Analysis of the Nevada Constitution - Term Paper Example

Law 29 April, Analysis of the Nevada Constitution Introduction The of Nevada was founded in the early 1860s, during the USA emerging pressure to support the abolishment of slavery and enforce freedom among the people of different colors. Since it became a state, Nevada’s first formulated constitution has had over a hundred of numerous amendments, which are incorporated in the original document, allowing the state to run under its original constitution unlike other states. The constitution sets forth policies of laws necessary for the citizens’ functions, and which tend to match up to or reflect the U.S constitution. The state has its own designated political powers just as the federal U.S. government, which allows them to monitor each others performance in the state, for the sake of the state’s operations and in defense of the public will. Along the past century, the state has adjusted some of its policies, hence affecting the political, governance, and the judicial system in various ways. However, looking critically at Nevada’s and USA constitution, there are similarities and differences in practical application of the policies and operations, especially those related to democracy and supreme powers in the judicial system, executive, and legislative arms. 2. Powers of Nevada’s governor compared to the president The governors in Nevada are elected and given responsibilities to perform in the state for a four year term. Article 5, sections 1 and 2 of Nevada constitution law provides that the governor be elected by qualified electors, while voting for members of the legislature and once in office, takes the supreme executive power of Nevada state vested on him or her as chief magistrate (“The constitution of ,” leg.state.nv.us). Looking at the executive and administrative powers, the president of the national system of governments has of course more power than the Nevada governor. However, in consideration of the Nevada’s constitution, the governor may enjoy certain legislative advantages that the president could be restricted from, by the congress and the state constitution. According to Driggs, the first benefit as enacted by the Nevada law is that once the legislature passes a law, the governor alone is responsible to ensure they are executed without interference from Congress or national chief executive; again, the state’s constitution states that the governor has the power to convene the legislature, hence associated with more control over a special session, which they may call to the attention of the legislature while in session, limiting the president control and the influence he or she can cause on the congressional affairs in a session (98). It does not mean the president has no power to call a special session, but is limited from interference of the business the congress is handling at the time in a session. The governors are held accountable to uphold the state’s law, but they also have powers sign into law, the bills passed by the state legislature. However, certain bills have remained unapproved and others can become law without the governor’s signature, especially when the legislature can override the veto. In Nevada, the governor has options of either vetoing bills, signing them, or doing nothing (an option that makes them pass into law without his or her signature); if the governor vetoes a law and its taken back to the house, the elected members of each house have the law either approved by overriding the veto by accumulating two thirds of each house vote or have the veto sustained (Legislative Counsel Bureau, leg.state.nv.us). Similarly, just like the Nevada governors, the president has constitutional rights to sign, veto, or do nothing as a response to a bill passed by the congress. In case of vetoing, the congress can enact it into law by raising two thirds of majority votes in the two chambers to override the veto, or the bill dies, if the congress suspends it before ten days completion after the passage of the bill (CQ Press, cqpress.com). In both cases, the governor and the president’s power to reject a bill is limited in time; five days after receiving the bill, when the legislation is still in session, failure to, 10 days if ended for Nevada’s governor and, vetoing of bills after 10 days expires without president’s actions and congress in session. Despite the moves to veto, most of them are overridden and passed into law at succeeding sessions, or with new leaders in office. The law enforcement requires the governor and the president to ensure laws are executed faithfully. In connection to that, they have ability to grant pardons as part of the law enforcement powers, though it varies on the national level from Nevada State. The president has the clemency authority from which he can grant reprieves and pardons for felonies against the U.S apart from cases of impeachments; therefore, making room for restoration of order when the pardons are granted at the right time to the domestic revolts against the federal government (CQ Press, cqpress.com). The president exercises the pardoning or sentence commutation as a single subject, which is not the case in the state of Nevada. Governors of Nevada are restricted to from granting the pardons without the board’s approval. The Nevada’s state board of pardon Commissioners constitute of the state’s attorney general, secretary, and governor. Moreover, they are also part of the state board of examiners, and state board of prison commissioners, meaning they have powers to examine all the brought forth claims against the state, and preventing them from been passed upon by the legislature house, before they are investigated and assessed in the former board; they also have access to all matters connected to the state prison, since the prison commissioners have the role of supervision, and oversee prison inmates hearings for parole and pardons in the state as entitled to the pardon commissioners in Nevada (Nevada State Library and Archives, nevadaculture.org). The fact the governor is part of the committee makes the concluded decision to either fail to, or favor the pardons or commutations by the majority vote of the members of the pardon board. The constitutional approval power over the pardon can hence be achieved by the governor when the pardons commissioners vote in favor of the pardon, making the implementation of the power not be reliant on a sole decision, but under the influence of the board. Appointments of officials from the president occur at the federal level, which the congressional arm