Thanks to Gibbons, constitution would let voters consider tax

By David McGrath Schwartz

Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2011 | 5:27 p.m.

The path out if there is a stalemate over the state's budget and taxes may have been paved by former Gov. Jim Gibbons.

The “Tax Restraint Initiative,” which has frustrated pro-tax forces since it requires a two-thirds vote of lawmakers to increase taxes, also gives lawmakers and Gov. Brian Sandoval an apparent pathway to put a tax question to a vote of the people.

The constitutional change allows lawmakers to send to voters “any measure” to raise revenue in the statewide election following a session. In this case, that would be November's 2012 election - too late to do anything about the current crisis, but a backstop if there's an inability to reach a consensus on the budget. Voters passed the constitutional amendment in 1994 and 1996.

Both Republicans and Democrats are trying to figure out how a balanced budget passes the 2011 Legislative session. Democrats control both houses, but need Republican votes to reach two-thirds to pass a tax increase and override Sandoval’s promised veto of a budget with tax increases. Democrats, particularly Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, have said they would refuse to process the governor's cuts to education.

That scenario has some lawmakers and lobbyists seeing a possibility that the decision gets punted to voters because all sides appear intractable in their positions so far.

Gibbons’ initiative most prominently required that all tax and fee increases pass with a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate. But it provided an exception.

Article 4, Section 18, Subsection 3 reads: “A majority of all of the members elected to each House may refer any measure which creates, generates, or increases any revenue in any form to the people of the State at the next general election, and shall become effective and enforced only if it has been approved by a majority of the votes cast on the measure at such election.”

Sandoval’s senior staff have said the governor would respect a vote of the people.

It’s unclear if the measure would require Sandoval’s signature, or an override of his veto.

If the measure was passed as a bill, it would require Sandoval’s signature. But some advocates are suggesting that it could pass as a resolution, which only would require a majority from both houses.