Senator Ensign took the time to carefully consider things, he’d realize that his entire Senate career has been such a stain on the institution and humanity itself, the only real solution is to resign in abject disgrace immediately. Oh, and he can go fuck himself.”

Feel free to use it, Sen. Reid. You don’t even have to quote us.

Hey, do you all remember that one time then-Assemblyman Jim Gibbons totally abused the power of his office to get re-hired by Delta Airlines after he’d been let go? That was so totally scandalous!

What’s that? You don’t remember? Well, don’t feel badly: We at Various Things & Stuff totally forgot until the state Democratic Party brought it to our attention. Here’s a quick refresher:

Gibbons was newly elected to the Assembly when he told Delta — his employer — that he’d need six months unpaid leave to serve. But Delta told him to choose between his job and the Assembly, and when Gibbons chose the Assembly (he’s public-service minded, for sure!) he was fired by Delta for failing to show up for work.

As fate would have it, however, Gibbons had a chance to settle the score. We’ll let him explain, in passages from the Review-Journal profile (linked above):

“The Legislature was increasing the tax on jet fuel, and they put me in charge of the bill,” Gibbons said. “Delta sent a representative to lobby, and guess who they had to come talk to? Me.”Because of the way the airline had treated Gibbons, its lobbyist got nowhere with him. Within days, Gibbons got a call from Delta saying he’d been rehired. When he returned to work after the legislative session, the airline had a public-service leave policy.

“I couldn’t believe Delta would be so stubborn when it’s so important to have a good relationship with the government,” Gibbons said. “I think it was that lobbyist who went back and said, ‘This (leave policy) is silly, it could jeopardize our ability to survive.’”

Now that’s a touching story. You know what else it is? It’s a confession to extortion! And that’s not just us saying it: That’s former gubernatorial candidate and state Sen. Bob Beers saying it! And even if it’s not extortion, it’s certainly an admission to using one’s position in government to secure an unwarranted benefit! Where have we heard that before?

To be fair, it could be that Gibbons was lying when he recounted the above story. He’s been known to do that from time to time. But given that Gibbons later denied he’d done anything improper (see link in previous paragraph) we’re given to suspect that the above did happen. And unlike the matter with Elko landgate, this does seem to be a violation of ethics laws, if only we could go back in time and apply today’s laws to Gibbons’s first recorded malfeasance in elected office.

Ah, the memories.

Did Gov. Jim Gibbons commit an ethics violation by allegedly pressuring the Elko County assessor to grant him a tax break to which he was not entitled? Our answer may surprise you, because it’s “no.”

Nevada Democratic Party Executive Director Travis Brock, in a well-written brief filed with the state Ethics Commission, accuses Gibbons of a violation of NRS 281A.400 (1), which says this:

A public officer or employee shall not use his position in government to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for himself, any business entity in which he has a significant pecuniary interest, or any person to whom he has a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of that person.

Gibbons, Brock alleges, pressured Elko County Assessor Joe Aguirre into reducing the property tax bill on land the governor owns in Lamoille from $2,000 to slightly less than $40, first by appearing and asking personally for the land to be classified as “agricultural” rather than “residential.” After he was rebuffed, Gibbons hired lawyer (and Nevada Tax Commission member) John E. Marvel to represent him in the matter.

There are two issues here: One, did Gibbons use his position in government to secure a privilege? And two, was that privilege unwarranted? The answer to the first question, we submit, has to be no. Here’s why:

First, Gibbons didn’t “use” his position to do anything. The state Supreme Court ruled in a similar case in which Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman was accused of using his position in government to benefit his son, by hosting a cocktail party at which his son’s new software product was touted. The commission in late 2004 found he did violate the law. But Goodman appealed to District Court, which overturned the finding, which spurred the Ethics Commission to appeal to the state Supreme Court.

And in the 1997 case of Nevada State Commission on Ethics v. Oscar B. Goodman, the court held that Goodman did not violate the law, because he didn’t “use” his position in government to do anything.

