My Cousin Elmo says, “Beheading a satan statue is a hate crime but tearing down a Thomas Jefferson statue is celebrated. Welcome to 2024.”

My Cousin Elmo says, “Nikki Haley losing to ‘None of the Above’ in Nevada is self fulfilling prophecy.”

My Cousin Elmos says, “When two people have sex, it’s a twosome. When three people have sex, it’s a threesome. Now I know why people call me handsome.”

My Cousin Elmo says, “Alabama executed a murderer using laughing gas. He didn’t find it funny.”

The National Taxpayers Union, working with Republican State Senator Robin Titus (SD-17), has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB420, a law establishing a public health care option in Nevada by 2026.

The lawsuit targets Governor Joe Lombardo, Treasurer Zach Conine, NV Director of DHHS Richard Whiteley, Commissioner of Insurance Scott Kipper, and Executive Director of the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange Russell Cook as defendants.

The legislation, spearheaded by Senator Nicole Cannizzaro and passed on a party-line vote during the 2021 Legislative Session, mandates insurers to provide a public option through the state’s health insurance exchange at reduced rates for specific populations. Critics, including the National Federation of Independent Business, argue that the public option will increase health insurance rates and limit choices for individuals above the poverty line.

The estimated cost to Nevadans would be $77 million in the first year of implementation and $200 million in subsequent years.

The legal challenge asserts three violations of the Nevada Constitution, contending that the law lacked the required two-thirds majority vote for bills generating public revenue, grants unlimited discretion to state officials for unspecified use of state funds without legislative approval, and violates the separation of powers principle.

The lawsuit’s filing closely follows state officials submitting a waiver seeking federal funding to support the proposed public option program. Federal officials have a specified timeframe to evaluate Nevada’s application, which includes a public comment period.

In October of the previous year, Lombardo outlined plans to transform the Nevada Public Option into a Market Stabilization Program to enhance stability in the state’s health insurance market. Titus, also a licensed medical doctor, emphasized her commitment to improving healthcare access and expressed concerns about government over-regulation in the healthcare sector.

Abortion is poised to be a central theme in Democratic campaigns across Nevada for the 2024 election.

The overturn of Roe v. Wade has intensified legislative actions related to abortion at both partisan and bipartisan levels. Several bills, including the Reproductive Freedom Amendment (SJR7), have been passed in the Nevada legislature, addressing and solidifying abortion in the state.

While Nevada already has laws safeguarding abortion, the Reproductive Freedom Amendment seeks to amend the state constitution, removing the six-month limitation on abortion and extending the right to abortion up to the moment of birth if the health or mental health of the mother is at risk. Despite existing protections, Nevada Democrats view this amendment as a proactive measure in response to the changing landscape of abortion in the country.

The Reproductive Freedom Amendment is part of broader efforts by Nevada Democrats to champion abortion as a pivotal election issue. Planned Parenthood has designated Nevada as a “safe haven for abortion,” attracting out-of-state women seeking an abortion.

Since the Dobbs v. Jackson decision that overturned federal abortion laws, the number of out-of-state patients seeking abortion in Southern Nevada has doubled, reaching 534 patients in 2022. Patients from Texas, Arizona, and Utah constituted a significant portion of those seeking abortion care in Nevada.

The influx prompted legislative actions, including SB131, which codified former Governor Steve Sisolak’s Executive Order declaring reproductive health care a human right. Opponents of such legislation have raised concerns about Nevada being a hub for human trafficking and the safety of trafficked women and children.

However, not all initiatives aimed at further entrenching abortions have been successful. A recent initiative petition by Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom PAC, seeking to enshrine abortion in the state constitution, was rejected by Carson District Court Judge James Russell, who cited a violation of state law requiring an initiative petition to address a single subject.

Additionally, Nevada’s federal court is considering lifting the order that currently prevents the enforcement of the state’s parental notification requirement for minors seeking abortion. While Nevada has a parental notification statute, it was deemed unconstitutional as part of the Glick v McKay case decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the injunction has remained in place.

