Anyone could have written better rules for special election

Wonder which legislator did such a pitifully poor job writing a bill to spell out how a new House member should be chosen in Nevada in case of a midterm vacancy?

Look no further than former Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson.

In 2003, he sponsored Assembly Bill 344. But Perkins, now a lobbyist, thought so little of the bill that is now causing us so much of a ruckus that he handed the duties of carrying the bill to his intern.

Discussion of the bill in Assembly and state Senate committees focused on dates, not how candidates would qualify to file when there would be no primary.

The bill was about filling a House seat in case there was a catastrophe wiping out at least one-fourth of the House members or one-half of Nevada’s House delegation, so there was a sense of urgency. But it’s far more likely a congressman would die of natural causes or resign.

I asked Perkins how he thought the filing would be handled when his bill was prepared, and he emailed back, "At the time, we believed the SOS (Secretary of State Dean Heller) would create regulations to accomplish it."

Of course, he didn’t answer the question, so I tried again Wednesday, asking again how he envisioned how the filing would work. Alas, no answer was forthcoming.

I can’t believe Perkins ever intended that the correct way to elect a new House member was to allow anyone from a major party to throw their name into the pot. Anyone ever heard of an election like that? It makes no sense.

This confusion could have been put to rest in 2003 if then-Secretary of State Heller had abided by the section of the bill ordering him to "adopt such regulations as are necessary for conducting elections pursuant" to Perkins’ bill.

But Heller didn’t and his elevation from the House to the U.S. Senate marks the first time a Nevada House member has to be replaced.

Secretary of State Ross Miller, elected in 2006, also could have written regulations, but didn’t, until after the possibility turned into reality when Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval appointed Heller to the U.S. Senate.

Miller, a Democrat, decided that any Democrat or Republican could run, a ruling that means the Sept. 13 ballots could contain hundreds, nay, thousands of names. Make a lick of sense to you?

The Democrats are playing partisan politics and want this election for the 2nd Congressional District to be open to one and all … especially one and all Republicans. Lots of Republicans would split the votes and might make it possible for a Democrat to win that seat for the first time, at least if the Democrats lined up behind one strong candidate.

Carson City District Court Judge Todd Russell’s written opinion was a scathing slap down of Miller’s stance for cherry-picking statutes to support his "y’all come to the party" ruling.

Russell’s opinion dissed Miller for his "unreasonable and absurd result" in crafting a filing process that would allow anyone from a major party to file for the seat. Plus, any number of independents could qualify merely by collecting 100 signatures, while minor party candidates would be limited to a list filed by the party.

The Legislature never intended to adopt a new election process, Russell wrote.

I couldn’t agree more.

Obviously, there’s plenty of blame to spread around for this election mess, from Perkins’ lack of specificity, to legislators’ inattention to details, to the failure of Heller and Miller to write regulations.

The Nevada Supreme Court should come down on the side of common sense, a quality that has been sorely missing among Democratic advocates panting at the thought of their party seizing a Nevada House seat in a district no Democrat has held before.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call her at (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/Morrison