The court did cite several examples from the Ethics Commission’s own files of cases in which public officials did use their positions in government to secure privileges: One person used a government agency’s credit card for personal purchases; another used her position to hire a job candidate so another position would be available for her husband; one used his position to compel a company to pay money to a non-profit corporation; and yet another diverted business from a state agency to a private company.

Notice anything there? In each case, the public official used the power or procedures of a government agency to do something unethical. In the instant case, Gibbons did no such thing. He simply asked for a tax exemption to which (he claims) he thought he was entitled. He didn’t tell the Agriculture Department to tell the assessor the land was used for grazing. He didn’t have a state agency classify the land as agricultural to support his case. And he didn’t have the Tax Commission overrule the assessor, although he did hire one of its members in a private capacity to be his attorney.

Second, you may object that Gibbons’s person and title are so inexorably intertwined, a request from the governor for relief from taxes cannot help but, de facto, constitute the use of his position in government to secure an unwarranted privilege. Unfortunately, that argument fails in that Aguirre flatly refused the governor’s request for the tax exemption! Although he says he felt intimidated by the governor’s request, the intimidation was obviously not sufficient to get him to capitulate.

Moreover, if you were to argue that Jim Gibbons the person and Jim Gibbons the governor are inseparable for purposes of the ethics statute, you would be forced to argue that governors (and, presumably, other elected officials) must inevitably give up certain rights as citizens. Suppose the governor were to get a parking ticket while canoodling with a lady at the rodeo. (We know, that’s far-fetched; just work with us here.) And suppose the governor believed he was legally entitled to park there. If he were to show up at the traffic appeals window, and the clerk were to say he or she felt intimidated by the governor’s presence, that would, of necessity, constitute an ethics violation, wouldn’t it? But what if the governor was entitled to have the ticket voided? You cannot circumscribe his rights as a citizen simply because of his title. And he’s entitled to ask for a tax break, as we all are.

Third, Brock argues Gibbons improperly employed a subordinate to help him secure his unwarranted privilege. But Marvel is not “a subordinate.” He’s a member of the Tax Commission who was appointed by a former governor, Kenny Guinn. And as we learned from the recent flap over the state Medical Board, Gibbons cannot oust members of state boards at his whim. (Whether it was appropriate for the Tax Commission, which can set policy that assessors must follow, to intervene on Gibbons’s behalf is a separate matter, and Brock wisely complained against Marvel before the ethics commission as well.)

But even if you were to argue that Marvel was part and parcel of a conspiracy to pressure Aguirre to grant an unwarranted tax exemption, that argument still fails when you consider that Aguirre also turned Marvel down! He told the attorney that, while the entire spread of land in Lamoille may have qualified for an agricultural tax break, the tiny 40-acre portion that Gibbons purchased from disgraced former Judge Jerry Carr Whitehead, now standing on its own, did not. (Under the law, the property must generate at least $5,000 in annual revenue and produce half the feed necessary to support grazing in order to qualify for the tax break. More on this below.)

It was only after Marvel produced two checks totaling $5,700 that Aguirre finally relented, granting the exemption. He said he “felt like they [Gibbons and Marvel] backed me into a corner.” And, in fact, they did, by supplying him with the evidence — even questionable evidence — that the little parcel qualified for a tax break. Aguirre had no choice at that point but to either grant the exemption or call the governor a liar. (And Gibbons has done his fair share of lying, even about this matter, so you could have excused Aguirre had he gone that route. He didn’t.)

Therefore, based on the absence of evidence that Gibbons used his position in government, as defined by the Nevada Supreme Court in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Goodman, it’s clear that the governor didn’t violate NRS 281A.400(2).

Now, as to the second question, whether the privilege was unwarranted. On this, it seems clear that the land in question cannot possibly qualify for a tax exemption as “agricultural” land. Others have examined this question in great detail — here, and again, here — so there’s no need for us to repeat what’s been so well explained elsewhere.

The fact that Gibbons was able to produce $5,700 in checks from Whitehead, ostensibly for grazing leases on the tiny plot, raises other questions. Why would Whitehead overpay so radically for the lease? Was this simply a sham to convince Aguirre that Gibbons qualified for the exemption, when he really didn’t? Did Gibbons return the money to Whitehead, or strike an agreement to do so at some future date? Could Whitehead have found a way to thwart campaign finance laws, by proffering unreported contributions? These questions bear further, and immediate, investigation by somebody with subpoena power and access to forensic accountants, because, on their face, they suggest possible wrongdoing.

