I just saw a Tweet by Assemblyman Scott Hammond (R-13) where he invited me to take a look at his new campaign website. Since Assemblyman Hammond is my assemblyman, I did go to take a look and I found it interesting.

Right on the front page is an article titled "Clearing Up The Lies". You see, Assemblyman Hammond was recently on Face-To-Face with John Ralston in a debate with his Senate 18 opponent, Richard McArthur.

Ralston showed a video clip where then candidate Hammond stated, “I want people to look at me and if I tell them I won’t raise your taxes I want them to understand that I won’t. You know, I walk up to my commitments and I keep them. When I tell you face-to-face that I’m not going to raise taxes, I don’t think I have to sign a piece of paper to prove it.” (More info HERE)

In the 2011 session, Assemblyman Hammond did vote to extend the $620 Million in taxes which were set to expire or "sunset". The interesting thing about this is, on his website, Hammond states "The extension of the sunsets did not increase taxes."

Although the extension of these sunset taxes technically did not increase taxes, the point is that thanks to Assemblyman Hammond we are currently paying $620 Million more in taxes today than we are supposed to be paying!

If today we are paying $620 MILLION in taxes that we were promised we would not be paying today, how is that not a tax increase? Are you as tired of the "Doublespeak" as I?

Hammond goes on to say in his website "No one person, business or family is paying more in taxes now than they did before I took office."

Exactly.

We're not paying any MORE but the fact is WE SHOULD BE PAYING LESS!

I don't know about you but if our elected officials promised us a "temporary" tax that would expire in two years, shouldn't they keep their word and let the taxes expire when they were promised?

Assemblyman Hammond is currently running for the State Senate 18 seat against Assemblyman Richard McArthur. Hammond has already stated publicy that he supports making the $620 Million in "temporary" tax PERMANENT.

I think the taxpayers in Nevada would rather see these "temporary" taxes disappear as promised and have their elected officials keep their word, for a change.

I think you can see why you must tell the candidates that "If you don't sign the Tax Pledge, you don't get my vote!"

As a candidate for Assembly 13, I have signed the Tax Pledge and am the only Assembly 13 candidate to do so.

Assemblyman Richard McArthur is running for the Senate 18 seat, has one of the most conservative voting records in the Assembly and has also signed the Tax Pledge. He is also the only candidate for Senate 18 to do so.

The choice is clear, if you don't want your taxes raised and would want the "temporary" taxes to be temporary, tell the candidates, "If you don't sign the Tax Pledge, you don't get my vote!"



 
 
It’s a bad idea for state workers to serve in the Legislature. This is why the Separation Of Powers Clause is in the Nevada Constitution.

And now the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI) has filed a lawsuit to force government workers serving in the Legislature to choose either their government job or being a legislator. After all, as the old saying goes, a dog can’t serve two masters.

Indeed, state Sen. Ben Kieckhefer (R-Reno) quit his government job at the Department of Health and Human Services after being elected in 2010. And on Thursday, Sen. Kieckhefer tweeted: “I left my job with DHHS the day after I was elected specifically to preserve separation of powers. It’s important.”

Senator Kieckhefer, I agree.

All told, about 20 percent of state legislators are government employees. Only two of them, however, are Republicans like Kieckhefer. And one of them is moderate Assemblyman Scott Hammond…who Kieckhefer has endorsed over conservative non-state worker Assemblyman Richard McArthur in the SD-18 race next year.

For Sen. Kieckhefer to be consistent, he needs to publicly call for Hammond to do exactly what Kieckhefer himself did; resign his government job if he wishes to continue serving in the Legislature. After all, it’s the only way to preserve that separation of powers, right? And it’s important, right? Senator?

On another note, I have heard that this practice of ignoring the Nevada Constitution has been allowed as the Constitution also states that it is up to the Legislature itself to decide who is eligible to serve.

Isn’t this a case of the fox guarding the hen house? Can we really expect our State Legislators to be the ones who decide who is eligible?