of government has little influence over. The U.S constitution in Article (2) defines the powers and duties of the president with the section 2, clause 2 listing the high level positions, which the president can appoint officers to. The appointment clause provides the president with power to select high ranking officials; the ambassadors, judges of the Supreme Court, public ministers, and consuls among others allowed in the constitution, subject to the senate approval (NPC, nationalparalegal.edu). On the other hand, the governor of Nevada does appoint members of the state cabinet and other members of certain industries and commissions. The secretary of state is elected directly by the people; hence for such officials, he does not have power to appoint or remove them from office, as it can be possible in the state cabinet (Driggs 94). Even so, the governor is limited from appointing persons who hold the U.S federal offices. The former and the current governors, Jim Gibbons and Brian Sandoval respectively have utilized the power effectively, in appointing and removing from office, representatives and cabinet officials, and staff members in their powerful offices. Whoever is appointed by the president in office of the federal government must be accepted by the senate, because it can also reject to confirm an appointment made by the president. This demonstrates the distinction in influencing the presidential appointments between the senate and the congress. Despite the clarity of the constitution in the executive power given to the president, it does not mention his power to remove officials from office. Though a highly debated issue in the USA, the president can still remove some officials at his discretion, but the congress has defined powers to fire them through impeachment, or restrict their removal from office by the president. Of recent, Nevada State has tried to reform a law to allow governors to appoint judges from the list forwarded by a team of experienced judicial experts. The peoples' votes remain the way of electing the judges into office, and part of the ways they can be recalled. 3. Constraints of Nevada legislature by forms of direct democracy The state law stipulates the citizens’ ability to recall officials from offices from state government. According to Bowers, the recall provision in existence since 1912, allows the voters to remove local and state officials from public offices before their terms expire (45). Once a recall petition is filled, 25 percent of the voter signatures in the unit of government within the state that had participated in the previous election are gathered, which leads to another election. The officials may be reelected or recalled, to have another elected official to fill his position for the remaining period of the term. Recalls are usually a disruption in the legislature, interfering with normal operations of the house held by the recalled officials, besides consuming extra time and finances to justify and defend their actions in office. Because the legislature is a high rank government arm, having several of the recalls on the legislature officials could seriously affect the house, government, and even the public affairs, influencing the passage of bills by the majority, which may not be the will of the state’s people. At times, the disruption could also cause political polarization, as members from one party are targeted than others. Referendums are practiced in most states, where the popular and legislative referenda are common to seek voters’ approval over a particular measure. According to the Nevada constitution, referendum provision is provided for as a petition based process that must be filed with the secretary of state by persons or officials seeking voters’ decision, over a statute or particular clauses in law as passed by the legislature. The legislature of Nevada has hence no more control over the handed statute on the people of the state, and can either disapprove or vote on the resolution, or amendments of the forwarded bill. Once approved by the voters in the referendum, the amendments, resolution, statute, or part of it is uniquely upheld by the state constitution, such that the legislatures or any other body cannot change it, unless altered by the power of the peoples’ vote (Elverum and Erickson 16). Neither can Nevada’s legislature overturn the decision of the people if voted against, unless it is amended and returned to the people, otherwise the statute remains ineffective. Since the enactment of the referendum into law in the early 1904 to 2010, five referendums have occurred on state statute; four were upheld by law, as the legislature hoped after eing approved by the voters, while one (Rabies commission law) was revoked by the people (Cafferata and Erquiaga, onlinenevada.org). Through the referendum, the voters represent their interest as their own representatives, limiting legislature control over certain sensitive issues that may be represented. Just like the referendum, the initiative petitions are filled with the state’s secretary after receiving support by at least ten percent of Nevada’s voters. It acts as the procedure for Nevada people to propose the laws from a public voting when the legislature fails to pass it into law, within the time frame of forty days after being referred by the State’s secretary. In Nevada, the law which allows circulation of petitions to refer bills passed in the legislative house back to the people for their approval, also allow citizens to initiate both the constitutional amendment and the legislature (Elverum and Erickson 4). In one dimension or the other, the legislature's power or will may be constrained to reflect the will of the people, who initiate the statutes or amendments, such that they are compelled to approve the passed law by the people compel. However, if the people’s proposal is not acted upon or rejected by the Nevada legislature, it moves on to the ballot box, allowing people to have control over the legislature, while removing the control of the legislative interference, and control from the law approved by the Nevada voters. Similarly, the Nevada legislature is barred from ever amending a law, which the civil society affirmed by majority votes (Neitzke ddleague-usa.net). The only option would be to send it back to the people, or be initiated by the people themselves to change the decision through referendums. In all the cases, the forms of direct democratic affects the legislative power and control, and its action restrained to specific but varying time frames. The legislature is constrained to perform within the allocated 120 days mandated by the constitution, which at most of the times is inadequate to address the accumulated agendas, unless a special session is called for. Most policies that influence the long term goals could be delayed or affected when pushed to the next sessions, whose agendas are fore planned. The legislature risks attending to the short term issues, when the agendas seem to exceed the timing. 