Newspaper column: Nevada press shield law protects bloggers

Unlike too many jobs in this country there is no such thing as a licensed journalist, but a Carson City judge has found such in the penumbra of Nevada’s press shield law.

Normally those in the press don’t seek any privilege not accorded any other citizen, but by the very nature of the job — showing up at fires and car crashes, attending public meetings, poking into nooks and crannies of government and society, asking questions and quoting people — there needed to be a means to keep the press independent and not be dragged into court hearings or depositions every other week.

That’s the purpose behind the state press shield law. It prohibits giving the third-degree to the Fourth Estate. Otherwise, there would be considerable disincentive for people to talk to reporters, because reporters could be forced to testify about them or reveal their identities.

Sam Toll

The law says, “No reporter, former reporter or editorial employee of any newspaper, periodical or press association or employee of any radio or television station may be required to disclose any published or unpublished information obtained or prepared by such person in such person’s professional capacity in gathering, receiving or processing information for communication to the public, or the source of any information procured or obtained by such person, in any legal proceeding …”

The devil apparently is in the details.

Earlier this month District Court Judge James Wilson Jr. ordered Sam Toll, creator of The Storey Teller blog, to disclose his sources for a story about Storey County Commissioner and brothel owner Lance Gilman, who is suing Toll for defamation. Toll reported that sources told him the commissioner does not actually live in his district.

Toll wrote in a recent op-ed for the Las Vegas newspaper, “Gilman, one of the wealthiest men in Northern Nevada, insists he lives in a double-wide trailer behind the swimming pool at the Mustang Ranch brothel rather than the home he owns in Washoe Valley. Evidence and interviews I conducted suggest otherwise. In order to be a Storey County commissioner, you must reside in the district you represent.”

The judge concluded Toll is a reporter, but he failed to “provide facts, legal authority, or argument that the Storey Teller is a periodical …” Hair splitting. The law says periodical, which is a journal appearing periodically.

Instead of a press, a blogger uses a computer. It can be argued that Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanack” was America’s first blog — self-written, self-printed, self-promoted. Print on paper or print in the ether. It is a distinction without a difference.

The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press was extended to radio and television without hesitation.

The judge further concluded Toll is not a reporter for a newspaper and did not join the Nevada Press Association until August 2017 and thus must reveal sources obtained prior to then.

Toll is not a reporter of or for the Press Association. He is a member. It is not a licensing body.

The state Supreme Court has recognized the shield law’s important function for the citizenry.

Justice Myron Leavitt opined in a case in 2000 in which a plaintiff tried to force a Las Vegas newspaper reporter to reveal his sources: “Nevada’s news shield statute serves an important public interest and provides absolute protection against compelled disclosure to ensure that through the press, the public is able to make informed political, social and economic decisions.”

Clark County judges have twice interpreted the shield law differently. In 2014 two judges ruled that the Mesquite Citizen Journal and its reporter, “although an online only news media source,” were protected by the shield law from being forced to reveal communications and records related to a series of stories about the local water district. In 2016 a judge denied demands to review a film maker’s unpublished notes and video interviews with a witness in a criminal case, ruling the press privilege also extended to the film maker.

Despite those rulings, Judge Wilson granted Gilman’s motion to compel Toll to reveal sources of information prior to August 2017 and gave the parties until April 12 for discovery to be completed.

For his part, Toll has said he is willing to be jailed before he will reveal sources. “Integrity is the most precious currency we have as journalists. Without it, the public would not entrust us with the information we need to help protect society from wrongdoers,” Toll wrote.

Let’s hope this current case is appealed and results in a similar outcome to that of the Mesquite Citizen Journal and the film maker.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Opposition to gun background check law grows

“This effort to challenge this law, I don’t take this lightly. When we decide not to enforce that law, that’s an important decision. The way I made that decision was, we know what the goal is of those who want to pass this bill. At some point they want to take our guns. … They don’t just all of a sudden come out and confiscate guns. There are a lot of things that happen first, and this is one of them. And so, do we stand up now, or do we wait and stand up when they come to get the guns?”

— Elko Commissioner Demar Dahl at Wednesday commission meeting

“Now!”

— Shouts from the audience

Apparently there was nary a discouraging word when the Elko County Commission voted unanimously for a resolution declaring the county a Second amendment sanctuary county. Similar sentiments are being expressed by commissioners and sheriffs in other rural counties after lawmakers early in this year’s legislative session passed Senate Bill 143, which requires background checks to be conducted prior to the sale or transfer of any firearm by a private individual to anyone other than an immediate family member. It passed both the state Senate and Assembly without a single Republican vote and Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the bill immediately.

