In a “Fact Check” statement issued a few moments ago, Team Sandoval responds to the new hit ad on their guy:
Today, the Committee to Protect Nevada Jobs launches a negative attack ad against Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval. The ad, produced by a group run by Democrat Rory Reid’s former campaign manager, is Democrats attempt to help Jim Gibbons win the Republican primary.
The ad, which can be seen here, is a blatant attempt to mislead voters by distorting Brian Sandoval’s role in the 2003 Guinn v Legislature case. Based on false assumptions, the ad is a lie.
False Attack #1: Sandoval Overthrows Will Of People [Audio] Attorney General Sandoval worked to overthrow the will of the people.
False. As Attorney General, it was Brian’s job to uphold the Constitution.
In fact, in front of the Nevada Legislature, Brian testified: “This office is not going to opine on how you accomplish balancing the budget, only that you must balance the budget by July 1, 2003. How you get there is the business of this body.”
“The petition does not seek to raise taxes, Sandoval said.” (Sebelius, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7/3/03)
“Direct the Legislature and its members to act by a time certain to comply with Article 11, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada by authorizing and appropriating an amount sufficient for the support and maintenance of the common schools by direct legislative appropriation from the general fund; (Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed July 1, 2003)
False Attack #2: Sandoval: “Must Pass” Tax Increases. [Audio] Even telling the legislature it must pass tax increases.
Brian Sandoval never called for nor agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to overthrow the two-thirds provision to raise taxes.
“We didn’t seek invalidation of the two-thirds vote – the court did that on its own.” [Tom Sargent, spokesman for Attorney General’s office] (Bellisle, Reno Gazette-Journal, 7/16/03)
“…a ruling which offered a form of relief so extreme that even Gov. Kenny Guinn and state Attorney General Brian Sandoval say it went beyond anything they asked for or expected.” (Column, “Trying to Restore Constitutional Government,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 12/28/03)
In testimony to the Nevada Legislature, Brian noted, “This office is not going to opine on how you accomplish balancing the budget, only that you must balance the budget by July 1, 2003. How you get there is the business of this body.”
“The petition does not seek to raise taxes, Sandoval said.” (Sebelius, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7/3/03)
“Direct the Legislature and its members to act by a time certain to comply with Article 11, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada by authorizing and appropriating an amount sufficient for the support and maintenance of the common schools by direct legislative appropriation from the general fund: (Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed July 1, 2003)
False Attack #3: “So Sandoval personally intervened using the courts to force an 800 million dollar tax increase, the largest in Nevada history.”
This too is false. As Attorney General, it was Brian’s job to uphold the Nevada Constitution. Sandoval never called for a tax increase.
The Nevada Constitution is very clear on the three areas that led to the suit: education must be funded, the budget must be balanced by July 1, 2003, and the Legislative session is limited to 120 days. At the end of the 120-day legislative session in 2003, the Legislature hadn’t funded education or passed a budget. After two special sessions, Governor Guinn then filed suit asking the Supreme Court to intervene and compel the Legislature to both fund education and pass a balanced budget. There was no call for a tax increase.
In fact, in the very article Dan Hart’s negative attack ad cites, Glenn Cook writes, “The court, overcome with spotlight-induced black robe fever, was more than happy to exceed its constitutional authority. On a 6-1 vote, justices ruled lawmakers could pass tax increases on a simple majority vote because the Nevada Constitution presented an “irreconcilable conflict”: requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Legislature to pass tax increases while also requiring that public education be funded.” (Column, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 09/06/09)
The fact of the matter is, the decision to invalidate the 2/3 majority requirement was done unilaterally by the Nevada Supreme Court. It is a decision Brian did not agree with then, and Brian does not agree with today.
Since Sandoval did not ask the court to raise taxes or do away with the two thirds provision, who did? The teachers union.
“For those not used to lawyer talk, what those last two sentences clearly imply is that Ms. Chaffee suspected some improper prior communication between the court and those filing the teachers’ unions amicus briefs, to make sure those briefs included arguments that court was looking for — providing the justices a fig leaf so they could reach out and dictate a bizarre, extreme solution which even Attorney General Brian Sandoval says he and Gov. Kenny Guinn never sought.” (Column, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11/16/03)
And who is the lobbyist for the teacher’s union? Dan Hart.
And who have they endorsed for Governor? Rory Reid.
The Reid Shadow Campaign attack ad is false on its face and is designed to mislead voters. The ad is everything that is wrong with politics.
A few comments from me and then I’ll post this for now, with possible updates later.
After Sandoval filed that lawsuit at the governor’s request, the Nevada Supreme Court went off the proverbial reservation and ruled that the 2/3rds requirement ran up against the constitutional mandate to fund our schools. And that we should therefore just, er, ignore it. I don’t know too many folks who thought much of the ruling, and whatever you thought, it’s just a fact that Sandoval didn’t ask the court to do any such thing.
Sandoval did not tell the Legislature it must pass tax increases, just that it had to pass a balanced budget and fund the state’s schools by a certain date. Hiking taxes or not was not up to Sandoval and was not mentioned in his appeal to the state SC.
Nonetheless, the ad is out and will be played a gazillion times and Sandoval now finds himself on the defensive on an issue that will be key to his ability to win the nomination (or not): where he stands, Really, on taxes.
Wonder if he’ll decide signing the Tax Pledge is now the way to go after all?