Las Vegas Review-Journal - Steve Sebelius Slash Politics

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Judiciary Committee today voted to advance Senate Bill 243 — the bill that would require everyone arrested for a felony to submit a DNA sample. The bill now goes to the Assembly floor.

A similar bill was rejected during the 2011 session, despite compelling testimony from the family of  Brianna Denison, a college student who was abducted and murdered in Reno in 2008. James Michael Biela was convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. Supporters of the law say Denison might have been spared had it been in effect in 2008, since Biela had a prior felony arrest and had allegedly raped two other women prior to Denison’s murder.

Critics of the bill contend it’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, because DNA would be taken from people arrested for, but not convicted of, a felony crime. Two lawmakers — Assemblymen Richard Carrillo and James Ohrenschall, both D-Las Vegas voted no, citing those concerns.

But Assemblyman Wes Duncan, R-Las Vegas, said the federal government and other states take DNA from people arrested prior to conviction. And other lawmakers dismissed Fourth Amendment concerns. “I think the felony [arrest] standard is reasonable,” said Assemblyman Ira Hansen, R-Sparks.

Elaine Wynn warned us before she began her remarks to the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce today that she was still getting used to her role as president of the Nevada State Board of Education.

The philanthropist reminded the sizable luncheon crowd in a Rio ballroom that she is used to sitting on boards and speaking her mind, not worrying about the political consequences that come with a gubernatorial appointment to the board that sets policy for K-12 education in Nevada.

So that’s probably why she felt no compunction about detailing her views on the state of education funding, among other things. And her view is this: “Conceptually speaking, we are grossly underfunded.” And judging by the applause that followed her statement, the audience of business leaders agreed.

But you know who doesn’t agree? Gov. Brian Sandoval, the man who put Wynn on the board in the first place.

Asked about Wynn’s remarks, Sandoval spokeswoman Mary-Sarah Kinner sent along this statement:

Education has long been a priority for the governor and in his balanced budget, his commitment to K-12 education has increased spending, including an additional $160 million general fund investment, with a total new commitment to English Language Learners and All-day K [kindergarten] of nearly $60 million. What’s more, because the economy is growing and local revenues are up, overall spending on K-12 education is up over $400 million from last biennium.

Translation: We’re spending a lot more cash than we used to, so who you calling “grossly underfunded”? (It should be noted that Nevada Democrats agree with Wynn; they’ve suggested spending at least another $310 million on Nevada schools.)

Wynn is not politically naive, so it’s certain she knew her comment about the state of education funding would be controversial, and even politically risky. But it’s also clear she believed every word of what she said, which puts her somewhat at odds with the man to whom she answers in her policy role.

To be sure, the rest of her speech would have drawn a standing ovation from Sandoval — had he attended — just as it did from the people who were there. “A strong democracy needs to be committed to equal opportunity for all of our children,” Wynn declared at the beginning of her address.

“But now, our melting pot is curdling,” she added, noting that socioeconomic status is determining academic success more and more. Children of wealthy parents do better in schools, and the system is geared against the changes needed to fix it, she said.

Those changes include talented leadership. And she paused to praise three recently departed education leaders, former Washoe County Superintendent Heath Morrison, ex-Clark County Superintendent Dwight Jones and former state Superintendent James Guthrie.

And while Morrison was well-regarded when he departed for North Carolina’s Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board last year, Jones left the Clark County School District with virtually no notice and an outdated school ranking system and Guthrie was essentially cashiered by Sandoval over policy differences. Searches are underway for replacements for both men, and Wynn encouraged national searches.

After saying Nevada’s education system was “not in a good place,” and “if we were to equate the performance of Nevada education to a profit-and-loss statement, we would be facing bankruptcy,” Wynn made a few suggestions for improvement.

First, she said, Nevada needs to put good leaders in top jobs, and they should have the ability to rid the district of bad teachers. “They only job protection should be meritorious service,” she said to applause. “Adults should not be protected at the expense of children.”

And in assessing Nevada’s education spending, Wynn took issue with a key right-wing talking point, that educational performance isn’t linked to resources. She said it was.

Wynn encouraged members of the audience to get involved in education, by watching legislative hearings, following the search for new leadership and speaking out for needed reforms. “I just try to save one kid at a time, but time is running out,” she said.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid said today Nevada has neglected its mental health system for years, and it’s up to the state Legislature to fix the problem.