But that would constitute criminal fraud, not a simple ethics violation. Of that, we believe, the governor is innocent. You’ll want to bookmark this page; you don’t see us forced to type those words too often. In fact, we’ve been among Gibbons harshest critics. If we truly thought a charge of ethics violations could be sustained, we’d be driving the bandwagon. But on this, we think, Gibbons stands wrongly accused.

And that’s before you even consider that he appointed several members to the commission, which has as its executive director a former Republican Party officeholder, and which has proved to be nearly toothless in finding violations in adverse cases. But that’s another Nevada story for another day…

Look, we at Various Things & Stuff have no idea what happened at the home of Assemblywoman Francis Allen on the night of May 17, when her husband of seven weeks, Paul Maineri, was stabbed in the arm and required three stitches. And, quite frankly, we like Allen and wish her well.

But damn, if we ever stand accused of committing a crime in Las Vegas, please let us come before Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Joe Bonaventure.

Why? Good question. First, the background: On the night in question back in May, Allen and Maineri got into a spat in front of friends, and argued after those friends left. The argument moved into the kitchen (always a mistake, people!) where — in the original version of the tale — Allen grabbed a knife and stabbed Maineri in the arm.  He drove himself to the hospital (toting the knife in question in a plastic bag) where he told a doctor and a Metro Police officer that his new bride was the assailant.

Whoops. Nevada law requires the arrest of at least one party to a domestic violence incident. According to the police report, when detectives told Maineri that Allen was going to be arrested and jailed (not to mention the fact that she’s a public figure who would wind up getting her mugshot in the newspaper) he recanted. According to a police report, he “…said that he wanted to recant his story and give a taped statement now in which he would say that he stabbed himself if it would keep her from getting arrested.” It didn’t.

(Notably, Allen told cops that Maineri had stabbed himself, according to the report.)

Now, the fallout. After first getting immunity from Bonaventure, Maineri said in court Thursday that he and Allen had argued, and that he had stabbed himself. Why he would do that, and why he would initially lie, well that’s still a mystery. And so is the reason Bonaventure threw the charges against Allen out.

“I find this statement made today, that this offense did not occur, credible,” he said.

And that brings us back to why we so desperately want this judge if we’re ever in the dock. “Check this out, your honor,” we’d say. “We couldn’t have robbed that bank. You see, a shape-shifting alien from the future came back in time, and took our form. It robbed the bank, and took the money back to the future, where it’s actually worth something, as opposed to, you know, today. Anyway, we can’t get the money back and they can’t arrest the alien, since we don’t have the technology today to travel through time. But that’s what happened, judge. Honest.”

Case dismissed, right?

Only in Nevada, where we’re all at risk from time-traveling, shape-shifting aliens.

There is no better way to start the week than with Quick Hits. Enjoy!

• You know, it’s like we don’t even know President George W. Bush anymore! He says he won’t negotiate with terrorists, but there he is, being all nice to North Korea and sending an envoy to talk to the Iranians about nukes. He says he won’t set a timetable to get out of the misbegotten Iraq war, but he and the Iraqis agree on a “time horizon” for withdrawal. Next thing we know, he’ll be reading a book!
• “This is not a political move in a campaign season,” says Clark County School District Trustee Terri Janison, of delaying a $7 billion school construction bond until 2010, which was totally a political move in a campaign season.
• It looks like state Sen. Dennis Nolan was every bit as effective as a character witness to accused sex offender Gordon Joseph Lawes as he has been advocating for red-light cameras and seat-belt laws up in Carson City. Which is to say, not effective at all: Lawes was quickly convicted of the charges Friday.
• Gosh, do you think Nolan’s political opponents might use that “character witness for a convicted sex offender” against him in a couple of years, when he’s up for re-election? That would make a hell of a mailer!
• University Regent Ron Knecht is at it again, slamming Chancellor Jim Rogers for all that truth-telling Rogers is doing in his weekly memos to the board. “The tone, the personal criticism, the vendetta that he [Rogers] has against Gov. [Jim] Gibbons, that I think is really inappropriate,” Knecht says. Here’s the thing: It’s not surprising that Rogers is incensed at Gibbons, whose decisions are ruining higher education. No, the real question here is why Knecht isn’t outraged.
• Local TV station has two fake, commercially designed, product placement accessories on morning newscast. Oh, and there’s also fake McDonald’s iced coffee. Bam!
• But seriously, folks, given that the iced coffee is fake, we know at least it won’t melt down. Unlike, say, Monica “The Queen” Jackson! Bam! We’ll be here all week, folks. Be good to your waitress…

