## Facts

- Nevada’s 2003 regular legislative session ended without passing a complete appropriations package and the revenue measures needed to fund it for the 2003–2005 biennium.
- The impasse centered on Nev. Const. art. 4, § 18(2), which required a two-thirds vote of each house for any bill that “creates, generates, or increases” public revenue; appropriations bills required only a simple majority.
- The Legislature’s failure to pass sufficient revenue measures left K–12 public education without assured operating funds for the upcoming school year.
- Governor Kenny Guinn filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Legislature to enact measures sufficient to fund K–12 public education and adopt a balanced budget.
- A group of legislators filed a counter-petition asserting that the requested relief would improperly disregard the constitutionally adopted two-thirds vote requirement for revenue bills.
- The Nevada Supreme Court accepted original jurisdiction and heard the matter en banc.

## Issues

1. When adherence to the two-thirds voting requirement for revenue bills prevents the Legislature from fulfilling its constitutional duty to fund a uniform system of K–12 public schools, may a court require the Legislature to proceed by simple majority to enact necessary revenue measures?
2. Does issuing mandamus that affects legislative voting procedure violate separation of powers?
3. May a court, in order to enforce substantive constitutional duties, decline to apply a voter-adopted constitutional procedural rule in the specific circumstances presented?

## Decision

- The court granted the Governor’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held that, under the narrow and exceptional circumstances presented, the Legislature’s constitutional duty to fund K–12 public education and complete the state budget prevailed over the two-thirds voting requirement for revenue bills.
- The court ordered the Legislature to enact revenue measures and appropriations sufficient to fund K–12 public education and complete the budget for the biennium.
- The court authorized the Legislature, if necessary to break the impasse, to pass the required revenue measures by a simple majority vote.

## Legal Principles

- When constitutional provisions conflict and cannot be reconciled in application, a procedural constitutional requirement may yield to a substantive constitutional duty to prevent the substantive duty from being defeated in practice.
- The judiciary may issue mandamus to compel performance of clear constitutional duties, including duties assigned to a coordinate branch, when failure to act would result in violation of the Constitution.
- Separation of powers does not categorically bar judicial relief that ensures compliance with constitutional mandates, but such relief must be limited to the necessity shown by the record.
- A court may limit its constitutional ruling to the specific facts and exigency before it, declining to apply a procedural rule only to the extent required to avoid disabling a core constitutional obligation.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court concluded that an unresolved budget impasse that left K–12 education unfunded created an exceptional conflict between the constitutional duty to maintain a funded public school system and the two-thirds requirement for revenue bills, and it issued mandamus compelling enactment of a funded education budget, permitting simple-majority passage of necessary revenue measures to the extent required to fulfill the education mandate.


Guinn v. Legislature of the State of Nev., 71 P.3d 1269 (Nev. 2003)