“If the state Legislature doesn’t do something to address this problem, they’re all to blame,” Reid said at a lunchtime meeting with staffers of the Review-Journal.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid

Reid said his mentor, the late former Gov. Mike O’Callaghan, was very devoted to mental health care, but attention to the issue has waned since O’Callaghan left office in early 1979. “It’s really easy to cut mental health [budgets] because they have no lobbyists,” Reid said. “For years now, the state of Nevada has put mental health backwards.”

Reid’s comments came in response to a question about the patient-dumping scandal, in which mentally ill people were bused out of state. In at least 10 cases, the state cannot demonstrate that patients were met by friends, family or health-care providers at their destinations. The cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco are investigating, and the state has received an admonition from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services to fix problems or lose more than $3 million in federal funds for mental health.

In other remarks, Reid:

• Confirmed that he intends to run for re-election in 2016, saying he’d raised money for that effort during his visit to Las Vegas this week.
• Defended $150,000 in donations to a Democratic Senate leadership PAC from members of the Kemp, Jones and Coulthard law firm made about one month before Reid forwarded the name of Kemp, Jones lawyer Jennifer Dorsey to the White House as a nominee to become a federal judge. (He returned a personal $2,500 contribution from Dorsey herself, to avoid the appearance of a conflict.) Reid said he scrupulously follows federal fundraising rules, and maintained donations don’t affect his judicial suggestions.
• Said the federal government “missed a golden opportunity” to enact Internet gambling regulations, as states including Nevada have moved forward with intrastate rules and perhaps interstate compacts. Reid said state lotteries, several governors and Indian tribes now oppose such legislation, which makes a federal bill much more difficult now.
• Predicted legislation requiring Internet retailers to collect state sales taxes would pass the Senate next week. If that legislation passes the House and is approved by President Barack Obama, it could help cash-strapped states including Nevada fix budget deficits.
• Predicted immigration reform legislation would pass because Democrats and Republicans — including those affiliated with the tea party — worked together on it. “The reason we’re going to get something done on immigration is it’s bi-partisan,” Reid said.
• Said a push by NV Energy to close coal-fired power plants in Nevada and switch to a mix of renewable energy and natural-gas fired plants was a good plan. (Reid had previously called on the company to abandon coal and switch to in-state green power exclusively.) “It’s good that they’re [NV Energy] doing that,” Reid said. “I’m not going to carp because I didn’t get everything I wanted. I hope that the Legislature does it.”

The state’s Department of Health and Human Resources today reported that it has identified 10 patients who may have been discharged improperly between June 2008 and March 2013, four more than have previously been acknowledged.

A new accounting was released after Gov. Brian Sandoval announced this morning that people had been fired for their roles in the scandal. According to this afternoon’s release from HHS, two people were fired, three more will be subject to lesser discipline and four others who were involved no longer work for the agency.

In addition, the state has revised downward the number of cases of patients bused out of state, to 1,473. (A previous figure of 1,508 apparently contained duplicate names.)

Here’s the HHS statement in full:

As has been previously made public, the transportation policy at Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital has been strengthened to now require multiple medical staff and hospital administrator review and approval prior to granting out of state transportation for clients which require tickets purchased for transportation out of state. Furthermore, the transportation policy has been formalized and chaperones are now required to accompany each discharged client receiving transportation ticket assistance out of state.

Of the 1,473 unduplicated instances of clients receiving ticket purchased for out of state transportation, there are 10 instances where insufficient documentation makes it difficult to know for certain that staff confirmed there was a support system/family/friends/housing at the destination. This information indicates that more than 99 percent of the time staff followed the discharge policy and documentation was accurate and complete.

In the 10 cases identified, 9 were admitted with substance abuse issues as their primary diagnosis and discharged directly from the Patient Observation Unit without the need for inpatient hospital admission.

Upon identifying these 10 cases, the following actions have occurred:

There were 9 Rawson Neal medical staff responsible for discharge plans with insufficient documentation.

Of the 9 medical staff, 4 are no longer employed with Rawson Neal Hospital.

Of the remaining 5, 2 have been terminated and 3 will receive further disciplinary action as indicated.

Here is supplemental information to the news released today by the Governor’s office:

During a period of five years, 31,043 people were admitted to the Rawson Neal Psychiatric Observation Unit.

Of the 31,043 individuals, 92% were Nevadan.

Of the 31,043, we initially identified 1,508 instances of individuals who received tickets purchased for out of state travel.

After a review of each of the 1,508 instances, our findings show:

There were duplicates in the initial number so the final total of individuals who received tickets purchased for out of state travel is 1,473.

In each of these cases we reviewed the following:

Did staff follow the “Client Transfer Back to Home Communities” policy? (Current and previous policies are available upon request).

What was this person’s diagnosis at the time of admit?

What was this person’s diagnosis at the time of discharge?