You won’t hear us at Various Things & Stuff say very often that Review-Journal Editor Tom Mitchell has a point. Other than open records, open meetings and open bottles of fine wine, he and we don’t agree on much.

But after checking out Mitchell’s Sunday column, we have to confess: The guy may have a point on this term limits thing.

While the rest of us have been debating whether the measure was approved in a constitutional way –  which, by the way, is still very much in dispute — Mitchell argues that the plain language of the initiative made it clear that term limits in Nevada were retroactive, limiting even those holding office at the time the measure was approved to a total of 12 years in any elected office.

Why does he say that? Check out the plain language now enshrined in Article 4, Sections 3 and 4 of the Nevada Constitution:

No person may be elected or appointed as a member of the Assembly who has served in that Office, or at the expiration of his current term if he is so serving will have served, 12 years or more, from any district of this State. (emphasis added)

Got that? It could reasonably be read to conclude that, if Senator X had been elected to two terms (eight years) before 1996, and was running for re-election in that year, he could only be elected to one more term, for a total of 12 years, before being banned for life from serving in the state Senate. And if Assemblywoman Y had already served six terms (12 years) before 1996 and was getting ready to run for re-election in 1998, well, she would be banned by the constitutional amendment.

So why have lawmakers who had decades of service before the 1996 final approval of term limits continued to serve? Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa ruled that unless the framers of a constitutional amendment declare specifically they intend the measure to be retroactive, it is only applied prospectively. So that meant the term limits clock “started ticking” in 1996, when the measure was certified, not at the beginning of a person’s 12 years of service in the Senate or Assembly. (By the way, the same language applies to local government officials, too.)

But how else are we to interpret the italicized portion in the law, above, if not to conclude the framers intended it to apply retroactively, and take effect immediately? Term limits backer Sig Rogich told Mitchell that term limits weren’t supposed to start until 1998, but it’s possible he’s now covering for his old buddy Bruce Woodbury, the longest-serving county commissioner in Nevada who may very well see his career end this year because of how term limits are interpreted.

But this retroactivity is an intriguing concept. If, as Mitchell believes, some lawmakers have been serving illegally, could their votes and public acts be invalid? Could tax increases, controversial laws and state business transacted by lawmakers serving beyond their 12 years be void? Shouldn’t all those with 12 years of service in a single office be banned from seeking re-election and forced from office immediately?

Not so fast: Mitchell’s interpretation presumes term limits were approved constitutionally. We don’t think they were, so this is merely an academic exercise. Unless…

Unless the state Supreme Court determines term limits are constitutional, which we think it will, and very soon. In that case, the Mitchell interpretation must be considered, which would mean plenty of people with more than 12 years under their belts right now are banned from running again.

It’s quite a dilemma. We wonder if perhaps the court will sidestep it entirely, upholding term limits, but setting the “start date” at the certification of the election in November 1996. That would screw local officials such as Woodbury, but allow state lawmakers to go around one more time. We’re guessing that’s what will happen.

But you have to admit, Mitchell does have a point.

So the Nevada Republicans will choose their delegates to the national convention in the traditional method: in a back room.

The decision was made after supporters of now-withdrawn presidential candidate Ron Paul used the party’s rules in their favor, out-organizing the establishment backers of U.S. Sen. John McCain. The state party’s convention was recessed when it became apparent that the delegation headed to the national convention in Minneapolis would have cast their ballots for Paul, rather than McCain.

