Here's the news from Nevada:
The Nevada Supreme Court ordered the state Legislature back to work Thursday, lifting the constitutional provision that has allowed Republicans to block a tax plan and public education funding for almost six months.By a 6-1 vote, the court said Nevada’s law that mandates a two-thirds vote to raise taxes must give way to a more entrenched provision that mandates the funding of education.
Ignoring the obvious bias of the 'reporter', let's move further down in the story, where we find this:
Congressman Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said the court’s ruling outraged him. Gibbons led the way to adopt the two-thirds vote requirement for taxes during his years as an assemblyman from Washoe County. The Gibbons Tax Restraint Initiative also was overwhelmingly approved by Nevada voters in 1994 and 1996 before it was added to the constitution.
SKB is worried that his vote may not be counted, based on some speculative pieces in a left wing journal.
I'm far more concerned when activist judges directly ignore the expressed will of the people, nullifying portions of the State Constitution at will. It looks to me like even if your vote is counted in Nevada, it may be ignored. Hell, I guess it's easier to ignore an election than rig one.
Eugene Volokh has done an admirable job of countering the forthcoming arguments in favor of the ruling, including this paragraph:
Fourth, it's not at all clear that there's really a conflict between the provisions. As I mentioned, the education funding requirements in article 11 of the Nevada Constitution don't explicitly require a specific amount of funding. The Legislature could cut the funding for education, or for other services. It may be damaging to the state's educational system, but it is doable. And while the result might be lousy policy -- perhaps so lousy that the Legislature will muster the 2/3 majority needed for a tax increase, or find better places to cut, so that education would end up being better funded -- it would avoid what the court has done: A flat judicial nullification of an entirely explicit command of the Nevada people.
Dems are furious for US Senate Reps attempts to change the rules on filibusters, claiming that it weakens the minority party, shifting the balance too far to the majority; oddly, they seem to be silent on this judicial attack on the powers of the minority party.
Could it be because the minority party in this case is Republican?
The good news is that Nevada Supreme Court Justices have to stand for election, and I'm betting that none of the 6 who voted with the majority will serve another term.
Unless of course the Nevada SC rules that judicial elections are a "general procedure", superceded by some specific need, and overrules that part of the Constitution as well.