Was this person discharged from the Psychiatric Observation Unit or discharged from the inpatient services of Rawson Neal Hospital?

Regarding how much federal funding Rawson Neal Psychiatric Hospital receives – FY12 Actual Revenue from Medicare was $3,818,082; Revenue from General Fund was $32,522,017.

The debates over campaign reform bills usually degenerate into the silly, as lawmakers search for any possible reason to avoid increasing transparency or giving up the perks of incumbency.

Such was the debate over Senate Bill 49, the secretary of state’s omnibus campaign reform bill. The bill — ridiculously, in my view — would apparently allow lawmakers to purchase clothing using campaign contributions. This provision, dubbed the “Armani suit” rule, drew the ire of Republicans, who seized on it as a reason to vote against the bill.

But it was a Democratic supporter of the legislation — state Sen. Mark Manendo, of Las Vegas — who managed to turn the question of buying clothing with donors’ money into a constitutional issue.

State Sen. Mark Manendo. Hey, that doesn't look like Armani!

“If we tell people, ‘Listen, you can run for office and you can win, but if you don’t have the money to buy a few suits and ties, you can’t serve,’ is that constitutional?” Manendo wondered on the floor.

A diligent search of both the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution and the declaration of rights in Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution failed to locate any language that provide a right of elected officials to spend donor money on clothing, so as to meet the dress codes imposed by Congress or the Nevada Legislature. So the answer to Manendo’s question is, “yes, that is apparently constitutional.”

I’d also accept another answer — “what the @#$%^$ are you talking about?” — as correct.

The Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital

Increasing his efforts to get control of the still-simmering patient-dumping scandal at the Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, Gov. Brian Sandoval announced today that some staff members involved would lose their jobs.

The governor’s office released this statement on the situation:

Governor Brian Sandoval today issued the following statement on further disciplinary action taken at Rawson-Neal based upon internal investigations of patient discharges.  Late last week, the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services concluded a review of all out of state transports between July 2008 and March 2013:

“Over the weekend, I reviewed the results of the investigation into patients transported out of state.  All individuals who violated release policies have been or will be disciplined.  These disciplinary actions include terminations effective today.  While the investigation showed the vast majority of patient releases were done correctly, it also revealed policies were not followed by certain individuals.  I will continue to evaluate the need for further action if necessary.

“In addition, we have obtained proposals from national experts in the mental health field to provide an objective and comprehensive analysis of our state facilities to ensure that best practices are being implemented and followed.  As I have stated before, improperly discharging one patient is one patient too many.  It is important to me and all Nevadans that we treat our most vulnerable members of society with dignity and care.”

Although some have suggested the patient-dumping scandal doesn’t pose a political risk to the governor — the constituency for mentally ill people not being very politically powerful — this statement clearly shows the governor takes the matter seriously. And Democrats have repeatedly pounded Sandoval for his relatively late entry into the story, after the Sacramento Bee reported extensively on a mentally ill man who was sent to Sacramento despite knowing no one in that city.

Clearly, the ultra-cautious Sandoval and his advisers believe this issue has the potential to cause political harm, and they’re trying — belatedly, to be sure — to minimize any potential damage.

UPDATE: And the ever-quick, ever-present Democratic Party waited a whole 43 minutes to reply, thusly:

Las Vegas, NV – Nevada State Democratic Party spokesperson Zach Hudson released the following statement in response to Governor Sandoval’s announcement about his Administration’s patient dumping policy today:

“Given that almost every assertion made by the Sandoval Administration on patient dumping has later proven to be false, this self-policed ‘report’ has as much credibility as Rawson-Neal does on the proper discharge of patients. Considering reports surfaced last week of new allegations of patient dumping after the governor claimed he had taken ‘corrective action,’ Governor Brian Sandoval has proven yet again that he cannot be trusted and Nevadans should be skeptical of anything he says on the scandal.”

How did I possibly miss this classic The Daily Show episode from Tuesday, contrasting American and Australian gun control efforts? The segment features of the show’s best correspondents — John Oliver — interviewing Australian officials about a gun control program Down Under, and a sit-down with the former chief spokesman for U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, Jim Manley.

It did not go well for Manley.

First, Manley tries to explain the failure of last week’s gun control vote by blaming the NRA. A snippet:

MANLEY: The NRA is still a very powerful force in this country. They have 4 million members who are very, very determined to get their way.

OLIVER: And how can a nation of 300 million compete with that?

MANLEY: It’s difficult to understand sometime, isn’t it? But the fact of the matter is you have to think long and hard before you support gun control legislation, because taking on the NRA can be political suicide.

