Differences between the Nevada Constitution and US Constitution

The Importance of the Nevada Constitution The federal government in the United States has enacted a constitution that serves all states in the union. The U.S. Constitution establishes the structure of the federal government and the scope and limitations of its powers. This constitution was established as part of the principles of democracy on which the United States is built upon. As part of its democratic ideals, each state in the country has its own constitution and constitutional law. While the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, state constitutions outline governance structures within the state and bill of rights. State constitutions differ from the federal constitution as they focus more on limiting instead of granting power/authority. This is based on the idea that general authority has already been granted in the federal constitution. This paper explores the difference between the Nevada Constitution and the U.S. Constitution in terms of its length, power structures, democratic ideals, and the selection of judges.

Why the Nevada Constitution is Longer than the US Constitution The State of Nevada has a constitution whose history can be traced to 1864 when it was ratified. The Nevada Constitution is considered one of the most durable and oldest founding documents in the history of the United States (Bowers, p.1). While the core of the Nevada Constitution was written in 1864, it has been amended more than 100 times but remains intact as the initial restrictions and limitations placed on elected officials by original authors still remain. Despite the numerous amendments, most of the political rights enunciated by its original authors have been maintained and expanded over the years. The Nevada Constitution has maintained its originality despite its numerous amendments and rapid changes in the State. As a result, it is regarded as one of the most adaptable social contracts in the history of the country.
Similar to other state constitutions, the Nevada Constitution differs from the U.S. Constitution in various aspects. Given these differences, the Nevada Constitution is lengthier than the U.S. Constitution as it has retained its core components over time. The Nevada Constitution is similar to other state constitutions with regards to form and substance. It is lengthier than the U.S. Constitution since the State has not exchanged its original one for a more contemporary one like many other states.
The length of the Nevada Constitution is important because of the state’s governance framework, which differs slightly from the U.S. Constitution. The length of the Nevada Constitution is important because of the maintenance of the core aspects of its original authors. The original authors sought to include more trivial matters in governance as compared to the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the length of the Nevada Constitution is critical toward upholding the intentions and wishes of its original authors. The framing of this Constitution was influenced by factors relating to the Civil War and President Lincoln’s focus on preserving the nation. At the time of Nevada’s progression into statehood and writing of this Constitution, southerners were less sympathetic to the strong pro-Union position of the Statehood Convention (Bowers, p.11). Framers of the Nevada Constitution incorporated different articles to reflect these factors and trends. Most of the core aspects of the Nevada Constitution have been maintained to reflect the uniqueness of the circumstances preceding its writing and enactment.
Additionally, the Nevada Constitution is longer than the U.S Constitution because it has broken down some segments and parts extended from provisions of the American Constitution. The breakdown of these parts/segments helps to ensure that judges have relatively easy work in interpreting the constitution in comparison to federal judges. The breakdown of several segments expanded from the U.S. Constitution makes it easy for judges to interpret the law when determining cases in comparison to federal judges. However, the inclusion of numerous articles in attempts to breakdown/expand some provisions of the U.S. Constitution implies that judges within the State have more work. Unlike federal judges, judges in the State of Nevada need to familiarize themselves with the various articles included in the Nevada Constitution in addition to familiarizing themselves with the supreme law of the land. This generates burdens in interpretations of the law, which relatively complicates the determination of court cases. Powers of Nevada’s Governor The differences in the Nevada Constitution and the U.S. Constitution imply that there are some variations in the state political system compared to the national system of government. The state’s political system grants the governor some powers that differ from those granted to the president by the national system of government. Similar to other states, the Governor of Nevada acts as the Chief Executive of the State with different executive roles. The powers of the governor of Nevada can be divided into two broad categories i.e. leadership and management responsibilities. Given his/her role as the State’s Chief Executive, the governor of Nevada has the responsibility of implementing state and federal laws. Moreover, the governor has the responsibility of coordinating and supervising operations of the executive branch. The governor of Nevada also has the responsibility of pursuing and advancing policies and programs through legislative proposals and vetoes and executive orders and budgets.
Based on Nevada’s political system, one of the differences between the powers of the governor compared to the president’s power in the national governance system relates to the appointment of the Secretary of State. In the national system of government, the president has the power to appoint the Secretary of State in consultation with the Senate. In Nevada, the Secretary of State is an elected constitutional officer like the governor (Stewart, p.4). Similar to the governor, the Secretary of State in Nevada is a constitutional officer elected for a four-year term with responsibilities that are clearly stipulated in the state’s Constitution. Based on the Nevada Constitution, the Secretary of State is mandated with the responsibility of overseeing commercial recordings, elections, notaries, and securities. Since the Secretary of State is elected as a constitutional officer, the governor has no appointing powers for this role.
