Opinion ID: 1193995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Special Legislation Question

Text: First, the district court found Sections 163-168 of Chapter 648 to be special legislation, violative of Article IV, Sections 20 and 21, of the Nevada Constitution. [5] As all members of the Nevada Supreme Court agree, this determination was correct. Section 163 would divide Clark County into seven commissioner districts, from which a total of eleven commissioners would be elected: eight county-city commissioners and three county commissioners. The composition of each district is specified by reference to the assembly districts established by Chapter 218 of NRS. [6] Section 164 concerns elections to be held in Clark County in 1976 and 1978, to elect the eight county-city commissioners and the three county commissioners. Section 165 provides for the creation in Clark County of citizens' advisory councils, two in each of the four two-seat county-city commissioner districts, and one in each of the three one-seat county commissioner districts. Section 166 would create a special local government consolidation committee composed of the present seven members of the Clark County Board of Commissioners (in office on the Act's effective date), and the mayor and four members of the Las Vegas Board of City Commissioners (in office on the first Monday in July, 1975). Section 167 enumerates governmental services and functions to be performed individually or jointly by each entity. Section 168 requires that the labor negotiating representatives of both Las Vegas and Clark County participate jointly in labor negotiations with any employee organizations. The appellants, while conceding that the sections just mentioned constitute local or special legislation, contend they have only temporary application, and therefore do not offend the constitutional prohibition. A review of the cases cited in support of this proposition is unpersuasive. See: Cauble v. Beemer, 64 Nev. 77, 177 P.2d 677 (1947); Conservation District v. Beemer, 56 Nev. 104, 45 P.2d 779 (1935); State v. Ruhe, 24 Nev. 251, 52 P. 274 (1898); State of Nevada v. Swift, 11 Nev. 128 (1876); State of Nevada v. Irwin, 5 Nev. 111 (1869). Appellants also urge that Sections 163 through 168 do not violate Nevada's constitution for the reason that emergency circumstances existed, necessitating legislative interference with county government by special legislation, ostensibly because no general laws sufficiently addressed the supposed emergency. See Quilici v. Strosnider, 34 Nev. 9, 115 P. 177 (1911). However, we note that Chapter 648, exclusive of Sections 163 through 168, contains provisions for the election of county officers which ostensibly apply uniformly throughout the state. (See Section 126 of Chapter 648.) Chapter 648 therefore itself constitutes persuasive evidence that a general law can be made applicable as contemplated by Article IV, Section 21 of the Nevada Constitution. Thus, there exists no apparent need for special legislation in this field; and in any event, we perceive no emergency here, much less one of sufficient magnitude to justify special legislation so pervasive as sections 163 through 168. Laws establishing county governments or purporting to regulate internal affairs of such governments must be general in nature and must apply uniformly through the state to all counties similarly situated. Nothing less satisfies the mandate of Article IV, Sections 20 and 21 of the Nevada Constitution. State v. Malone, 68 Nev. 36, 231 P.2d 599 (1951); McDonald v. Beemer, 67 Nev. 419, 220 P.2d 217 (1950). In McDonald v. Beemer , this Court noted the evils which attend legislation directed at one locality: [Such legislation] is invariably referred to the local members and passed without scrutiny from the other representatives and without any feeling of responsibility on their part, thus often leading to improper combinations among the members and even to vicious legislation that would not be permitted were it to affect the whole state. 67 Nev. at 426, 220 P.2d at 220. Therefore, because Sections 163 through 168 apply specifically to Clark County, and to no other county in the state, they must be declared void.