The attorney for ex-Assemblywoman Sharron Angle is asking the state Supreme Court to review an earlier decision rejecting an initiative petition that aims to limit property tax, since it was tossed out based on a law that itself has recently been declared unconstitutional.

Here’s the thing: Attorney Joel Hansen has a point. Angle’s initiative — as much as we dislike and disagree with it — may very well have earned a place on the November ballot. But here’s the other thing: It probably won’t, because the timing is bad.

See, various Nevada counties have already printed and mailed absentee ballots, and since early voting starts 11 days from now, there is not enough time for the high court to consider Angle’s appeal, deliberate on it, make a decision and — assuming that decision favors the initiative — order it to be placed before voters.

In other words, of all the many failures Angle has experienced in her public life, this one may not be her fault.

A short history: Angle turned in what the secretary of state certified were enough valid signatures to qualify her initiative, which would limit property tax increases to just 2 percent per year, until you sell your home, at which time it would be reassessed. But she was challenged by the Nevada State Education Association, which claimed she’d failed to gather the constitutionally required number of signatures in Clark County.

How? Well, a state law said people who circulate initiative petitions must get what essentially amounts to a proportional number of signatures in each Nevada county, to prevent voters in populous counties like ours from running roughshod over sparsely populated rural areas of the state. Unfortunately for them, a federal judge ruled last week that the proportional-signature law was itself unconstitutional, and thus the ruling rejecting Angle’s petition lost its basis in law. (Remember, even if Angle didn’t meet the minimum standard in Clark County, she argues she had enough valid signatures overall to qualify the measure.)

Hence, the appeal.

If, in fact, Angle collected the required 58,628 valid signatures — regardless of where they were gathered — then her petition should have gone on the ballot. The only real reason she’ll miss it is the timing. And that’s unfair.

Then again, it cuts both ways: In Washington, D.C., a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia ruled Monday that it would not expedite the appeal of a judge’s order that former White House officials testify about why nine former U.S. attorneys were suspiciously fired by the George W. Bush administration. Why? Well, the 110th Congress is set to expire on Jan. 3, 2009, and with it, the subpoenas issued in the firings case. And there’s just not enough time to rule on the complex issues of executive privilege and separation of powers before then, especially because the case could become moot if the new Congress doesn’t take up the investigation. All of which means there will be no resolution while Bush remains in office, and that there’s a chance — even if Democrats keep control of Congress, which they probably will — that the whole thing will be swept under the rug.

So, we feel your pain Sharron Angle. Timing. Ain’t it a bitch?