While the governor of Nevada does not have appointing constitutional officers like the Secretary of State, he/she has appointing powers on some state officers. The governor has the power to appoint members of boards and commissions in the state as well as department heads. However, the governor’s appointees to vacant positions must have resided in the State of Nevada for at least 6 months prior to the date of the appointment. This responsibility differs from those accorded to the president by the national system of government. Based on this system, the president has the authority to appoint principal officers of the federal government including federal judges and ambassadors. Unlike in the State of Nevada, the president’s appointments are subject to confirmation by the Senate. While the governor of Nevada appoints individuals to vacant positions based on the criteria stipulated in the Nevada Constitution, the president nominates appointees for screening and subsequent approval by the Senate. Therefore, the governor’s appointees in Nevada are not subjected to approval by the State Legislature unlike in presidential appointments in the national system of government.
The governor’s sole responsibility of appointing State officers does not extend to the appointment of judges in the State of Nevada. According to Hogan, the governor of Nevada had the sole to appoint judges prior to 1976 (p.312). However, constitutional amendments changed this provision to eliminate the governor’s sole responsibility in this process. Following the amendments, the governor makes the appointment of judges based on nominations received by the judicial selection commission. The commission, which comprises a supreme court justice, three attorneys appointed by the State Bar of Nevada, and three non-lawyers appointed by the governor, nominate three individuals to the governor (Hogan, p.312). The governor then appoints one individual from the three nominees. Unlike in the national system of government, the Supreme Court justices in the State of Nevada are not appointed. They are selected in a non-partisan election in which the state’s voters have an unusual option of voting for none of the nominees.
Similar to the president’s power within the national system of government, Nevada’s governor has the power of veto. Veto power is essential in the governor’s responsibility of pursuing and advancing policies and programs. However, unlike the president, the governor of Nevada has the power call the State Legislature into a special session. In this regard, the governor also has the power to establish the agenda for the Legislature’s special session (Stewart, p.7). In addition, the powers of the Governor of Nevada in granting pardons are similar to those of the president within the national system of government. Just like the president, the governor has the power to grant reprieves and pardons except in treason cases. However, this power does not extend to remitting or commuting sentences of individuals convicted of any crime as granted to the president in national governance system. Nevada’s Legislature Constraints Nevada’s legislature is one of the arms of government in this state alongside the executive and judiciary. Similar to other state constitutions, the Nevada Constitution is based on the doctrine of separation of powers. The State’s legislature embodies the concept of representative democracy as it directly and immediately responds to the wishes of the people in comparison to the other forms of government. However, the people’s voice remains the primary source of strength and influence on the three arms of government in this State.
As part of embracing the concept of representative democracy, Nevada has forms of direct democracy i.e. the initiative, referendum, recall, and statute affirmation. The initiative refers to the legislature’s right to enact laws and propose amendments to the constitution while referendum permits voters the right to approve or disapprove laws enacted by the legislature. Nevada voters can also remove any local or state official through recall and can collect signatures in order to include a question on the ballot asking its citizens to affirm a standing state law (Bowers, p.55). These direct forms of democracy are considered vital in enhancing citizens' participation in governance and lawmaking processes in the state.
Even though these forms of direct democracy are essential in enhancing citizens’ involvement in governance, they inadvertently restrict Nevada’s legislature. They seemingly grant citizens more powers in lawmaking and governance processes and inhibit the powers of the legislature. Prior to the enactment of the initiative in Nevada’s Constitution, the State Legislature could purpose constitutional amendments and enact laws. However, this provision has significantly limited the State Legislature’s right to purpose constitutional amendments and enact laws. The referendum has constrained Nevada’s Legislature by restricting the kind of laws that it can repeal or change. Laws approved by a referendum introduced by voters cannot be amended or repealed by Nevada State Legislature. Similarly, statute affirmation has limited the powers of the legislature to amend or repeal some laws. In this case, if the majority of voters affirm a law after an initiative by voters, Nevada State Legislature is prohibited from every amending the law. Such laws can only be repealed or amended in the future through a referendum or direct vote of the state’s citizens. Lawmakers in Nevada’s legislature can be removed before the expiration of their terms by voters through recall. While there have been few successful recalls in Nevada, this form of direct democracy can end up interfering with the effective functioning of the legislature as it opens room for possible harassment of legislators.
