Opinion ID: 1190404
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of the Paramount Law

Text: Opponents to the mandamus petition now before us made little or no argument urging that the people of this state have the power to alter the qualifications or terms limits of federal offices created by the Constitution of the United States. Not even Congress has the power to alter qualifications for these federal constitutional officers. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). As this court noted in State ex rel. Santini v. Swackhamer, 90 Nev. 153, 155, 521 P.2d 568, 569 (1974) (quoting 1 Story on the Constitution, (5th Ed. § 627)), [t]hose officers owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion of the people. Further, as Justice Story has observed, the States can exercise no powers whatsoever which exclusively spring out of the existence of the national government.... Id. Thus, the initiative petition, whether it enacts a law or amends the state constitution, can have no effect on the terms of members of the United States Congress. This point need not be overly belabored. The term limits initiative clearly and palpably violates the qualifications clauses of Article I of the United States Constitution. [2] No case authority has been offered in support of the novel proposition that this or any state has the power to impose qualifications for federal office provided for in the United States Constitution. Again, the only question is whether, under these circumstances, the people should vote on a moot issue. [3] Citing our recent decision in Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce v. Del Papa, 106 Nev. 910, 802 P.2d 1280 (1990), respondent and the Nevadans for Term Limits (NTL) contend that this court should decline to determine whether the federal term limits initiative violates the United States Constitution. Our decision in Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, however, did not overrule our holding in Caine, a holding which has remained inviolate in an unbroken line of cases that has stood for almost fifty years. Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, 106 Nev. at 916, 802 P.2d at 1281. To the contrary, this court twice cited Caine with approval in the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce case. Caine stands today and has stood ever since its issuance in 1942 for the proposition that a ballot question may be enjoined by this court where the question, if enacted, would constitute a plain and palpable violation of the United States Constitution and would inevitably be futile and nugatory and incapable of being made operative under any conditions or circumstances. Id. at 425, 137 P.2d at 519 (quoting Gray v. Winthrop, 156 So. 272 (Fla. 1934)). See also Advisory Opinion to the Atty. Gen., 592 So.2d 225, 229 (Fla. 1991) (Overton, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part). In Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, this court addressed a ballot question that arguably might have been applied in a constitutional manner. Unlike the ballot question at issue in Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, the ballot question in the instant case falls squarely into the category of initiative measures defined in Caine which are subject to removal by this court. The question here cannot be implemented in a constitutional manner, and we envision no political utility in burdening an already strapped public fisc with the expense that would inevitably be incurred by placing a meaningless question on the ballot, conducting the election, and tallying the votes. As we noted in Caine: To deny the jurisdiction of courts in a case of this character, where a plain, palpable violation of the constitution is threatened, would be to concede that irreparable injury, obvious and undisputed, was beyond the restraint of the remedial arm of equity. Id. at 427, 131 P.2d at 520.