Oliver contrasts that pragmatic view with an interview of former Queensland Premier Robert Edward Borbidge — who lost his office as a result of the 1996 gun-control vote, but had no regrets. “How much is a life worth?” Borbidge asked. Oliver then returned to ask Manley a more basic question.

OLIVER: What makes a politician successful?

MANLEY: Getting re-elected by his or her constituents.

OLIVER: Yeah. (Pause.) Right. (Pause.) That’s how you judge success?

MANLEY: OK, that’s … Well, getting legislation done.

OLIVER: Is second?

MANLEY: Is second, yes.

OLIVER: That is second? (Pause.) Holy shit, that is second?

MANLEY: Uh… (Pause.) If I could re-wind this tape I’d say, getting legislation done, and getting re-elected by your constituents.

OLIVER: But seeing as we can’t re-wind the tape, let’s just go with the answer you gave on instinct.

MANLEY: If you don’t get re-elected, you know, you’re just roadkill in the political process, and you’re just another loser.

(The interview then cuts back to Borbidge, and Oliver asks the question again.)

OLIVER: What makes a politician successful? Go!

BORBIDGE: Making society a better place.

Ouch, baby! It’s clear Manley worked for the ultra-pragmatic Reid for too long, and forgot how his answers might be perceived by a general audience. And while there’s some truth to what Manley was trying to say — you can’t do anything if you’re not in office — he missed two chances to give the right answer: A politician can be considered successful if he or she stays true to the oath of office, bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, helping to form a more perfect union, establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the citizens of the United States, and their posterity.

That’s a pretty good answer, in fact. Manley should maybe write it down. Oh, wait: Somebody already did.

P.S. Manley should probably also not go on The Daily Show anymore. It never works out well for the Reid people.

Gov. Brian Sandoval — perhaps realizing that the burgeoning scandal over a handful of cases of “patient dumping” has the potential to do him political harm — today released a statement saying he’s been on top of things from the beginning, and that the problem is being addressed.

Here’s the text of the governor’s statement:

“In early March, it came to my attention that in at least one instance, discharge policies and procedures were not followed at Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas. In light of this information, my Administration took immediate and voluntary action and initiated three separate investigations. As a result of our investigations, disciplinary actions have been taken and a corrective plan of action was put into place at Rawson-Neal. The new policy, which was put in place weeks ago, provides additional oversight to ensure that discharge and transportation policies are followed correctly.

“Let me be clear, improperly discharging one patient is one patient too many. I take the concerns regarding Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital very seriously and it is not the policy of the State of Nevada to engage in ‘patient dumping’ as been alleged.

“Throughout the investigative process, I received regular briefings from the director of the Department of Health and Human Services and last Friday, I toured Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital and spoke extensively with the hospital administrator. Yesterday, I briefed the leadership of the Nevada Legislature on the investigative process and what these investigations have found to date.

“My administration has been and will continue to be open and transparent on whatever the findings of these investigations are. The state of Nevada has taken extra steps to ensure that when a patient is discharged, there is a proper plan in place. Rawson-Neal is safe, modern, and has a five-star accreditation. Further, I know it is the goal of the health care professionals at Rawson-Neal to provide the best care possible. I am confident that with the new strengthened discharge procedures in place Rawson-Neal will continue to treat all patients with dignity and a high standard of care.”

The statement comes on the heels of critical coverage in the Sacramento Bee newspaper, which covered the story of a mentally ill man put on a bus for Sacramento, Calif., although he knew no one in that city and had no support system there. Democrats have been pounding the governor on the issue, collecting critical media reports and sending them to Nevada reporters. (The city of San Francisco, for example, is investigating the patient dumping, and the city attorney of Los Angeles, who is also investigating, has compared it to human trafficking.)

Democrats replied with a statement of their own:

“The fact that it took over a month for the governor to issue a statement that again defends the facility facing the patient dumping allegations is disappointing even for an administration that has become defined by this scandal. The governor’s statement misleads Nevadans by implying there was no policy of busing patients out-of-state when there is,in fact, a written policy still in place to this day. Governor Sandoval needs to fess up to Nevadans what his 2011 budget proposal already made clear — helping Nevadans with serious mental illnesses is not his priority.”

It’s important to remember that not every case in which a mentally ill person was bused out of state constitutes patient dumping. The vast majority of such incidents, in fact, are the result of the patient’s own request, and are intended to reunite patients with family members or caregivers in their own states.

The Sacramento case — and a few others unearthed by a state investigation — are quite different, egregious failures of Nevada’s system to give proper care to people in need. The state itself has acknowledged wrongdoing in those cases.