My Cousin Elmo says, “The pen isn’t mightier that the sword. Pens do not win battles, swords never write poetry, but mighty is the hand that knows when to pick up the sword, and forgo the pen.”

U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen has introduced the Housing Oversight and Mitigating Exploitation (HOME) Act, aiming to address the issue of corporate investors driving up housing prices in Nevada by engaging in price gouging.

The bill targets corporate ownership of single-family homes, estimated to constitute 15 percent of homes, contributing to increased housing costs for residents. The HOME Act proposes measures to crack down on price manipulation and gouging by corporate investors, empowering the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to investigate such practices.

The legislation does not explicitly define “unreasonable price” but seeks to prevent the renting or selling of dwelling units at such prices during an affordable housing crisis.

Rosen pointed to the impact of high housing costs on Nevadans and aimed to lower housing costs by curbing the influence of corporate investors. The fines collected through the proposed measures would go into the National Housing Trust Fund for enhancing affordable housing nationwide.

Last year, Congressman Steven Horsford introduced a similar version of the legislation in the House of Representatives, highlighting the trend of private corporate speculators targeting communities of color and single mothers. Horsford supports Rosen’s bill.

It would be illegal to rent or sell dwellings at unreasonable prices during an affordable housing crisis under the HOME Act. It would also direct HUD to investigate market manipulation and price gouging and empower the Secretary of HUD to monitor and investigate home purchases by corporate investors. The bill also seeks to limit investments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to organizations that violate renter protections or engage in egregious rent increases.

The legislation has received endorsements from the Nevada Housing Coalition and the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

My Cousin Elmo says, “Sorry guys, the border crisis will just have to wait, fake pictures of Taylor Swift are more important.”

Oral arguments are slated for Friday, February 2, in the Nevada Supreme Court for a Separation of Powers lawsuit brought by Nevada Policy against State Assemblywomen Brittney Miller and Selena Torres and State Senators Dina Neal and James Ohrenschall.

The legal battle follows Nevada Policy’s unanimous victory in April 2022, where the Supreme Court ruled that citizens can challenge the separation of powers without adhering to traditional standing requirements. The organization subsequently initiated a second lawsuit against lawmakers accused of violating the state constitution by serving concurrently in the state government and as government employees.

The Nevada Constitution states that individuals charged with exercising power belonging to one department should not undertake functions appertaining to another.

“Article 3, Section 1: Three Separate Departments; Separation of Powers; Legislative Review of Administrative Regulations.

1. The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments,—the Legislative,—the Executive, and the Judicial; and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases expressly directed or permitted in this constitution.

2. If the legislature authorizes the adoption of regulations by an executive agency that bind persons outside the agency, the legislature may provide by law for (a) The review of these regulations by a legislative agency before their effective date to determine initially whether each is within the statutory authority for its adoption; (b) The suspension by a legislative agency of any such regulation that appears to exceed that authority, until it is reviewed by a legislative body composed of members of the Senate and Assembly which is authorized to act on behalf of both houses of the legislature; and (c) The nullification of any such regulation by a majority vote of that legislative body, whether or not the regulation was suspended.”

After the April victory, Senators Melanie Scheible and Nicole Cannizzaro, subject to the suit, resigned from their positions as county prosecutors.

Nevada Policy contends that many dual-serving legislators are public school employees, highlighting potential conflicts of interest. The organization argues that such conflicts undermine trust in the legislative process when making decisions affecting their employers or educational reforms.

The lawsuit, initiated in July 2020 and initially dismissed by a Clark County District Court judge, has been appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, facing repeated delays. Nevada Policy decried these delays as “gamesmanship” while cautioning about potential public injury due to the continuation of alleged unlawful service or the reluctance of qualified individuals to run for office amidst constitutional uncertainty.

Nevada Policy’s Vice President, Robert Fellner, stated that dual service erodes the foundation of Nevada’s representative government, asserting that lawmakers should enact the will of the people rather than the government’s will. Fellner also questioned whether the court would uphold the principle that Nevadans deserve protection from such constitutional infringements.