Court Opinion

ID: 9787395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:15:42.199705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:50.256504
License: Public Domain

Leavitt, J.,
with whom Young, J., agrees, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because only the Nevada Legislature can change the duties of the office of County Clerk.
The Nevada Constitution provides:
The Legislature shall have power to increase, diminish, consolidate or abolish the following county officers: County Clerks, County Recorders, Auditors, Sheriffs, District Attorneys and Public Administrators. The Legislature shall provide for their election by the people, and fix by law their duties and compensation. County Clerks shall be ex-officio Clerks of the Courts of Record and of the Boards of County Commissioners in and for their respective counties.1
In response to the constitutional mandate, the legislature has specifically named the county clerk as the clerk of the district court.2 Additionally, the legislature has set forth the duties of the county clerk as that position pertains to the district court.3
Counties are legislative subdivisions of the state and obtain their authority from the legislature.4 Therefore:
Whenever a legislature sees fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject, local control over the same subject, through legislation, ceases. In determining whether the legislature intended to occupy a particular field to the exclusion of all local regulation, the Court may look to the whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme.5
In this instance, preemption of this subject by the legislature is evidenced by the passage of legislation outlining the duties of county clerks throughout the state. The Nevada Constitution *774requires that all county government “shall be uniform throughout the State.’ ’6 Likewise, the constitution requires that all laws in the state must be “general and of uniform operation throughout the State.”7 Therefore, I disagree that one county in the state should be able to change the duties of the county clerk in a manner that not only has ramifications throughout the state, but is also in clear violation of our constitution.
The majority recognizes certain ramifications in that some counties may not have sufficient work for both a county clerk and a court clerk and additional funds would be necessary to accomplish the separation of the county clerk from the court clerk. Additionally, some district courts have multi-county jurisdiction, which would require court clerks for each county within the district. The majority concedes that separating all or part of the court clerk’s office from the office of the county clerk is “an enormous undertaking with serious consequences” and “should not be taken unless a court deems it essential to the operation of the court.” This decision should be left to the legislative branch as stated by our state constitution, to be made only after public hearings and debate where additional consequences can be explored.
This court should exercise judicial restraint and recognize that it is the legislative branch of government that has been given the power under our state constitution to fix by law the duties of the county clerk.
Further, the majority’s reliance on Zumwalt v. Superior Court8 to justify its decision is misplaced. In Zumwalt, the County of San Diego transferred certain court-related duties, and the civil service employees who performed them, from the county clerk to an executive officer of the superior court.9 This action was taken pursuant to a court rule that had been adopted as a result of enabling legislation passed by the California Legislature.10 The California Supreme Court ruled that the duties of the county clerk were entrusted to the legislature under the California Constitution, and the statute authorizing the transfer and the court rule were valid.11
Unlike California, however, there is no enabling legislation in Nevada — only a county ordinance — to justify the intrusion on the duties of the office of the duly elected County Clerk of Washoe County. This ordinance is insufficient to support such an intrusion.
*775Accordingly, I would grant the petition and order this court’s clerk to issue the writ.

Nev. Const, art. 4, § 32.

NRS 3.250 states that “[t]he county clerk shall be clerk of the district court of his county.” See also NRS 246.060(1) (stating that “[t]he county clerk shall be ex officio clerk of the board of county commissioners, and also clerk of the district court of his county”).

NRS 3.250 to 3.307, inclusive.

Nevada Constitution article 4, section 25 reads: “The Legislature shall establish a system of County and Township Government which shall be uniform throughout the State.” See also Falcke v. Douglas County, 116 Nev. 583, 3 P.3d 661 (2000).

Lamb v. Mirin, 90 Nev. 329, 332, 526 P.2d 80, 82 (1974) (citation omitted); accord Crowley v. Duffrin, 109 Nev. 597, 605, 855 P.2d 536, 541 (1993).

Nev. Const, art. 4, § 25.

Id. § 21.

 776 P.2d 247 (Cal. 1989).

See id. at 251-52.

See id.

See id. at 249.