4. Advantages and disadvantages of Nevada’s system of electing judges The greatest disadvantage and worry among the citizens of Nevada based on the election of the jury is that judicial decisions, once the judge takes office, would be influenced by the campaign contributions. It is not a light matter worth overlooking, but the people, the legislature, and officials need to rethink their decisions the method of selecting the jury. The influence may not occur directly or openly before the public members who have cases awaiting hearing, instead it may take time and the judge would have to someway favor the contributors, or disfavor the non contributors. The decisions made are then questioned to have been reached by good faith and sufficient evidence, or generally corrupt. The system again consumes a lot of public finances to conduct judicial campaigns, which are potential tools to corrupt an election, thereby presenting a threat to the judicial legitimacy (“Campaign Contributors,” judicialselection.com). Merit selection prevents the influence of judicial performance by political influence, and eliminates the problems that may arise from jury campaigns and financial influences. Special interests in the election of judges may be exercised, and since the jury would want to retain the largest share of salary and office, they may be inclined to rule towards the majority will. The people of Nevada believe the method has a democratic benefit and allows people to decide whose fit for the position. The system is argued to be credible, considering that the values of the state population are openly shared and accepted, which may not, while in a merit selection. Again, the Nevada citizens prefer the current system over the amendment, since they would retain power to recall judges from office, and allow political parties and the people to keep a check of their performance. The current system allows public scrutiny of the officials campaigning, promoting the recommendation system by the legal professionals, and preventing unfair evaluation posed by the merit selection (“Question No. 1,” 3). Again, the selection by merit comes with additional costs to provide salaries for additional officials, who are already taking too much from the State earnings. Choosing the merit over election method would be like substituting the problem with another. Due to the differences and the trend in other states and federal government, which use the merit selection system, some official in Nevada state has in the past decade been trying to campaign against democratization of the judiciary. In 2010, the Nevada voters rejected a referendum to adopt a merit method of appointing judges in the held election, hence the state opted to retain their system that has judges campaigning and getting elected by the people (Corriher americanprogressaction.org). The current system also extends to have the judge removed from office by the people through recall elections. The results of the election demonstrated the unwillingness of the majority people who opposed the amendment endorsing the merit selection by a measure of 58 % against the 42 % proponents (“Chronology,” 5). It was the not the first time to be rejected, because historical records indicate a similar move early 1970s. The Nevada supreme court is the highest court of the state with jurisdiction to hear appeals as brought forth from the district court; over the years, the workload has been increasing fast to exceed their ability to solve the disputes in time. As a result, it becomes a burden for the Supreme Court, which proves the need for an intermediate appellate court. In the November 2010 referendum, an attempt to establish the court was again rejected by a 53% of voters; a move that continues to exert pressure on the performance of the Supreme Court justices, due to the high case loads (McMuldolas reviewjournal.com). The officials and the legislature are still working on amending the proposal, so that it can be sent back to the people in the next referendum. Though the state voters fear the implications, especially the additional cost, attorneys defending the proposal, after the approval by the legislature and senate will have to work extra hard, to change the voters view by convincing them of the benefits of establishing the court. It will be their mandate to change or retain their form of the judicial system, even in the future referenda. Works Cited Bowers, M. W. The Nevada State Constitution: A Reference Guide. Westport: Greenwood publishing group, 1993. Print. Cafferata, P., and Erquiaga, D. “Referendum.” onlinenevada.org. 1, November 2010. Web. 29, April 2013. Corriher, B. “Merit Selection and Retention Elections keep Judges out of Politics.” americanprogressaction.org . 1, November 2012. Web. 29, April 2013. CQ Press. “Constitutional Powers of the President.” cqpress.com. 2013. Web. 29 March 2013. “Campaign Contributors and Nevada Supreme Court.” judicialselection.com. n.d. Web. 29, April 2013. “Chronology of Successful and Unsuccessful Merit Selection Ballot Measures.” judicialselection.com. n.d. Web. 29, April 2013.  Driggs, D. W. Nevada Politics and Government: Conservatisn in an Open Society. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1996. Print. Elverum, K. C., and Erickson, R. E. “The Initiative and Referendum in Nevada.” leg.state.nv.us. January 1989. Web. 29, April 2013. Legislative Counsel Bureau. “Vetoed Bills of the Nevada Legislature 1899 to 2011.” leg.state.nv.us. May 2012. Web. 29 April 2013. McMurdolas, D. “Voters Reject Changing Judge Selection.” reviewjournal.com. 3, November 2012. Web. 29, April 2013. Neitzke, S. “States DD Chart.” ddleague-usa.net. 2007. Web. 29, April 2013. Nevada State Library and Archives. “Nevada’s Governors.” nevadaculture.org. 2011. Web. 29 April 2013. NPC. “Presidential Powers.” nationalparalegal.edu. 2007. Web. 29, April 2013. “Question No. 1 Amendment to the Nevada Constitution Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 of the 74th Session CONDENSATION (Ballot Question).” nvsos.gov . N.d. Web. 29, April 2013. “The Constitution of the State of Nevada.” leg.state.nv.us. n.d. Web. 29 March 2013. Read More