Not that that would have been a bad thing. Paul, who in 1988 ran as the Libertarian candidate for president, is a more principled Republican than McCain will ever be. Unlike McCain (and, for that matter, unlike Democratic nominee U.S. Sen. Barack Obama) Paul has not changed his positions on multiple issues, and he’s against the ongoing occupation of Iraq. Republicans could — and probably will — do a lot worse.

But instead of reconvening a convention and selecting delegates by majority vote, the party’s top officials will choose a slate of candidates. Both sides tried a second convention, but the Paul supporters didn’t get enough delegates and the establishment party didn’t get enough RSVPs. So top party officials will choose the delegates. Anybody want to bet whose supporters — Paul’s or McCain’s — they’ll pick?

We tell people if they don’t like the system, get involved in change it. Run for office, circulate a petition, call your elected representative. But when people actually do it, the system steps in to protect what the establishment wants. The party selects its preferred nominee, the initiaitves get tossed off the ballot (or are ignored outright) by the courts, the elected official listens politely and then votes with special interests. It happens so often, the exceptions almost always prove the rule.

Maybe we should just stop telling the regular prople they can actually change things? It’s not as inspiring, but at least it’s honest.

As for the Paul people, we hear a lawsuit is in the works. Good luck. You may need it.

It wasn’t big news, but it’s an important story: The Nevada Supreme Court has declined to reconsider its ruling that comped meals served in casinos to patrons and employees are not subject to the state’s sales and use tax. The state thus owes millions in refunds to Nevada casinos, starting with the Sparks Nugget, which filed a lawsuit that led to the ruling.

The issue came up during the one-day special session of the Legislature June 27, and the Democratically controlled state Assembly had a solution: Pass a bill that establishes the Legislature always intended to tax comped meals, if not under the state’s “use tax,” then under it’s sales tax. (The reasoning: Hotels are “purchasing” the goodwill and repeat business of comped customers.) If that bill had passed, the court may have treated the motion for rehearing differently; at the very least, meals would still be taxed, and no refunds would have to be issued.

But no: On the inexplicable motion of state Sen. Randolph Townsend, and with the support of all 11 of the Senate’s Republicans, the upper house voted to kill the Assembly’s bill. (Townsend claimed he thought the state would prevail with it’s motion to reconsider, but those motions are granted infrequently.)

So now, a state seriously strapped for cash is going to have to dig into its coffers for refunds to casinos, which last we heard were still making money, albeit not as much as before. We suppose we’re fortunate that Nevada’s casino industry has promised to allow the state to make payments on what it owes. Just another way gambling works for Nevada.

Or, is it the other way around?

Look, we’re not saying that Gov. Jim Gibbons is a sophisticated android sent back from the future to totally screw up Nevada. But it sure seems like his neural net was disrupted during the trip. Every single time bad economic news comes up, he says the same thing.

Consider this from a Gibbons news release on the rise in Nevada’s unemployment rate:

The continued climb in the number of Nevadans without a job is troubling, both for the struggles those individuals and families are going through, and as a symbol of the turmoil our economy is going through. We have not seen an unemployment rate as high as 6.4 percent since 1994. As a state, we must continue working to encourage businesses to retain their workers and expand and hire new ones. To do so we cannot put an additional tax burden on businesses that are already struggling and coping with the economic downturn through layoffs. As we struggle to keep our budge balanced, I remain committed to doing so without raising taxes.” (emphasis added)

OK, first of all, nobody even mentioned raising taxes, except for the governor. Second, the more workers who are laid off, the more people who will be seeking government services, from unemployment compensation to social welfare to free health care, and thus the greater the burden on tax-supported services. Third, real people are suffering as the governor spouts off his one and only talking point, so maybe Gibbons should get a new fucking line already!

Anyway, maybe one of the governor’s staff wants to re-set his neural processor? The access port should be directly behind his right ear…

The other day, we wondered why former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi wasn’t getting any attention for his bestselling book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

We think this may be why.

Joe Scarborough isn’t exactly what you’d call a leading light of broadcast journalism. In fact, he comes across as an arrogant dick. But even so, Bugliosi was able to tell a national cable audience about a subject that even the most liberal of the allegedly liberal media have thus far ignored.

