AUSTIN, TX – I have just finished moderating a panel at the annual Texas Tribune Festival titled, “Country Over Party,” with a quintet of panelists steeped in GOP politics but who share a disdain for what President Trump is doing to their party and the United States.

It was a provocative discussion with agreement on the breakdown of political norms and institutions but no real consensus on how it can be fixed – proposals for structural reforms such as redistricting in the states and inside the parties along with calls for braver elected officials and better candidates.

My mind wandered as I Ubered back to the hotel about a more parochial version of the theme, “State Over Party.” I had already begun thinking about those I have covered who have done so because of a major news event last week – I’ll get there – but I started thinking of just how DC dysfunction has infected Carson City.

The partisanship was at its zenith last session, especially in the state Senate, and if there had been more communication (both ways) across the courtyard with the governor, the outcome might have been much different. Nevertheless, no governor has been more State Over Party than Brian Sandoval, and not just because of his brave decision to raise taxes and broaden the base in 2015.

His expansion of Medicaid – he was the first Republican governor to do so – showed he put values over ideology. And his fervent defense of the move, even going so far as to take on fellow Republican Dean Heller when the senator (falsely) argued that his Obamacare repeal bill was good for Nevada, showed an admirable consistency and courage.

Sandoval’s refusal to embrace Donald Trump last year and as president also shows how he put state over party, perhaps even costing himself a federal judgeship or even a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. He is the exemplar.

Sandoval, though, is not alone. Another recent example of putting state over party came from state Sen. Michael Roberson, 2015 version, who pushed Sandoval’s tax increase through the Legislative Building, costing himself a congressional seat. There was no political upside for him. None.

There are, thankfully, plenty of others through the years I could name. Bill Raggio and Joe Dini were statesmen extraordinaire. I looked over old legislative matrices and found plenty, albeit not enough.

And they are scarcer now.

That’s what reminded me of last week’s news that Paul Anderson, the de facto speaker of 2015 and the minority leader in 2017, was resigning to take a job with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development. I don’t like our citizen Legislature – I think they should be full-time and meet every year.

But Paul Anderson embodied the best of the concept, a man driven by hard work and unafraid of hard choices, a man who sacrificed time from his business and his family to try to make Nevada a better place, a man whose guiding principle of compromise and bipartisanship made him an outlier in an increasingly partisan and toxic place.

That is not to say that Anderson could not be ideological – a word that has now become dirty in the political lexicon. (So, too, can Sandoval, by the way – he also believes in many conservative precepts. But this is a world now where the exception is the rule.)

Anderson believes deeply in conservative principles, including school choice. No one fought harder for or worked behind the scenes more diligently last session to get to a middle ground on Education Savings Accounts.

But when confronted with the difficult choice he and other Republicans faced in 2015 with Sandoval’s budget proposal, he did not flinch, even though he knew the brickbats would come from the right. Anderson helped marshal support in his house for the tax plan, and it passed easily despite a GOP majority.

He rounded up his troops for what he knew would be unpopular with the base and might cost him some seats (he was right). But he did it because he thought it was righteous, despite his party affiliation. It’s called leadership.

I was very sad when I learned Anderson was leaving, even though I know it is a great opportunity for him. I was sad because his voice will be missed. I was sad because his approach will be missed. I was sad because his commitment will be missed.

I had my differences with Anderson – he once voted for what I thought was a thoroughly abhorrent bill, and he once attacked me on Twitter. Spilt milk.

Paul Anderson would have been right at home with those panelists at the Tribune event Saturday. He would have lamented the partisan screeching and the legislative dysfunction. He would have showed how you can stand for something, can have principles, and still talk to and accommodate the other side if there is a greater good at stake.

Country over Party, State over Party. The only difference is the venue.

And what Anderson’s departure signals is that for him – and for others similarly situated – the party is over.

Jon Ralston is the editor of The Nevada Independent. He has been covering Nevada politics for more than 30 years. Contact him at [email protected]. On Twitter: @ralstonreports