Good advice for D.C and CC legislators

By the time the 1999 Nevada Legislature goes into session, there will be more than 1,400 bill drafts requested by legislators. About half of these requests won't reveal the name of the legislator asking for them. If prior bill requests are any measure, there's good reason for legislators not wanting their names attached to many of them.

Experienced legislators will admit that some bills are drafted and later submitted for consideration just to make friends or special interest groups happy. This waste is tolerated despite the high cost of each bill drafted at the request of a legislator. They also protect their own identity with a bill by having it submitted in the name of a committee.

Another questionable legislative practice over the years has been candidates running for office promoting popular crusades. A good example in Nevada are candidates playing upon the public's fear of crime and drafting dozens of anti-crime bills. Many that pass result in excessive expenditures of tax dollars and others create problems for which there are no funds available. Even more fail to pass but the sponsor claims them as a sign of his or her dedication to stamp out crime when running again and asking to be returned to office.

Some of these same problems are also common in the legislative process of Congress. In the 1998 Year-End Report of the Federal Judiciary, William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the U.S., wrote:

"The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts not only is taxing the Judiciary's resources and affecting its budget needs, but it also threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system. The pressure in Congress to appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime needs to be balanced with an inquiry into whether states are doing an adequate job in these particular areas and, ultimately, whether we want most of our legal relationships decided at the national rather than local level. Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be. State courts do, can, and should handle such problems. While there certainly are areas in criminal law in which the federal government must act, the vast majority of localized criminal cases should be decided in the state courts which are equipped for such matters. This principle was enunciated by Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century, and Dwight Eisenhower in the 20th century -- matters that can be handled adequately by the states should be left to them; matters that cannot be handled should be undertaken by the federal government."

Very simply, Rehnquist has put his finger on the congressional habit of responding to popular causes with new statutes. Members of Congress get a ton of mail asking what they are going to do about a certain problem. So, they respond with a new law that extends federal jurisdiction into local and state law enforcement and judicial areas of responsibility.

Rehnquist points out that "The number of cases brought to the federal courts is one of the most serious problems facing them today. Criminal case filings in federal courts rose 15 percent in 1998 -- nearly tripling the 5.2 percent increase in 1997. Over the last decade, Congress has contributed significantly to the rising caseload by continuing to federalize crimes already covered by state laws. A series of such laws have been enacted in the past few years, including, to name a few, the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, and the recent arson provisions added to Title 18 in 1994." I might add that the federal act keeping firearms out of the hands of people with a domestic violence connection, no matter what the circumstances, should be included in this list of federal interventions. The intent of the law is good but it should be a state statute that is written and enforced at the local level of government.

Rehnquist, when agreeing with the 1995 Judicial Conference of the United States' proposed Long-Range Plan for the Federal Courts, names five types of criminal cases the federal courts should handle:

1) offenses against the federal government or its inherent interests;

2) criminal activity with substantial multi-state or international aspects;

3) criminal activity involving complex commercial or institutional enterprises most effectively prosecuted using federal resources or expertise;

4) serious high level or widespread state or local government corruption; and

5) criminal cases raising highly sensitive local issues.

The Long Range Plan says "Congress should commit itself to conserving the federal courts as a distinctive judicial forum of limited jurisdiction in our system of federalism. Civil and criminal jurisdiction should be assigned to the federal courts only to further clearly defined and justified national interests, leaving to the state courts the responsibility for adjudicating all other matters."

Now if we can get Congress to read and follow the Long Range Plan and encourage the Nevada Legislature to use more common sense and less political trash when proposing legislation, we can all be winners.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor. This column first appeared in the Henderson Home News as "One Man's View."

archive