MUTH’S TRUTHS
Standing Alone, Standing Tall: Dickman the Only Principled Vote Against Tax Extension
(Chuck Muth) – In a vote yesterday on the “more cops” tax extension bill, only one lawmaker stood firm and voted “No.”
Not because Assemblywoman Jill Dickman (R-Washoe) is against police. Far from it.
In fact, she’s one of the strongest backers of law enforcement in the entire statehouse.
But when it came to Senate Bill 451 (SB451), she believed something even more important was at stake: the right of the people to decide on taxes they would have to pay and were promised would expire.
SB451 creates a new a property tax hike in Clark County to replace the one that was originally approved by voters back in 1996. That tax hike – 20 cents on every $100 of property value – was supposed to sunset in July 2027.
That’s what voters agreed to nearly 30 years ago. And that’s what existing law says. NRS 354.5982 is crystal clear:
“The duration of the levy must not exceed 30 years. The governing body…may not thereafter reimpose it in whole or in part without following the procedure required for its original imposition.”
But now, under this new law designed to circumvent existing law, the tax will be raised again by state legislators without going back to the voters of Clark County and Las Vegas.
So instead of ending in 2027 as promised and otherwise mandated by law, it’ll keep going until 2057.
That didn’t sit right with Dickman.
“I support our police officers 100%,” she said after the vote. “But I also support the voters and taxpayers. They were told this tax would expire.
“If the government wants to keep it,” Dickman continued, “they should ask the people – not just assume it’s okay to keep collecting it for another 30 years.”
Exactly.
The 1996 vote wasn’t for a permanent tax. Voters and the law were clear: they’d support hiring more police officers, but the tax would eventually come to an end unless they were asked again.
Now, instead of keeping that promise, the Legislature has decided to keep the money – without giving a damn what the people who will be paying it think.
That’s what the Las Vegas Review-Journal calls a “bait and switch.”
“Look, if this tax is still needed – and maybe it is – then put it back on the ballot,” she argued. “Let people vote on it again. That’s the honest way to do it.”
This isn’t just a debate about taxes. It’s about trust.
When government makes a promise to voters – especially about money – it needs to keep it. Or at the very least, come back and ask again.
Otherwise, it’s not really a temporary tax. It’s just a slow-motion permanent one.
And while the rest of her GOP Assembly colleagues went along to get along – choosing to be an irrelevant minority party rather than a true opposition party – Dickman stood her ground.
Supporters of the tax hike say the funding is necessary to maintain police staffing levels in Las Vegas. And that’s true. Law enforcement needs solid, stable funding. No one’s arguing against that.
But the real issue here is how the funding is decided. And it’s not unreasonable to expect government to follow the law and honor the agreement it made with the people.
SB451 now locks in the 20-cent tax rate until the year 2057 – a full 60 years after it was first approved by voters. That’s not what most folks would call “temporary.”
The original vote was part of a two-tiered plan: 8 cents of the tax was permanent, and 20 cents was set to expire. That expiration was supposed to give voters another say.
But now, voters are being blown off over entirely.
As is so often the case, the politicians waited until the clock was about to run out and then claimed there was no time to put it back on the ballot. Which is total BS.
It could have been put on the 2026 ballot. Or if that was cutting it too close, a special election could have been called for later this year. So it’s not that they couldn’t do it. They just didn’t want to.
Screw the voters. Screw the taxpayers. Let them eat cake!
Dickman believes that’s not how things should work.
“If you’re going to tax people more, or longer, you better have the courage to ask them first,” she said. “That’s not anti-police. That’s pro-democracy.”
Sadly, Dickman was the only Republican lawmaker in the Assembly to make a principled stand.
Her vote sent a clear message: supporting law enforcement and respecting taxpayers aren’t mutually exclusive. We can do both. We should do both. But we have to do it the right way.
Here’s the assemblywoman’s full floor statement explaining her “no” vote…
“I rise in opposition to SB451.
“This is really hard for me. I’ve been told my opposition will be perceived as wanting to defund police. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all want officers protecting us, and no one supports peace officers more than I do.
“However, this tax was implemented by a vote of the people. It should be extended by a vote of the people.
“I was told it will cost $170 million to keep 800 officers. This is directly from Clark County’s budget. Here are a couple of examples of ‘wants’ rather than ‘needs.’
- $271 million for new park upgrades and splash pads
- $634 million for county building remodels and office construction
- $215 million for technology upgrades, not for public safety but for internal departments
“There is plenty of money to fund police if spending is properly prioritized.”
In a time when trust in government is already low, keeping promises matters. Especially when it comes to your money.
It’s not the easy votes that separate the truly principled conservatives from the soundbite conservatives.
It’s the really, really, really tough votes – such as this one – that separate the wheat from the chaff.
Even though she stood alone, Assemblywoman Dickman – a lioness among sheep – did something rare in politics these days: She kept her word.
If only we could clone her!
And this is yet another example of why it’s not enough to just elect more Republicans to the Legislature; we need to elect better ones as well.
So let it be written; so let it be done.
NEVADA NEWS & VIEWS
- ICE arrests 52 in Reno, Tahoe and Carson City; most already deported (Mark Robison)
- Rep. Amodei Defends Nevada Land Sales: “I Get It, But Someone Had to Act” (Brittany Sheehan)
- Prescription for Change: Less Red Tape, More Doctors (Erica Neely)
- I’m a Charter School Mom — and I’m Speaking Out Against SB460 (Nicole Maroe)
- We’re Back: American Majority Reignites Local Political Fire in Nevada (Rebecca Wood)
