If I ask you for some cold water and you hand me a glass of antifreeze, did you give me what I asked for? 

The answer to this question depends. Technically, for a particular level of technicality, you did — antifreeze, after all, contains water, so if you hand me refrigerated antifreeze, you’re handing me something with cold water within it. 

Practically, however, it’s a rare context in which someone would appreciate receiving antifreeze when they specifically requested some cold water. Legally, just in case any readers are getting clever ideas on how to open up a columnist spot, if I ask for a glass of cold water and you hand me a glass of refrigerated antifreeze, it’s probably a class A felony.

Two moments this past week reminded me of getting antifreeze when I asked for water.

First was Judge James Russell’s ruling that state lawmakers violated the constitutional two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases when they voted to both remove a scheduled decrease of payroll taxes and extend a $1 per transaction DMV technology fee. To be clear, the ruling itself did not remind me of a cold glass of antifreeze — it was everything that led to the lawsuit in the first place. Last year’s Democratic-controlled Legislature decided (with some positive words of encouragement from the Legislative Counsel Bureau) that technically lawmakers wouldn’t be raising taxes if they kept payroll taxes from decreasing when they were scheduled to and left the DMV technology fee in place for two more years. They were simply electing not to decrease taxes when they were planning to, that’s all. That was helpful since the Republicans in the Legislature had approximately zero levers of power whatsoever save one — the ability to block tax increases by refusing to provide the final vote needed to achieve a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Unfortunately for the Legislature’s Democratic majority, the text in the state Constitution is clear, as was the intent of the text when it was passed by the voters in 1994 and 1996: If the Legislature passes a bill which increases state revenue, it either needs to pass the bill with a two-thirds majority or it needs to put the bill before the voters. 

To quote the Elko Daily Free Press’ 1994 editorial board:

Now here is something worth amending the Nevada Constitution for: Shall the constitution be amended to require a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature to add a new tax or fee or raise an existing tax or fee? Yes.

Arguments against passage: A minority of legislators could block a tax hike. That fear won't be keeping us up at night. This bill could be better by calling for, say, approval of tax and spending cuts with only one third of the legislature, but we'll settle for what we're being offered. 

Passage of this bill will make it easier for the legislature to cut spending than it will be for it to raise taxes. We cannot come up with an argument against that.

The people that drafted and voted for the measure knew what they were voting for. They were voting, to borrow a phrase from Grover Norquist, to starve the beast. As the previous passage indicates, they weren’t particularly subtle about it.

It’s true the Legislature didn’t increase what Nevadans would pay in taxes tomorrow compared to what we paid prior to the passage of those bills. However, the Legislature clearly intended to increase what Nevadans would pay in taxes tomorrow compared to what we would have paid if the bills never passed. Nevadans in 1994 and 1996, on the other hand, were also quite clear. Over 70 percent of Nevada’s voters voted in favor of both measures — they wanted the Legislature to err on the side of collecting less money, not more. 

Having said that, while we’re parsing technicalities, both the DMV technology fee and the payroll tax were first passed in 2015 by a Republican-majority Legislature. Senate Minority Leader James Settelmeyer, one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit and easily the happiest of them to talk at length to anyone about the lawsuit every chance he gets, voted in favor of both of the original tax increases. By comparison, notable anti-tax activist, vocal Bernie Sanders supporter, and current Clark County Commissioner Tick Segerblom did not vote in favor of the original DMV technology fee. Yes, it’s because the former state senator and current county commissioner was absent from the chamber when the bill was passed, but still, credit where credit is due.

Speaking of Republican hypocrites, this brings me to the second moment this week that reminded me of drinking antifreeze. 

The Atlantic recently published a jarring article which openly explored the question a lot of us have been asking for a while now — what will happen if President Trump loses the election and just flat out refuses to leave office? The answer, as current presidential election laws are written (they’re a mess, as even the original writers of those laws freely admitted), is, frankly, not encouraging. 

To be blunt, it’s nothing short of miraculous we elect a president at all, as even a cursory examination of the events which led to the passage of the Twelfth Amendment would attest. We’ve worked through the various flaws in our system mostly by operating in something more or less resembling good faith — we assume we’ll have elections, we assume those elections will have predictable consequences, and we assume the presidents we elected in the past will respect the outcome of those elections if we choose not to re-elect them in the future. Much as a house guest generally assumes they won’t be served antifreeze when they ask for water, we assume current politicians, when they fail to get reelected, will behave like past ones — petulantly, but generally cooperatively. 