Bugliosi, 1, Media-Power Symbiosis, 0.

We took a gentle tap at state Sen. Dina Titus, who we like, when she came out in favor of lifting the federal ban on offshore oil drilling the other day. It’s a short-sighted and bad policy, we think, and a foolish gambit if done for political reasons.

Why? Well, check out today’s newspaper, in which Titus is attacked by her eventual Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, on the very issue she sought to inoculate herself on, drilling. Wouldn’t you just know that Titus took a different tack in 2007, voting against a resolution that called for offshore oil drilling, and even attempting to amend the resolution to replace “oilmongering” with “renewable energy.”

Sure, Titus can say today that the resolution didn’t have the language she wanted in it (allowing states to choose whether to allow drilling; allowing them to share in the royalties from offshore oil leases; and restricting the oil for use here in America). But that’s explaining, and if you’re explaining in politics, you’re losing.

Better to have stuck with her original stance — against offshore drilling — not only so she could remain consistent, but also because she was right. Porter’s position — to allow drilling — is wrong. So why embrace it? Because Titus could see the Republican planning to slam her on energy, when drivers are facing record gas prices and looking for somebody to blame.

We’ve said it before, people: Stick to your principles, assuming your principles are right. You don’t gain anything when you abandon them.

Or as President George W. Bush’s favorite political philosopher once put it: “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

Don’t answer, people. That question is meant to be rhetorical.

Anybody who has been inside a courtroom knows its risky to predict the outcome of a case based only on the questions that judges ask attorneys. But we’re pretty sure that, based on the Supreme Court’s grilling of lawyers on either side of the term limits question, that term limits are here to stay!

Legislative Counsel Bureau attorney Kevin Powers did his very best to argue Question 9, approved in 1994, was so riddled with confusion that voters could not possibly have known what they were voting on. For example, he said, there was no definition in the explanation of the measure about what a “local governing body” was. That could include anything from the city council to the mosquito abatement district, he said.

“There’s no way the voter would have known the breadth and scope of this initiative,” Powers said.

Oh, and another thing: It wasn’t clear to the voters if the measure imposed a lifetime term limit ban — like the one in place for president or governor — or if lawmakers could sit out a term and then come back to serve another 12 years. (The Legislative Counsel Bureau, after much research, concluded it was a lifetime ban.)

Finally, he argued, the Nevada Supreme Court’s splitting of the measure into two separate questions — one for executive and legislative branch term limits, another for judges — was unconstitutional, since the constitution requires that initiatives to amend the constitution be on the ballot in the “same manner” in two consecutive elections, and the 1994 version and 1996 version were dissimilar.
But Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto shot back with some major legal mojo: Since the measure is now part of the constitution, it’s presumed to be legal and constitutional, which means the Legislature has a high bar to get it struck down. And it didn’t meet that bar because:

1. Waiting 12 years to challenge the constitutionality of the measure was too long.
2. Voters would be prejudiced if the law is struck down, because they’d have to start all over again.
3. The explanation didn’t have to address every single office affected by term limits; if a voter had a question, he or she needed only to read the text, which contained a list of the affected offices.
4. The fact that Question 9 imposed a lifetime ban was clear from the text.
5. The Nevada Supreme Court already said the 1996 split of the question into two was legal and constitutional.
6. Even if that split wasn’t, the term limits for local and state officials were approved in the exact same manner in two consecutive elections.
7. Voters have a right to expect their wishes would be enacted by the court.

We’ve got to say: She’s pretty good, people.

And if Cortez Masto wasn’t enough, enter the formidable Dominic Gentile, representing Regent Steve Sisolak, who is desperately trying to get veteran Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury off the ballot, since Sisolak covets Woodbury’s seat.

Voters misled? Where’s the proof? Gentile asked. Where are the polls, or surveys or even a single affidavit of a voter saying he or she didn’t understand what was on the ballot in 1994? The Legislature has had 14 years to find proof, he said, but came only with arguments and speculation.

“If there was a problem with the elective process, they knew it in 1994,” he said. And what about the 196,343 people who voted no? Were they somehow not confused? If so, why did they get it but the pro-term limits voters didn’t?

