Tyranny of the minority: No such thing

The phrase of the moment in Nevada seems to be "tyranny of the minority," the supposed crime of Assembly Republicans who refuse to vote for a tax plan they don't believe is necessary or just.

Because the Nevada Constitution requires a two-thirds majority of both Assembly and Senate to pass any tax increase, the 15 holdouts are being accused of subverting the democratic process and being selfish at the expense of the greater good of Nevada.

We don't see it that way.

First, the Nevada Constitution requires the two-thirds vote to raise taxes because Nevada voters said in 1994 and 1996 -- by overwhelming majorities -- they wanted it that way. That's hardly a minority opinion.

Second, the established logic for requiring so-called supermajority votes is to protect the minority from the dictates of the majority -- not the other way around.

Is it bad policy to require any amendment to the U.S. Constitution receive the approval of two-thirds of the members of the Congress and three-fourths of the states? Hardly. It has helped keep the U.S. Constitution intact.

It wasn't the 15 current holdouts in the Assembly who established the two-thirds rule. They are simply voting their conscience. Would we prefer our elected representatives do otherwise, simply because they aren't voting with the majority? What an absurd proposition.

Any Nevadan who believes the two-thirds majority for tax increases is bad policy should begin circulating an initiative petition to have the state constitution amended to remove it. With enough signatures, the issue can be put to a popular vote, just like the original in 1994 and 1996.

We're fairly confident we know where the majority will stand on that proposition.