You can read the Angle Examiner here! Send this to a friend to subscribe and help raise awareness of the importance of Election Integrity and Voter I.D.
Protecting Nevadans From Unconstitutional Politicians
Nevada’s requirement that the Legislature approve tax or fee increases by a two-thirds supermajority is one of the most significant fiscal constraints embedded in the state’s constitution. The rule is often referred to as the “Gibbons Tax Restraint Amendment.” Since its adoption in the 1990s, the rule has shaped Nevada’s fiscal policy debates and has been repeatedly tested in court and political conflicts over taxation.
The Nevada Constitution Article 4, Section 18 was changed from “a majority of all the members elected to each house is necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution,” by the people of Nevada through initiative petition (voted by large margins in 1994 and 1996) to establish a two-thirds super-majority vote of each house to pass any bill which “creates, generates, or increases any public revenue in any form, including but not limited to taxes, fees, assessments and rates.”
The primary architect of the amendment was Jim Gibbons, a Republican assemblyman who later served as Nevada’s governor and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Gibbons championed the measure as a constitutional limitation on taxation and organized the initiative campaign that placed the proposal on the ballot.
The two-thirds rule faced its most dramatic challenge during Nevada’s 2003 budget crisis. The Legislature was unable to pass a tax package needed to fund public education because lawmakers could not obtain the required supermajority. The dispute led to litigation involving the governor and the Legislature.
During this conflict, the Nevada Supreme Court initially ruled that lawmakers could temporarily bypass the supermajority requirement in order to fund constitutionally mandated education spending. This controversial decision effectively allowed taxes to be passed by a simple majority during the crisis.
Fifteen legislators, led by Sharron Angle, who hired attorney John Eastman of the Claremont Institute to challenge the Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Guinn v. Legislature of the State of Nevada. Angle v. Legislature of the State of Nevada (often shortened “Angle v. Guinn”) argued that this with this decision the government of Nevada violated the Nevada Constitution. Eastman invoked the Republican clause in Article 4 of the US Constitution which requires the Federal Government to defend the citizens of Nevada when their state government violates Nevada law. Ultimately, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and restored the two-thirds requirement.
The two-thirds rule has continued to generate legal disputes over whether particular legislation constitutes a tax increase. One of the most significant recent cases involved James Settelmeyer, a Republican state senator. In 2019, Nevada lawmakers passed legislation extending certain taxes and fees with a simple majority vote, arguing that the bills did not technically create new taxes but merely prevented scheduled tax reductions. Settelmeyer paid for and challenged the measures in court, claiming that extending or preventing a reduction in taxes effectively increased public revenue and therefore required a two-thirds vote.
The Nevada Supreme Court agreed and struck down the legislation. The ruling, now known as “The Settelmeyer Decision”, reaffirmed that the constitution requires a supermajority vote whenever legislation results in increased revenue for the state.
Nevada’s two-thirds rule has significant implications for state governance. The rule ensures bipartisan agreement before taxes are raised, protecting taxpayers from frequent or politically motivated tax increases.
The defense of Nevada's Constitutional two-thirds Supermajority rule for taxes is important when voting in 2026 for Secretary of State. In the Secretary of State race, I am the only candidate with a record of defending Nevada's Constitution. I will defend and enforce the new Constitutional Amendment Question 7, Voter ID, and Nevada's Constitutional Election Day. I am the only candidate in the Secretary of State race who has done it before, and you can trust me to do it again.
Sharron Angle For Nevada Secretary of State
This battle just got a lot more complicated. With the money Cisco Aguilar is lining up, Voter I.D. is in real danger. Regardless of how Nevada votes in November for Voter I.D., it still requires a Secretary of State to enforce it and a Nevada Attorney General to prosecute those who violate the law. Without these two important offices held by people who Nevadans can trust, there is No Voter I.D. even if it passes in November. That is the real danger of Voter I.D. never happening in Nevada, nobody will enforce it and they will pretend it does not exist.
Unless we repeat the message as many times as possible so they never forget, the danger is real. We absolutely need you in this fight, now is the time to really push our issue, Voter I.D., in this race. Here is the TV spot we are currently running, thanks to you! While you are there, if you are on YouTube, please subscribe to my new campaign channel, hit like if you support Voter I.D., and turn on notifications.
Now is the time to really push our message out to voters, there are so many different campaigns and issues going on in the world, it is essential that we stay top of mind to make this work.
Please help us do that by contributing to purchase just one commercial!
Thank you, we really do need your support, right now.
I know many of you prefer to use check in the mail, which is great:
Friends of Sharron Angle, P.O. Box 33058, Reno, Nevada 89533.
God bless you and God bless America!”
Sharron Angle
Sharron On Social Media