It’s also important to note that Nevada governors since at least the term of Democrat Bob Miller (1988 to 1998) have been consistently accused of failing to provide sufficient funding for Nevada’s mental health system. And while some of that criticism is obviously political, much of it is legitimate. Nevada is simply a bad place to be mentally ill.

These points are sure to be lost in the politics of this issue, however, as Democrats clamor to use negative press clippings against the previously invulnerable Sandoval, and the governor reacts to limit the political damage. Politically, the most we can hope for is the scandal prompts Nevada lawmakers to find the money necessary to give our state’s mental health system additional funding, even as the governor acts to prevent a repeat of the incident that sparked the coverage in the first place.

UPDATE: Sandoval’s spokeswoman sent out a “corrected” statement a short while ago. I’ve compared the document to the earlier one, and the altered paragraph appears below with new language in bold italics.

“Let me be clear, improperly discharging one patient is one patient too many. I take the concerns regarding Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital very seriously and it is not the policy of the State of Nevada to engage in ‘patient dumping’ as been alleged by some. Rather, patients have a right, and a desire, to return home to their friends and families.

Nevada’s Democrats have been paying fairly close attention to the patient-dumping investigation published recently in the Sacramento Bee, as well as a follow-on editorial. But it’s not for the obvious reason — the outrageous idea sending a mentally ill man on a long bus ride to a community where he knew no one and had no support system.

Instead, Nevada’s Democrats see something they haven’t seen up until now: A possible line of attack on Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval.

Up until now, Sandoval has made very few mistakes, a testament to good political advice and the governor’s own natural political skills. (A risible presidential endorsement of Texas Gov. Rick Perry is all but forgotten and forgiven.) Confronted by an already-thin state budget in 2011, Sandoval reversed a campaign-trail position against taxes to extend a package of expiring levies to cover a budget gap. He continued those taxes in this year’s budget, to avoid having to make deeper cuts. And he’s made a habit of trickling out news of “found money” to support education and health care.

Democrats have been scrambling to ask who they will find to run against Sandoval, and perhaps more important, what issue could such a candidate use against him? The traditional answer — he hasn’t done enough to help schools, or the sick, or the poor — necessarily positions a candidate to Sandoval’s left, where the poor Democrat could easily be dismissed as a tax-(even more)-and spender.

But now, with even the state’s Health and Human Resources director admitting the state “blew it” with respect to at least one application of its policy of repatriating mentally ill people to other states, Democrats see an opportunity. Sandoval has responded to the Bee‘s investigation cautiously, as is his wont. But with the Bee calling the governor out by name in its Sunday editorial, suddenly, there’s an issue.

Of course, the incredibly complex nuance of this story is lost in the shuffle. Not every case of putting a mentally ill person on a bus to somewhere else constitutes “patient dumping.” In many cases, patients have requested help in returning to their homes, or to other states where they have roots and a connection to mental health services. Only a small minority of cases are true patient dumping, although the case of dumped patient James Flavy Coy Brown — which drew this scandal to the Bee‘s attention — certainly fits the definition.

Is the governor vulnerable on this? As the chief executive of the state, he bears ultimate responsibility. He’s said of the matter, “if there is a problem, we’re going to correct it.” The conditional framing is laughable: The state has already admitted it was wrong to send Brown to Sacramento. A state investigation has found problems with a handful of other transfers. As the Bee said, “Mr. Sandoval, you’ve got a problem.”

They’re more right than they know. The problem is both on policy — reviewing the state’s practices with regard to the mentally ill, and enduring an outrageous abuse of the kind that happened in Brown’s case is never repeated — and on politics. Both can certainly be fixed, but it’s obvious Democrats think they’ve found their first real issue for 2013.

When Assemblyman Joe Hogan, D-Las Vegas, first introduced Assembly Bill 141, a bill to ban mandatory “tip pools” at all Nevada businesses, I had mixed feelings.

I was glad that somebody in official Nevada finally had the gumption to stand up and say the “tip pooling” policy that Steve Wynn had implemented at the Wynn Las Vegas starting in 2006 was wrong. Wynn had designated his pit bosses as “casino team leads,” and had instituted a mandatory expansion of an already-existing card dealer tip pool to include the former supervisor positions. This was done in order to boost the salary of the team leads, which in many cases was lower than card dealers because of tips.

Dealers objected, claiming the mandatory pool was a violation of NRS 608.160(1) and (2), which reads:

1. It is unlawful for any person to:

(a) Take all or part of any tips or gratuities bestowed upon the employees of that person.

