CITIZEN OUTREACH 09/28/2015

WE DECIDE COALTION UPDATE As you probably read, I ran into a little trouble on Saturday while trying to open a bank account for our Ax the Tax PAC I set up to advocate for the repeal of the entire $1.4 billion tax hike.  Hopefully I’ll get that done later today.  In the meantime, here are some other developments to share with We Decide Coalition supporters… 1.)  I attended a private meeting a week ago with two Henderson businessmen and Mike Willden, Gov. Brian Sandoval’s chief-of-staff, to discuss the damaging effects of the gross receipts tax on Nevada businesses. Now, I understand that Sandoval and Willden will continue to defend the tax hike.  All I asked was that they call off the legal dogs and allow the referendum to proceed to the ballot and let the people of Nevada vote on it. To which Mr. Willden replied, and I quote… “We’re going to do everything we can to stop it from going to the voters.” Such unmitigated arrogance.  2.)  To that end, the tax hikers have set up their own PAC – Coalition for Nevada’s Future - to stop us from getting the tax repeal referendum on the ballot.  And the PAC has sued the We Decide Coalition, claiming the original referendum I filed in early August violates the single-subject law and has an unacceptable Description of Effect. Since we’re proposing to repeal the exact same law that was passed by the Legislature – which also isn’t allowed to pass a bill that violates the single subject rule – we think we have a fair shot at winning on that point. However, even though we reprinted, word-for-word, the same Description of Effect used by the Legislature for the same bill, opponents might have a better shot at getting our referendum struck down by a state court on that point.  So last week I filed a new referendum using the exact same bill language for the tax hikes, but with a new, clearer Description of Effect.  The PAC will still sue us on the new referendum’s language, but if we win on the merits related to the single subject rule, one of the two Descriptions of Effect should also withstand the court challenge. 3.)  Separately, I have filed a motion in federal court alleging that the statutes the Legislature has passed over the last few sessions are an absolute infringement on a variety of our First Amendment rights - including freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to petition the government - and asked that the PAC’s lawsuit filed against our referendum be dismissed. Last week I filed an additional motion challenging the “standing” of the PAC on Article III constitutional grounds since it hasn’t been harmed in any way that qualifies it to bring the lawsuit in the first place.  According to FindLaw.com… “While the Court has been inconsistent over time, it has now settled upon the rule that, ‘at an irreducible minimum,’ the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the party seeking to sue must personally have suffered some actual or threatened injury that can fairly be traced to the challenged action of defendant and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” It’s hard for me to see how this newly-formed PAC, representing just one individual according to its filing with the Secretary of State, has suffered or will suffer any injury whatsoever if the citizens of Nevada are allowed to vote on a constitutionally permissible referendum. Indeed, as I noted in my Motion to Dismiss, the PAC’s sole interest in this referendum is to “sue, delay, block and cause Defendant (supporters of the referendum) expense and chill Defendant’s First Amendment right to petition the government.” The PAC’s lawyers have 14 days to try to justify to the federal district court why they think they do have standing under federal guidelines, which are stricter than state guidelines.  And federal law rules. Could be interesting.  What a victory for we, the people, if the district court puts an end to these harassment lawsuits by uninjured parties and strikes down some of the worst infringements on our right to petition government that have been enacted by the Nevada Legislature and enabled by some Nevada courts. Keep your fingers crossed. 4.)  With the legal shenanigans the tax hikers continue to throw in our way, it would be unwise for us to spend large amounts of money (that we don’t even have) paying a professional signature-gathering firm to collect signatures on our referendum. On the other hand, there’s no reason for volunteers not to begin circulating the petitions as long as everyone understands that there’s a definite possibility that all our work could be for naught in the event of an adverse court decision. That said, volunteer circulators can begin gathering signatures and, if we’re forced to change or amend the referendum, they’ll just have to go back to the folks who signed and ask them to sign again.  But if we somehow prevail in court, we’ll be that much further along in the signature-gathering process. I pretty much finished up the Ax the Tax PAC website – which includes step by step instructions for downloading, printing and circulating the petition – on Friday.  As soon as I get the aforementioned bank account opened and do a final run-through to make sure all the links work, we’ll launch and finally get this ball rolling. Stand by… MOTHER’S DAY CRUISE TO MEXICO! Join Chuck Muth and Citizen Outreach on a special 4-day Mother’s Day/Baja Mexico cruise on the Carnival Imagination.  May 8-12 out of Long Beach, CA.  Stops on Catalina Island and Ensenada, Mexico.  For more information, CLICK HERE FAMOUS LAST WORDS “The fact is that whenever the Legislature is in session the people wait with fear and trembling for it to adjourn and then they thank God that it is over.” - F.F. Dunne of Humboldt County at the Constitutional Convention of Nevada, July 8, 1864 The Conservative Voice.  The Conservative Choice. FREE e-SUBSCRIPTION: CLICK HERE Citizen Outreach is a non-profit, non-partisan grassroots lobbying organization which promotes limited-government public policies and legislation