Backstory: By the people?

By Michael Green

For those trying to get on the November ballot, and for democracy itself, it was the best and worst of weeks, and not just because the only moderates the Republicans could find in their party were adulterers and hatemongers:

Ą Ralph Nader made it onto the Nevada ballot, which barely has room for both him and his ego, thanks to a court ruling.

Ą Several initiative petitions wound up with a chance of making the ballot and thus making the ballot longer than War and Peace, thanks to a court ruling.

Ą The whole initiative process is changing, and the Nevada Constitution should change with it, thanks to a court ruling.

Nevada Democrats questioned some of Nader's signatures. A district judge agreed that some couldn't be counted, but enough of the others were legitimate for Nader to land a spot on the November ballot.

If Nader wants to be on the ballot and meets the requirements, he has the right to be there. Democrats have every right and reason to make sure his signatures are valid, given the support he has received from those who dare to lie about how a man defended his country--unlike the deserters (Michael Moore was right) they support. And those who long have admired Nader have the right to say he is despoiling his heroic reputation by lying about himself and the political process.

Why is Nader running? If he thinks The Rug and John Kerry are alike, his brain matter has deteriorated to the level of a meatball sandwich. Does he hope to reform the process? It certainly needs reform, but it won't happen via a quixotic presidential campaign, which does little to create a genuine grassroots movement--especially if it gives the presidency to an immoral right-winger instead of someone who shares some of Nader's supposed values.

Maddeningly, Nader's enablers include many Republicans. This is campaign trickery of the highest order, and Democrats shouldn't criticize it. They should have underwritten Pat Buchanan to challenge Bush from the right. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. For Nader to associate with those who would destroy all he has sought to do ultimately makes him about as good a moral example as Erin Kenny.

Nevada's Supreme Court threw out a rule in the state constitution and let those not registered to vote circulate petitions without having a registered voter sign an affidavit on their behalf. This spreads democracy and free speech, and adds two initiatives to the ballot--one to hike the state minimum wage, the other to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

Raising the minimum wage is a fine idea. But would anyone like to bet that, if it passes, measures designed to cut taxes and dictate government spending will pass, too? As for the other initiative, you may not know it, but under Nevada's Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge can sanction an attorney who files a frivolous suit. That would make the initiative...frivolous? Maybe not, but don't say that in a lawsuit.

Speaking of frivolous, the effort to get George Harris--uh, Ax the Tax--on the ballot failed, despite getting extra time from a judge after charges of harassment of those collecting signatures. It speaks well for Nevada voters that too few of them bought into trying to rescind the tax hike, which may have elevated the state to Third World status. If they don't like the tax hike, they always can vote out those who voted for it. That would teach them not to try to improve education and public services. Those are frivolous, right?

Ą U.S. District Judge Jim Mahan issued a ruling on initiatives that, among other things, invoked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and thus changed the political landscape.

According to the Nevada Constitution, if an initiative petition is to get on the ballot, it must have the signatures of 10 percent of those who voted in the last election in three-fourths of Nevada's counties (16, plus Carson City, which was consolidated with Ormsby County, meaning 13 counties).

No, said Mahan. The 9th Circuit spiked Idaho's requirements for initiative petitions, which used a similar system involving percentages of voters and counties. The court said it gave too much power to a minority--the smaller counties.

Nevada was in a similar boat. Two counties, Clark and Washoe, have about 85 percent of the state's registered voters. They could unanimously back any initiative they liked. But if the other counties ganged up, that initiative would be deader than a doornail.

These decisions--the 9th Circuit's, and Mahan's reliance upon it--have received attention, but not in the way they deserve. Follow the logic. The U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority, not give the minority more power than the majority. The initiative system gave the minority too much power. Right?

Then how can it be constitutional for one-third of the Nevada Legislature to have the power to block tax increases that have the support of almost two-thirds of the legislators elected by--get ready--the people? Doesn't that give the minority too much power?

The answer is, it does, and thus can't be constitutional. It's time for an initiative to repeal that unconstitutional portion of the Nevada Constitution. I'll be the first to sign it. Ain't democracy grand?