(b) Apply as a credit toward the payment of the statutory minimum hourly wage established by any law of this State any tips or gratuities bestowed upon the employees of that person.

2. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to prevent such employees from entering into an agreement to divide such tips or gratuities among themselves.

Now, this law seems fairly clear on its face, so long as we’re using the dictionary definition of “take,” which means, among other things, “to get by conquering; capture; seize” (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed.). Nevada’s labor commissioner certainly didn’t think the word applied, given that Wynn wasn’t taking and keeping the tips for himself, but rather taking and redistributing the tips to his workers.

Note to Nevada residents: I would not try robbing a liquor store and then distributing the money to the poor and then telling Metro Police robbery detectives that you were not “taking” the money, and therefore it cannot be illegal under Nevada law. That would probably not work.

But here’s where the mixed feelings come in: If current state law does ban mandatory tip pools — and I think it does — then doesn’t introducing a law to ban the practice necessarily admitting that state law is not clear on its face? Yes, we can say that we’re clarifying or strengthening the law all we like, but if you’re advocating to change the law to ban something you say is already illegal, you’ve got a little explaining to do. That point became especially acute in 2011, when a Clark County District Court judge ruled that, in fact, existing law does ban Wynn’s mandatory tip pool. (That case is on appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. For his part, Wynn defends the policy as a legitimate business practice, and points out that after the card dealers at his hotels unionized, the final contract — negotiated over four years — leaves the tip pooling policy intact. The dealers union says refusing would have meant a strike, with workers losing their jobs and being replaced.)

In any case, I endorsed the idea of Hogan’s legislation in a Review-Journal column, and hoped the bill would at least get a hearing.

But no: AB 141 died an ignominious death on Friday, when a deadline for bills to pass out of their committees came and went. It was never even mentioned in the Assembly’s Commerce and Labor Committee.

During brief interviews in Carson City, Commerce and Labor Committee Chairman Assemblyman David Bobzien, D-Reno, told me labor groups had disagreements about the bill, with the dealer’s union, the Transport Workers Union Local 721, supporting it, but other labor groups such as the Culinary Union Local 226 siding with Wynn on the issue. (The Culinary has a signed contract and good relationship with Wynn.) And while agreement among labor groups is not required to hold a hearing on a bill, politically it made the issue more difficult.

I asked Danny Thompson, executive secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO of Nevada, about the bill, and he told me the same thing: He stayed far away from the bill because it was a point of contention between two of his constituent unions. Again, understandable, but I would have loved to see Thompson’s force and fury directed at a policy such as Wynn’s if his groups were united against it. Talk about a clash of the titans.

But since no other hotel-casino has instituted such a policy, and because only one union is against it, the bill predictably died. That means the one chance — the only chance, really — that card dealers at the Wynn have left for reversing the policy rests with the Supreme Court. Oral arguments on the case have been set for this summer, and a ruling is expected sometime thereafter.

Does “take” mean “take”? Does the policy violate the spirit and/or the letter of current law? Should the laws be changed to prevent such policies? State lawmakers outside of Hogan and his three co-sponsors (Assembly members Andrew Martin, D-Las Vegas; Harvey Munford, D-Las Vegas; and Michael Spinkle, D-Sparks) couldn’t be bothered even to ask those questions, so now, it’s up to the courts.

Editor’s note: This post has been altered from its original version to correct an error. 

CARSON CITY — It was probably inevitable that Assemblyman Joe Hogan‘s bill to legalize marijuana outright would die. The Las Vegas Democrat said today the bill will die without getting a vote in the Assembly’s Judiciary Committee, although it did get a hearing earlier this month.

Technically, however, the bill will not die — a fiscal note qualifies it to be exempt from the rules that bills pass out of their first committee by today. But further action seems highly unlikely.

Although voters in two other states — Colorado and Washington — have voted to legalize marijuana, it still remains controversial. Gov. Brian Sandoval weighed in, saying he’d veto the bill if it came to his desk. And few lawmakers want to go to war over a vote that could easily be used to haunt them on the campaign trail. (Indeed, Hogan says this is likely his last session and he won’t be back in Carson City, although co-sponsors Andrew Martin, D-Las Vegas, and Heidi Swank, D-Henderson, are both freshmen serving their first terms.)

Ultimately, however, this is merely a delay; marijuana will someday be legalized in the entire United States. The arguments for it — the fact that it’s not addictive, less harmful than alcohol, and useful for treating medical conditions — have always been more compelling than the arguments in favor of continued prohibition. The irrational fear of its legalization ultimately will fall, and someday, we’ll all wonder what all the fuss was about.

