Opinion ID: 2460291
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Litigation over A.B. 6, section 18

Text: A.B. 6 was adopted and approved as part of the Legislature's effort to balance the state's budget during its 2010 special session. Section 18 of that bill requires the Clean Water Coalition, an entity created pursuant to interlocal agreement by the Clark County Water Reclamation District and the Cities of Henderson, Las Vegas, and North Las Vegas, to transfer to the State of Nevada securities and cash which together total $62,000,000, for deposit in the State General Fund for unrestricted State General Fund use. In adopting A.B. 6, section 18(1), the Legislature found and declared that: (a) The transfer of money from the Clean Water Coalition to the State General Fund is necessary to ensure that the government of this State is able to continue to operate effectively and to serve the residents, businesses and governmental entities of this State; (b) The transfer of money from the Clean Water Coalition to the State General Fund will promote the general welfare of this State; and (c) A general law cannot be made applicable to the provisions of [Section 18] because of special circumstances. Section 18 became effective on March 12, 2010, and that same day, the CWC filed a district court complaint against the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging section 18's constitutionality on numerous grounds, including that it violated Nevada Constitution Article 4, Section 20, prohibiting local and special laws for the assessment and collection of taxes, and Article 4, Section 21, prohibiting local and special laws where a general law can be made applicable. [5] The M Resort also filed a district court complaint against the State and the CWC, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, also based on allegations that section 18 is not constitutionally permissible legislation. [6] The two actions were consolidated, and the parties stipulated to other businesses (cross-appellants in this matter) intervening in the actions. The State answered the complaints and filed a counterclaim against the CWC, seeking a declaration that section 18 is constitutional and an order compelling the CWC to transfer the $62 million to the State's general fund, as mandated under the bill. Subsequently, on cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered an order declaring A.B. 6, section 18 constitutional. The court made eight conclusions of law, all but one of which would support a determination that section 18 is unconstitutional as a tax upon only certain Clark County residents and businesses, or as a local or special law where a general law could have applied. Nonetheless, the court upheld the bill section because it could not conclude without a reasonable doubt that section 18 plainly conflicted with the Nevada Constitution, given its ultimate determination that each political subdivision remains subject to the overriding sovereign control of statutes enacted by the Legislature. The court certified its judgment as final under NRCP 54(b) and, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, stayed enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. This appeal and cross-appeal followed. [7]