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.