In the meantime, it might be helpful for proponents to confine themselves to the factual and scientifically based arguments on behalf of marijuana, and not, say, claim marijuana can cure cancer and doesn’t impair one’s ability to drive a car. That doesn’t advance the cause so much as cause people to wonder if all proponents are heavy users of the product.

But before we move on from this issue, a note of thanks to Hogan for being willing to bring this forward.

CARSON CITY — State Sen. Justin Jones, D-Las Vegas, today led the Senate Health and Human Services Committee in approving two bills aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, encouraging his fellow lawmakers to stand up against a vocal gun lobby trying to kill both pieces of legislation.

Senate Bill 211, which requires courts to send notice that a person has been adjudicated mentally ill to the state criminal history database within five business days and requires private parties wishing to sell weapons to do a background check on potential purchasers, and Senate Bill 277, which prohibits gun sales to people after a petition for involuntary mental health commitment has been filed against them, both passed the committee. State Sens. Joe Hardy, R-Boulder City, and Ben Kieckhefer, R-Reno voted against SB 221, while only Hardy voted against SB 277.

Before the vote on SB 221, Jones hinted at the incredible lobbying pressure lawmakers on the committee were under. Fellow committee member Debbie Smith, D-Sparks, said some of the feedback from people opposed to the bill was unpleasant.

State Sen. Justin Jones, D-Las Vegas, chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee

But Jones cited polling data to show most Nevadans support the restrictions contained in the bills. According to a recent statewide poll conducted by Democrats, 86 percent of people strongly or somewhat favor making all gun sales subject to background checks, as well as preventing people with a history of mental illness from buying guns. In Clark County, 88 percent favor universal background checks, and 84 percent support keeping those with a history of mental illness from buying weapons, according to the poll.

“I understand this is not an easy issue. But we need to stop cowering at the vocal but small minority and do what is right for our constituents, for our children and for the state. We need to listen to our law-enforcement officials about what will prevent crime,” Jones said. “I dedicate today’s vote to the victims at the IHOP down the street, and at Sandy Hook.”

(In Sept. 2011, mentally ill Eduardo Sencion — who said he heard demons telling him to do bad things — opened fire in an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, killing four, including three Nevada National Guard soldiers.)

Hardy said he voted against the bills because he didn’t think they addressed the key issues surrounding mental health. He said the justice system doesn’t move swiftly enough to deal with mental illness, and that deadlines in the bill are arbitrary. A physician in private practice, Hardy recounted taking guns away from patients who told him they were suicidal. ”And I give them back when they’re better,” Hardy said.

But Smith summarized the feelings of most of the committee, saying “I prefer to do this than to do nothing.”

The bills will go to the full Senate for approval.

CARSON CITY — A package of ethics and campaign finance reforms won approval from a Senate committee today, including a provision that would require lawmakers to annually tally how much money they have in their campaign accounts.

That long-sought reform was part of a host of reforms contained in Senate Bill 49, including banning gifts to lawmakers from certain people, reporting some campaign contributions within 72 hours during early voting, and authorizing civil actions to enforce violations of the law.

The vote on the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee was split 3-2, with Republican state Sens. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, and James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, voting no. Committee Chairwoman Sen. Patricia Spearman insisted on a roll call vote, saying “I thought it was important to stand up and be counted.” In announcing his vote, an apparently annoyed Settelmeyer said: “For the cameras, nay.”

The bill was amended from its original version by the secretary of state’s office, increasing the threshold of immediately reportable contributions from $1,000 to $2,000; includes Internet advertising in the definition of campaign expenditures; and allows attending charitable and educational events as exceptions to the gift prohibition. And under an amendment suggested by state Sen. Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas, candidates won’t be forced to disclose any cash on hand raised before 2014 on their annual reports.

Atkinson said he was worried that political opponents might review past spending reports, add them up and — if the amounts didn’t reconcile — make allegations of improper fundraising or reporting. But Deputy Secretary of State Scott Gilles said at an afternoon hearing that the numbers may not add up because reporting requirements have changed over the years. He acknowledged that, under the amendment, current elected officials would not be required to list their current cash on hand, but as the requirement takes effect, ultimately all public officials would be reporting accurate totals.

“Some will perceive this as watered down, but I perceive this as a compromise,” Atkinson said. “Does it go all the way? No, it doesn’t. But it helps.”

Cegavske said in her 17 years in public office, she’s never had a constituent ask her for fundraising or expenditure information. “The only people who want it are the people in the audience, the reporters, and your opponents,” Cegavske said.