“I suggest to you what you’re seeing is a finagle,” he said. And he should know, since he recently looked that word up.

And isn’t it interesting that not a single lawmaker has emerged to challenge term limits personally? The Legislative Counsel Bureau, which represents the entire Legislature, spoke instead for the interests of lawmakers.

(Then again, if lawmakers can be implicitly accused of cowardice for not challenging the law themselves, what does that say about Sisolak, who is explicitly challenging Woodbury’s candidacy because he knows full well he couldn’t beat the Boulder City Republican in a stand-up electoral fight?)

Georlen Spangler went next, representing Kevin Child, who is challenging Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley in November. (Unlike Sisolak, who has a good chance at a commission seat with Woodbury off  the ballot, it’s not entirely clear if Child could win even if Buckley was erased.)

Why did the Legislative Counsel Bureau not raise the issue of unclear or confusion language when the petition was being circulated? she asked. And she fixated on the inevitable assumption that underlay Powers’s arguments: “I was here then [in 1994]. I voted. I don’t think I’m stupid,” she said.

“Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights,” she said. Lawmakers are hoping the court strikes down term limts, she said, but aren’t willing to stick their necks out and risk voter wrath. Why, do you think could she have been suggesting to the judges that if they stick their black-robed necks out, they might experience voter wrath? We think so.

Powers restated a few points in rebuttal, the strongest of which was noting that the Wyoming Supreme Court allowed a term-limits challenge 11 years after the fact, since the measure had not yet taken effect. That’s similar to Nevada, where no one has (yet) been forced off the ballot.

Again, reading questions is tricky, but based on the strength of the arguments and some fairly prominent holes in Powers’s case, we’re betting the court upholds Nevada’s term limits, saves themselves the grief of voter wrath and says goodbye this year to some local officials, if not state lawmakers like Buckley. That’s just a guess, and worth precisely what you pay to read this blog.

Finally, here’s our simple argument against term limits, which the justices are free to consider: Voters in 1994 clearly intended all officials in Nevada — legislative, executive and judicial — to be term-limited by the same simple amendment to the constitution. Their will was thwarted, and the constitution violated, when that question was molested by the court and split into two in 1996. Yes, you can argue the voters were allowed to attenuate their will when the court gave them the choice to separately rule on judges, but how could you not argue further that perhaps the voters intended to limit only the Assembly and Senate, and, given the chance, would have also exempted city council and county commissions? The fact is, there were not given that chance; they put everybody in one initiative, and that’s how it should have stayed. Voters choose in virtually every election to take the good with the bad (say, voting for Hillary Clinton for president, even if you don’t like her vote for the Iraq War). The court frustrated clear all-or-nothing voter intent in 1994, and thus the whole thing should be tossed.

Of course, that’s easy for us to say. We’re not on the court. Or in office.

We see that state Sen. Dina Titus has unfortunately given in to the pro-drilling oilmongers, and embraced the stance that the federal ban on offshore oil drilling should be lifted, shifting the decision about whether to allow the practice to the states.

Titus is running for Congress against U.S. Rep. Jon Porter, who has the same position on offshore drilling.

As we’ve said before, we don’t much care if Florida or Louisiana or Texas allows offshore drilling. But we absolutely refuse to accept offshore drilling along the coastline of our beloved home state, California. And we’ll continue to hold this position, at least until the oil companies can guarantee there are halfway competent sailors aboard their big oil tankers. (Click that last link; you’ll see what we’re saying.)

If you were to visit the great city of Huntington Beach, Calif., (and you should; it’s great) you’d notice several offshore oil drilling platforms up and running now. That’s bad enough, without allowing new drilling, especially since oil companies have access to thousands of acres of drilling sites now they aren’t even using!

So, Dina Titus, keep your laws on our state! No drilling, at least off California.

UPDATE: As if on cue, we’ve just learned (at 8:32 a.m. on Monday, July 14) that President George W. Bush will announce he intends to lift the longstanding executive order banning offshore oil drilling. So that means Titus and Bush are on the same page. We can hardly think of a better reason for her to reconsider her stance.