Although the Nevada Constitution does state that the Legislators decide the eligibility of its’ members to serve, the Legislature cannot violate the Nevada Constitution in making their decision.

The Nevada Legislators do have a guideline in making the decision on whether or not one, or more, of its’ members are aligible. It is Art. 3 Sec 1, the Separation of Powers Clause.

In other words, just because we have the foxes guarging the hen house, they cannot ignore (violate) other parts of the Nevada Copnstitution. If we had elected officials who actually followed their Oath of Office, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

The Separation of Powers Clause is clear when it states “…and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others…” (emphasis mine)

Yes, “any function” means that even a janitor must quit his job if he/she wishes to serve as a member of the Legislature.

The Nevada Constitution is clear. If a public employee wishes to serve in the Nevada Legislature, they MUST quit their public employee job.

To Assemblyman Scott Hammond, and all the other Public Employee/Legislators, you have two choices. Either quit your public employee job, immediately, or resign your position as State Legislator.

 
 
The Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation at NPRI has sued Mo Denis, the Public Utilities Commission, and the State of Nevada for violating the separation-of-powers clause in Nevada’s constitution.

By challenging Nevada’s long-standing abuse of the separation-of-powers principle, this case is the first step in restoring the balance of power in Nevada’s government and guaranteeing the liberties of the people.

The Nevada Constitution is clear, no public employee may serve in the Nevada Legislature.
 
 
The three special masters appointed by Carson City District Judge James Todd Russell filed their report and proposed maps with the court.

There is only one problem, the Nevada Consitution only allows the Nevada Legislature to draw the redistricting maps.

Article 4 Section 5 of the Nevada Constitution is very clear on this issue.

Sec. 5. Number of Senators and members of Assembly; apportionment. Senators and members of the Assembly shall be duly qualified electors in the respective counties and districts which they represent, and the number of Senators shall not be less than one-third nor more than one-half of that of the members of the Assembly.

It shall be the mandatory duty of the Legislature at its first session after the taking of the decennial census of the United States in the year 1950, and after each subsequent decennial census, to fix by law the number of Senators and Assemblymen, and apportion them among the several counties of the State, or among legislative districts which may be established by law, according to the number of inhabitants in them, respectively.

Do you see anywhere where is says the Legislature can pass this mandatory duty to a “special panel” or even the courts? No.

The Nevada Constitution is clear that the courts have no jurisdiction and that a redistricting plan must be legislatively approved.

If there was one thing ALL 2010 candidates knew, it was that they would have to draw new district maps in 2011. It wasn’t a secret. Once elected, all Nevada Assemblymen, State Senators, and the Governor took an Oath to support, protect and defend the Nevada and United States Constitutions. The Nevada Constitution is clear that only the Nevada Legislature has the authority to redraw the district maps.

The Oath of Office is found in Art. 15 Sec. 2 of the Nevada Constitution.

By neglecting to redistrict the State, the Nevada Legislature and the Governor, have violated their Oath to the people of Nevada.

I believe the redistricting maps put together by these “three special masters” should, and will be, challenged in court as unconstitutional.

Is it really too much to ask that our elected officials actually do the job they were elected to do?

 
 
Ratings of the
2011 Nevada Legislature 
Executive Summary
by Dan Burdish & 
David Mansdoerfer

“I’m never quite sure what the point of legislative report cards are. To give the elected officials – or their opponents – fodder for the next campaign? To show how lawmakers voted on issues of import to the special interest? To get media coverage? Maybe some of all of the above.”
– RalstonFlash, 8/29/11

 
 
Don’t you just hate this? “Politicians” who say anything and promise the moon to get elected only to go back on their word once they are in office.

Assemblyman Scott Hammond is one of these “politicians”. After promising not to raise taxes in order to get elected, Assemblyman Scott Hammond went back on his word and voted for a $600 Million tax increase.

Watch the video, it’s all there.