But, as a Republican, surely Cegavske is aware of the proud legacy of her party’s one-time leader, Richard Nixon, whose 1972 campaign cash shenanigans led to a host of reforms aimed to preventing abuse of the system and promoting accountability for elected officials. And while her constituents may not have asked her about her reports, surely at least some of them have looked them up on the secretary of state’s website, or read about them in the newspaper after nosy reports published the details.

Committee member Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas, complained that “reporters” were blaming him for the bill’s delay in passage, but he insisted he supports the measure and seconded the motion to approve it. But earlier in the hearing, he complained about the volume of reporting required in the bill of lawmakers, and at one point seemed to sarcastically suggest a monthly report.

Settelmeyer said he objected to the 72-hour reporting requirement, saying it could dissuade a person from participating in the political process.

CARSON CITY — Police agencies in Southern Nevada are one step closer to getting additional money to hire more cops, after the Assembly Taxation Committee voted nearly unanimously to approve a compromise sales tax plan.

Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce, D-Las Vegas, was the lone vote against an amended version of Assembly Bill 496.

The bill will allow the Clark County Commission to impose a sales tax increase of 0.15 percent, which is less than the originally proposed 0.25 percent, starting in October 2013. The commission must get at least a two-thirds vote to impose the tax.

Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie has been in Carson City for the past two days, personally lobbying for the bill with various lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick. The speaker confessed during today’s hearing to being the bill’s biggest critic, and warned that Clark County had to watch its sales tax rate, which is already high at 8.1 percent. She also stressed that if the money is misspent, funds can be taken away and used by other police agencies.

Departments across Southern Nevada have benefited from the so-called More Cops initiative. In 2004, Clark County voters narrowly approved an advisory question to raise the sales tax by 0.5 percent to hire more officers. (The vote was 52 percent to 48 percent.) But the 2005 Legislature allowed only 0.25 percent, and said departments could return for the other half in the future. But no one asked, especially after the recession hit and Metro Police used reserves to weather the economic storm.

Originally, the plan was to ask the Legislature to authorize the county commission to implement the tax in stages, 1/8-cent immediately and another 1/8-cent in 2015. But that was replaced by the 0.15 percent compromise. (Under the bill, the county could implement a lesser amount, and add the remainder later.)

The bill now goes to the Assembly floor, and then to the Senate. Although the bill authorizes a tax increase, it is not subject to the constitutional two-thirds rule, since it doesn’t actually raise the tax, but allows the Clark County Commission to do so. The bill is subject to a gubernatorial veto, but Gov. Brian Sandoval has already declared he’ll support the measure.

UPDATE: Pierce told me via email that she voted against the police sales tax because she made a vow to herself to not vote for any sales tax increases until Nevada adopts a broad-based business tax. (No such tax has been proposed in the Legislature, but the Nevada State Education Association qualified an initiative for the 2014 ballot that would impose a 2 percent business margins tax starting in 2015.) Pierce said the Clark County sales tax is already one of the nation’s highest, and that she preferred police spend all reserve funds before asking for a tax.

CARSON CITY — The effort to repeal Nevada’s constitutional ban on gay marriage took a sudden turn this morning, with an amendment that would make clear Nevada grants and accepts all legal marriages — gay or straight.

Senate Joint Resolution 13 in its original form would simply have deleted the anti-gay marriage provision inserted into the constitution by voters in 2000 and 2002, when a line was added that reads, “Only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.”

But under an amendment brought to the Senate Legislative and Operations Committee this morning, that language would be replaced by two new lines, which read: “The state of Nevada and its political subdivisions shall recognize marriages and issue licenses to couples, regardless of gender. All legally valid marriages shall be treated equally under the law.”

That change drew a strong objection from state Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, who said that while he supported deleting the section that banned gay marriage, he objected to inserting language that embrace all marriage. He and state Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, voted against the resolution. All Democrats on the committee — Chairwoman Patricia Spearman, Mark Manendo and Kelvin Atkinson — voted to approve the amendment and send the resolution to the full Senate.

The change was apparently brought because simply eliminating the gay marriage ban from the constitution would not in and of itself legalize gay marriages in Nevada. State law specifically limits marriage to male and female person only, and that statute would have remained in force, even if the constitutional amendment was approved. Lawmakers would have had to pass a separate law to authorize gay marriage in Nevada. But under the resolution as amended by the committee today, gay marriage would be constitutionally authorized in the state.

The resolution must still be approved by the full Senate and the Assembly this year, and then again in 2015, before it finally goes before voters in 2016.

Change may come sooner, however, depending on the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in a legal case against California’s constitutional gay marriage ban, or a separate lawsuit filed against Nevada’s gay marriage ban now pending at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.