Trouble is, as I think even Trump supporters would agree, he’s not like past presidents. 

Following the publishing of The Atlantic’s article, Brian Karem, the senior White House correspondent for Playboy magazine, did what a good journalist does — he questioned the assumptions behind The Atlantic’s article. If President Trump announced, when given the chance, that he would respect our presidential selection process and guaranteed a peaceful transition of power from his administration to the next, the entire basis of The Atlantic’s article would be moot and everyone nervously fretting about the scenarios described within it would appear foolish.

So, Brian gave him that chance:

Karem: Mr. President, really quickly, win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferral of power after the election? There has been rioting in Louisville, there’s been rioting in many cities across this country, Red and — your so-called Red and Blue states — will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election?

Trump: Well, we’re going to have to see what happens, you know that. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots and the ballots are a disaster and —

Karem: I understand that, but people are rioting. Do you commit to making sure there’s a peaceful transferral of power —

Trump: Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very trans… you’ll have a very peaceful… there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation. The ballots are out of control, you know it, and you know who knows it better than anybody else? The Democrats know it.

Trump’s answer is technically correct. In much the same way a glass of antifreeze is a glass of “water,” yes, if we get rid of all of the ballots, there won’t be an election and there will be a continuation of power, at least in those parts of the country willing to recognize presidential power under those conditions (or unable to do otherwise). 

Practically, however, we now have a very serious problem. 

Trump’s campaign has been trying to openly sabotage this state’s ability to hold our elections all year. While openly encouraging Floridians, who narrowly voted for him in 2016, to vote by mail, Trump has threatened to withhold federal funds from the state and lied about our election process on several occasions. His campaign, meanwhile, filed a frivolous lawsuit against the state despite lacking legal standing to do so. The reason for his hostility is obvious — he lost this state by two percent in 2016 and, according to a recent poll, is currently behind by double that. Ideally, he would like Nevada’s voter turnout to resemble 2014’s election turnout, which elected the Republican majorities in both houses of the Legislature that ultimately passed the largest tax increase in state history.

We, however, are under no obligation to give him what he wants, even if his enablers might be able to interpret the rules to turn electoral water into antifreeze.

The first thing we need is every level of Nevada’s government — our governor, our lieutenant governor, our attorney general, our secretary of state, and whatever interim legislative committees which can be queried — to commit to counting every Nevadan voters’ ballot and respecting both the state and national results of the election. If Trump loses the election and won’t leave the White House, Nevada’s government needs to commit itself here and now to recognizing the rightfully elected chief executive of this country, regardless of which domicile they’re able to occupy on Inauguration Day. 

The second thing we need from every level of Nevada’s government is an understanding that now is not the time for clever interpretations of the laws that bind us. Now, more than ever, we will be relying upon the spirit of the governing documents of this country to carry this nation forward. Yes, this nation’s always had an uneasy relationship between its advertising copy and how we actually govern ourselves, but it’s still important to try. It’s still important to aspire to become better than we are, to define what better would be, and to put in the work necessary to get as close as possible as we can. 

Don’t get me wrong, refusing to get a sufficiently large majority to keep a couple of taxes in place isn’t in the same category, legally or morally, as turning the presidential election into a hostage negotiation. This isn’t a “both sides” situation — one side is clearly and unambiguously far more dangerous than the other and it’s the side with nuclear weapons, an infinitely large credit limit, and control of various paramilitary “law enforcement” agencies throughout the country. A few dozen Democrats who drive to Carson City every year or two, depending on whether a special session is called, and legislate within a constitutionally guaranteed balanced budget are far less of a threat.

However, if those few dozen Democrats want to differentiate themselves from Trump, it’s not just enough to be better than him by degree — they also need to be better than him by kind. That means no more games. Treat the law like you would want Trump to treat it. If you think it’s too hard to pass tax increases in Carson City, make that case to the voters and change the law. Otherwise, stay within both the letter and the spirit of our laws.

For better or worse, as much as I am loath to admit it — we’re all counting on you. Please, for everyone’s sake, don’t mess this up. 

David Colborne has been active in the Libertarian Party for two decades. During that time, he has blogged intermittently on his personal blog, as well as the Libertarian Party of Nevada blog, and ran for office twice as a Libertarian candidate. He serves on the Executive Committee for both his state and county Libertarian Party chapters. He is the father of two sons and an IT professional. You can follow him on Twitter @DavidColborne or email him at [email protected].