AG to court: Amend your order and allow school choice to move forward

Attorney General Adam Laxalt is asking a judge to amend or revise an order on school choice, insisting it contradicts the Supreme Court's decision that struck down Education Savings Accounts because of the funding mechanism.

The filing is in response to this letter threatening to ask for sanctions against Laxalt's client, Treasurer Dan Schwartz, for continuing to communicate with ESA parents as if the program were moving foward. Amid the legalese in the filing comes the nub of an argument the AG has been making since the Supreme Court found the funding mechanism violated the Constitution: It depends what the definition of "unconstitutional" is. That is, the program itself is not unconstitutional, so it still exists; only the funding mechanism does not. 

The AG argues that the program essentially is a car without any gas in the tank and once lawmakers pump it full, voila, it exists again. Notwithstanding that a Democratic Legislature is unlikely to prime the pump, the argument made by the AG on Schwartz's behalf is that the District Court erroneously adopted the anti-school choice plaintiffs interpretation of the court decision in his order, thus allowing them to threaten the treasurer with contempt.

 “I can assure the citizens of Nevada that we will continue to abide by the Supreme Court’s decision and will not fund any accounts," Schwartz said. "We will, however, lawfully protect the interests of parents. The funding mechanism will ultimately be decided by the Governor and the Nevada State Legislature in the upcoming legislative session.”

Defendant%27s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment%3b Motion for Reconsideratio... by Jon Ralston on Scribd