Brian Sandoval Vetoes Sensible Legislation

brian_sandoval_ap_328

Nevada is one of the states whose Legislature meets on a bi-annual basis.  They have only 120 days to accomplish a great deal, and, as they did this year, were forced to extend it one day to accomplish most of their objectives.  After all their hard work, Governor Brian Sandoval vetoed some sensible legislation, and has promised to veto one more bill when it reaches his desk.

AB-126 would have required restaurants with 15 or more locations to post nutritional information in their establishment. Either the Governor doesn’t read or watch the news, but our country is obese.  Any act taken to help alleviate a very serious health problem seems logical and reasonable.

Sandoval said that because the federal standard is ’20’ restaurants, it would be redundant.

SB-457 would change voting laws in Henderson, Sparks, Reno, and Carson City.  Candidates in the four cities run in specific wards, but they are subject to a citywide vote.

I was unable to decipher Sandoval’s response, so I’ll just post the quote.

The governor said this would limit voters’ ability to cast ballots for candidates “to make decisions for the good of the community as a whole.”

The idea of voting is to vote for those who represent you.  (Washington doesn’t get that, but we usually do on the state level.)

He also vetoed AB-447.  In order to increase voter participation, the legislature voted to set up ballot boxes outside of the registered areas, providing ease of access for voters.

Sandoval once more decided for the rest of the state by declaring that there were already enough options, such as early voting absentee balloting by mail and Election Day voting.  (We all know that a lower voter turnout favors Republicans.)

SB-373, would have made it easier to collect debts.  The governor said that:  “Nevada is one of the most favorable debtor states and provides greater protection from wage garnishment than surrounding states.”  An unexpected veto by a Republican governor.

In addition, the legislature voted in favor of SB-221.  The bill would require universal background checks for gun purchasers.  Sections in the bill, aside from the background checks, include faster reporting of court-findings of mental illness and requiring a doctor to report a patient who makes a specific threat toward themselves or someone else.

Although the bill passed 23-19, Sandoval has pledged to veto it as well.

When elected officials take action according to their personal beliefs, or for their own personal gain, they are corrupt.  When the people and the legislature favor passage of laws, and one man has the power to undermine their combined will, we have become a dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.

Will this be how Sandoval handles the will of the people during his term?  Will Brian Sandoval be forever known as a governor who continues to veto sensible legislation?  For the sake of Nevadans, I hope not.

James Turnage

The Guardian Express

source1

6 Responses to "Brian Sandoval Vetoes Sensible Legislation"

  1. Matt   June 8, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    Great job Govenor. The writer of this article is a buffoon. Go live in California if you don’t like our “unsensible” legislation.

    Reply
    • Jared Townsend   June 8, 2013 at 9:26 pm

      Right on Matt! I’ve said it all along, if you don;t like our laws, GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA! I truly hope he holds to his word and vetoes the unconstitutional SB221 bill which will do NOTHING but make it more difficult for law abiding nevada gun-owners.

      Reply
  2. Another Ted   June 4, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    The Governer sounds more sensible than the bills and the writer…

    Reply
  3. Ted   June 4, 2013 at 3:28 pm

    The executive branch having a check & balance on the legislative branch is a fundamental requirement of what it IS to be a constitutional republic. If these things were as popular & necessary as you seem to suggest, the legislature would use its check & balance to override the veto. But the votes aren’t there. Keep in mind also that SB 221 is unconstitutional, violating Article 1 Section 11 of the Nevada Constitution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.