Not of anything we’ve written, of course. Most everything we write is correct.

But in today’s Review-Journal story nakedly attempting to bully the state Supreme Court into sustaining Nevada’s term limits, there’s a paragraph that caught our attention. Check it:

The case has drawn almost as much attention as the court’s 2003 ruling that legislators did not have to follow a constitutional amendment that tax increases need a two-thirds positive vote in the Legislature before they can go into effect.

That ruling, sought by Gov. Kenny Guinn, led to lawmakers approving a record $833 million in tax increases.

Voters did not forget that decision. Justice Nancy Becker went down to defeat the next time she ran.

Four other justices decided to retire at the end of their terms rather than risk another election.

Did you catch the glaring mistake in the above? If not, it’s this: Guinn most certainly did not seek a ruling in which the Legislature didn’t have to follow the two-thirds amendment!

Here’s what really happened (which we know, because we were present for the 2003 debacle): With the Legislature deadlocked over approving a package of new taxes, and the school year looming without a completed budget, Guinn sued the Legislature, asking the court force lawmakers to do their constitutionally mandated jobs and pass a budget. He didn’t mention how he wanted that done, only that it should be done. And while rejecting the two-thirds constitutional amendment was advocated by other parties to the lawsuit, it was not an option ever embraced by Guinn.

But the court, in its own wisdom, ruled that the Legislature didn’t have to follow the two-thirds requirement to raise taxes, a despicable and judicially unsound ruling that was later overturned in a footnote to an unrelated decision. The ruling was so controversial at the time, the Legislature didn’t even take advantage of it, finally mustering a two-thirds vote in a special session to raise taxes. (Oh, if you answered our “what’s wrong with this story” question by saying that it was inaccurate to claim the ruling led to the tax vote, we’ll give you partial credit for that as well.)