In addition to the point about not depriving people from the right to vote for the public officials who serve them, I see the following additional problems with this bill, and bills worded like this.
1. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent. First the “counties with populations greater than 250K” or whatever the number is to restrict it to Washoe and Clark. Then they come back to delete that part of the bill, making it the law in all counties.
2. What are we, one state or two? The NRS is full of this stuff. How is it legally and morally justified to write one set of laws for one part of the state and another set for the other? If a problem is severe enough, if the solution is appropriate enough, then it should apply to the entire state. Or else there is something wrong with the claim that there is a problem in the first place. And if a problem exists in one county but not the others, then it is local issue, not a state issue, and therefore it is improper to write a state law to address it.
And of course the handling of any problem eventually comes back to taxes to pay for the solution; therefore…
3. If the level of taxation is high enough in one part of the state that the people running it have the luxury of thinking up problems and solutions to pay for them, then I humbly submit that those parts of the state are overtaxed, and their tax rates and tax revenues should be reduced. What an economic miracle it would lead to if taxes were uniformly low throughout the state, where fundamental economic decisions could be based not on taxation levels and tax breaks, but only on sound business decisions?