on 7/16/03 8:39 AM, Edward A Hartnett at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The claim by taxpayers seems premature, at least until the bill is passed > by both Houses and signed by the Governor. And even then, wouldn't the Tax > Injunction Act bar the federal district court's jurisdiction over their > claim, at least so long as Nevada allows them either to resist a state tax > enforcement action or to pay the tax and file for a refund on the ground > that the tax has been illegally imposed? > > Am I missing something?
I have just returned from the federal courthouse in Las Vegas and John Eastman was asked this question a couple of times ‹ once in an attempt to probe the ripeness of the suit, and again to ask him to respond to the executive officials' defense which argued that taxpayers' had no claim until the taxes were imposed. Trying to show irreparable harm in support of an injunction, he argued that if the taxes were enacted by simple majority and signed into law as the Governor has promised to do, the courts would not go behind the formal legislative process to void them, and the vote dilution issues his clients are raising would be lost for good. > > The more I think about the Nevada Court's decision, the more troubled I am. > Suppose the political positions in the state government were reversed, and > the legislature kept passing tax bills that were vetoed by the Governor, > but lacked the supermajority required to overcome the veto. See Nevada > Constitution, Art. IV, section 35. Should the procedural obstacle of a > gubernatorial veto or a supermajority requirement to overcome it give way > to the substantive obligation to fund a particular government expense? How > about if the House and the Governor supported a bill, but the impediment > was the Senate? Should the procedural requirement of bicameralism be > dispensed with? None of this necessarily means that there is a > violation of the federal constitution afoot, but is anyone willing to > defend the decision as a matter of state constitutional law?\ One judge openly agreed with the plaintiff's analysis of the decision's defects, and another was skeptical of the blanket immunity claims being made on behalf of the legislature. The government lawyers could not defend the Supreme Court decision beyond saying that state supreme courts are final arbiters of their own constitutions. Almost all the discussion, however, focused on procedural issues - did Rooker-Feldman bar the suit?, could the legislators be barred by Rooker-Feldman but the voters and taxpayers continue the suit? was the suit ripe? should the Nevada Supreme Court decision have been appealed directly to the US Supreme Court? and so on. > > As Congressman John Dingell once said, "I'll let you write the substance . > .. . and you let me write the procedure, and I'll screw you every time." > > Ed Hartnett > Seton Hall > Ian Mylchreest Las Vegas Business Press
