The Nevada Independent

Your state. Your news. Your voice.

The Nevada Independent

More questions for the gubernatorial candidates

Jon Ralston
Jon Ralston
Opinion
SHARE

Time matters.

It has been quite some time since I suggested that the candidates in the most important race of 2018 should be forced to answer seminal questions before the election. An open governor’s seat has produced four disparate major candidates with different views of a state in transition (we hope) to what Gov. Brian Sandoval calls the “New Nevada.”

I wrote last September that Sandoval’s description to longtime political observer Steve Sebelius of his governing style was instructive: “It’s someone who’s pragmatic, somebody who does their homework, somebody who is a solutions person, somebody who cares deeply about people.”

Even though the U.S. Senate race will be one of the most watched in the country, Sandoval’s successor will have much more say over the next chapter in Nevada history, especially in perhaps the strongest executive branch state in the country. And all of this should be considered in the context of a state government where the embarrassing but not unexpected failure of state Senate recall campaigns have assured the Legislature will have Democratic hegemony.

That makes the answers to the questions I asked even more critical as tempus fugit: Early voting for the primary starts five weeks from this weekend, and the general election is fewer than 200 days hence.

Some have been answered:

We know that Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt and GOP Treasurer Dan Schwartz, his long-shot foe, support reviving Educational Savings Accounts while Democratic Clark County Commissioners Steve Sisolak and Chris Giunchigliani would rather choose death by defenestration than advocate for school choice. If either Sisolak or Giunchigliani wins, ESAs are dead because no bill would emerge from a Democratic-controlled Legislative Building.

But would Laxalt be able to make a deal with the Democrats? Would he do what Sandoval would not do, which is hold up the session until ESAs were alive again? He should answer that question, even though he seems as allergic to dealing with hypotheticals as he is with learning the state budget.

Speaking of which, I am pretty sure both Democrats support the 2015 tax increase proposed by Sandoval, which included the Commerce Tax. But all three candidates need to be pressed on how they will pay for their proposals. All want to continue spending the same amount on education – or so they claim – and Laxalt’s proposal would cost even more after roll-up costs (more kids, more money).

Laxalt has repeatedly been confused about the general fund, the overall budget and federal money and has misstated the percentage of the budget that Commerce Tax represents several times. (I think he is on his fourth estimate now.)

Sisolak and Giunchigliani have advocated spending more, but they have yet to provide concrete spending proposals. Sisolak wants to redirect some monies to education, including an initiative that gaming signed onto long ago for room tax money that lawmakers shamelessly diverted to pay other bills (in violation of what the initiative promised.)

That’s a real plan, but it’s not enough. At least, though, neither he nor Giunchigliani have said they would repeal the first expansion to businesses of the tax system in a decade and a half and a much more serious one, which Laxalt has said he wants to repeal even though he has not said why and even though he seems to think it’s just pennies in the budget. (It generates $400 million a biennium, although businesses can get a credit against the minuscule payroll tax, too.)

Giunchigliani, a longtime legislator, knows the state budget better than the others. But all of them should be asked to quantify how much they want to spend and how they will pay for it.

The answer on the Raiders stadium tax subsidy is clear on the Democratic side. Sisolak wears a Silver and Black uniform every day while Giunchigliani has been an early and consistent foe. Laxalt has dodged the question, and none of the candidates have explained what their overall policy would be for tax incentives.

On social issues, both Democrats appear quite liberal, although Sisolak has been pounded on previous positions. Laxalt is pro-life and has written homophobic tracts, but he has not spoken much about transgender rights. He cannot be expected to be friendly to that cause. Would he have signed the bathroom bill proposed in 2015?

Some of my other questions remain unanswered, including whether they all would support the pharmaceutical transparency bill from last session, whether they would erase the right to work law and whether they think the separation of powers is violated by allowing public sector employees to serve in the Legislature.

Here is another one that needs to be clarified: Laxalt has indicated he supports the Energy Choice Initiative – his chief political patron, Sheldon Adelson, is behind it. The two Democrats both said they voted for ECI in 2016, but then flipped recently at an AFL-CIO panderfest (labor is helping NV Energy try to kill the plan). I would love to see a debate only on energy issues, which are abstruse but which the next governor must lead on.

The issue of gun control, one that may not be easily navigated for the first time ever in this Wild West state, also must be debated. Sandoval vetoed a background checks bill, and even after an initiative passed, he and Laxalt have argued it is unenforceable. Laxalt actually evaded a question (hypothetical, you know) on whether he would sign a background checks bill, and he has lately been cagey about speaking to or embracing a group he proudly fronted for last cycle to try to kill the background checks ballot question.

Let’s see all three flesh out what they would and wouldn’t sign – we have already done some of the spadework in these pages and will try to do more. The standard “let’s see what the bill looks like” evasion shouldn’t cut it in any of these cases.

Other questions that need to be answered: After the abuse of the no-reason-needed recall law by state Senate GOP Leader Michael Roberson and his sycophants, do you support changing the law to only apply to malfeasance in office? Do you support real-time campaign finance disclosure? What public lands and water issues would you advocate for as governor?

There are many others, too. Feel free to suggest some in the comments or email me with your ideas.

It is not hypothetical that one of these people will be in a position to set state policy. The elections are coming soon, and the candidates will try to evade. That’s what we are here for at The Indy, and we know others in the media are our brothers and sisters in arms. This election may not be the most important in history, as the cliché goes, but it’s damn important.

Time matters, and it is running out.

Disclosure: NV Energy, Steve Sisolak and Chris Giunchigliani have donated to The Nevada Independent. You can see a full list of donors here.

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

SHARE

Featured Videos

7455 Arroyo Crossing Pkwy Suite 220 Las Vegas, NV 89113
© 2024 THE NEVADA INDEPENDENT
Privacy PolicyRSSContactNewslettersSupport our Work
The Nevada Independent is a project of: Nevada News Bureau, Inc. | Federal Tax ID 27-3192716