Apart from Nevada’s form of direct legislature, Nevada’s legislature is also constrained by the constitutional mandate to meet only every other year for 120 days. This constitutional mandate limits the number of days legislators can meet and enact relevant laws. Without special sessions, Nevada’s legislators work for a total of 720 days, which would amount to six years’ worth of working days in a period of 24 years of service (Colborne par, 5). This significantly impacts the lawmaking process in the state given the role of the legislature in this process. By meeting for fewer days, legislators in Nevada enact fewer laws, which are sometimes hastily done resulting in emergency regulations. Through meeting for fewer days, Nevada’s legislature somewhat abdicates its political power to the executive and judicial branches. Nevada’s System for Electing Judges The Merit Plan or Missouri Plan is a system for electing judges used in several states and the U.S. national system for appointment of judges. Nevada has traditionally used elections systems to select judges, which differs from the Merit Plan adopted by other states and the U.S. national system. Despite controversies surrounding it, the Merit Plan is regarded as the best system for the selection of judges. The conventional system employed by Nevada has some strengths and weaknesses in comparison to the Merit Plan/Missouri Plan. Some of the strengths of Nevada’s system include giving citizens the right/power to elect their judges, non-partisanship, and elimination of politics from judicial selection (Goldschmidt par, 2). However, the weaknesses of this system in comparison to the Merit Plan include lack of rational judicial selection, bias voting decisions, lower voter turnout, the tendency of the reelection of incumbents, and limited public knowledge on judicial candidates and issues.
Given the inherent weaknesses in Nevada’s conventional system for the election of judges, the state has made recent attempts to move to the merit plan. These attempts were geared toward enhancing the judicial selection process by addressing the weaknesses in the conventional system. Recent attempts to move to a merit plan was influenced by a speech by one of Nevada’s Supreme Court justices (Willick par, 1). The speech demonstrated how existing studies, reports, and model provisions of judicial retention and evaluation programs have provided compelling reasons to support the use of the merit plan over the election in appointing judges. In this regard, the elections system has been characterized by interference from judges as they raise the required money and seek favorable publicity. Therefore, this interference generates a morass of conflicts and hinder fair decision making by voters. However, while the advantages/strengths of the merit plan have been demonstrated, Nevada has failed to adopt the system in its recent attempts. Various proposals toward the adoption of such a system such as those in 2010 and 2015 have been rejected by a popular vote or in the Legislature. Nonetheless, Nevada has recently successfully attempted to establish an intermediate court of appeals. This attempt occurred in November 2014 through a popular vote. The previous attempt was in 2010 when voters in the state rejected such proposals by a 53% majority.
In conclusion, state constitutions and federal constitutions play an important role in the governance structure and process in the United States. State constitutions differ from the U.S. Constitution though they are largely similar in terms of form and structure. Nevada’s Constitution is an example of a state constitution that differs from the U.S. Constitution. It is lengthier than the U.S. Constitution as it incorporates numerous articles and seeks to uphold the ideals of its framers. The difference in Nevada’s Constitution is also evident in governance issues such as the powers it grants to the governor in comparison to those granted to the president by the national system of government. Additionally, Nevada employs a relatively different legislative structure and utilizes a different system for judicial selection.
Works Cited Bowers, Michael Wayne. The Nevada State Constitution. Oxford University Press, 2014. Colborne, David. “How Often Should the Legislature Meet?” The Nevada Independent, Nevada News Bureau, Inc., 1 Apr. 2019, thenevadaindependent.com/article/how-often-should-the-legislature-meet. Goldschmidt, Jona. “Merit Selection: Current Status, Procedures, And Issues .” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 2014, www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/justice/howshould/merit.html. Hogan, Sean O. The Judicial Branch of State Government: People, Process, and Politics. ABC-CLIO, 2006. United States, Congress, Nevada Legislature, and Michael J. Stewart. “The Structure of Government Executive Branch.” The Structure of Government Executive Branch, The State of Nevada, 19 Jan. 2011. www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/LegInfo/Orientation/2010-11/Handouts/Jan19-24/1-19/02StructureOfGovt_ExecBranch.pdf. Willick, Marshal. “In Favor of Merit Selection of Judges.” The Nevada Independent, Nevada News Bureau, Inc., 27 Oct. 2019, thenevadaindependent.com/article/in-favor-of-merit-selection-of-judges.