The Elko resolution concludes, according to the Elko Daily Free Press:

“Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Elko County Board of Commissioners that Elko County is a Sanctuary County for the Second Amendment; and be it further resolved that this Board affirms its support of the duly elected Elko County Sheriff in the exercise of his sound discretion to not enforce any unconstitutional firearms laws against any citizen; and be it further resolved that this Board will not authorize or appropriate any funds or resources for the purpose of enforcing law that infringes on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

The new gun law was an effort to fix the flawed ballot measure narrowly approved by voters in 2016. The backers of the ballot initiative, Question 1, tried to avoid having a fiscal note saying how much the background checks would cost Nevada taxpayers by requiring the checks to be run through an FBI database and not the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, which handles all background checks for federally licensed gun dealers in the states. The FBI refused to do the checks and the attorney general declared the law unenforceable and a district court judge agreed.

SB143 requires the state criminal history repository to be used.

Question 1 passed with only 50.45 percent of the voters approving it, failing in every county except Clark. Ninety percent of Eureka County voters rejected it, as did 82 percent in Elko and White Pine, 74 percent in Nye, 88 percent in Lincoln, 76 percent in Mineral and 89 percent in Esmeralda, for example.

At the Elko Commission meeting Elko County Sheriff Aitor Narvaiza was quoted as saying, “It is my intention that Elko County sends a strong message to the people of Nevada. Listen to us and do not infringe on our Second Amendment rights.”

Elko Commissioner Rex Steninger was quoted as saying, “Registration is the first step to confiscation. History is littered with what happens when they take our guns away. I did a little research on this. One source estimated 56 million people were exterminated in the 20th century following gun registration and confiscation.”

Douglas County commissioners passed a similar resolution earlier this month.

A number of county sheriffs have called the law unenforceable.

Elko County Sheriff Aitor Narvaiz addresses the county commission. (Elko Daily Free Press pix)

Newspaper column: Do not shroud public employee pensions in secrecy

Some lawmakers in Carson City are pushing a bill that basically declares that it is none of your business how your tax money is spent. Senate Bill 224 would make the names of recipients of pensions through the Public Employees’ Retirement System secret.

The first glimpse at the kinds of duplicity this bill invites is the fact that two of the three chief sponsors of the bill — state Sens. David Parks and Joyce Woodhouse — are currently drawing six-figure pensions from PERS, a fact that would not be known if this bill were already in law.

At a recent hearing on the bill, the third sponsor, state Sen. Julia Ratti, argued that PERS benefits are set aside for the public employees’ future use and asked, “At what point is public servant no longer a public person?”

The answer is: When that person no longer obliges the public to guarantee that pension. Right now the taxpayers are on the hook for $40 billion in unfunded liabilities, when standard accounting practices are used to make the calculation. Never mind that the taxpayers paid half of the pension contributions for that government worker retiree and all of the rather princely salary that public employee used for their half of the contribution.

Perhaps the most egregious argument made in the hearing is that the bill would cut the cost of litigation. It was PERS itself that created that cost by trying to skirt court rulings that stated the names of public pensioners and their pension amounts are public records under the Nevada public records law, which states that its purpose is to foster democratic principles by providing taxpayers with access to public records.

After the state Supreme Court ruled the records were public, PERS changed the way it kept the records, prompting Chief Justice Michael Douglas to suggest PERS had “gone out of its way to violate the spirit of the law.”

The bill’s backers are still arguing that revealing the names of pensioners might expose them to identity theft and fraud. The state Supreme Court dismissed that claim in its 2013 ruling by saying, “Because PERS failed to present evidence to support its position that disclosure of the requested information would actually cause harm to retired employees or even increase the risk of harm, the record indicates that their concerns were merely hypothetical and speculative. Therefore, because the government’s interests in nondisclosure in this instance do not clearly outweigh the public’s presumed right to access, we conclude that the district court did not err in balancing the interests involved in favor of disclosure.”

During a hearing on SB224, Robert Fellner, policy director for the Nevada Policy Research Institute, countered that the publication of public pension information has enabled the public to correct abuses of such systems. A tip to California’s fraud hotline resulted in the system recovering more than $200,000, Fellner noted, causing CalPERS to release a statement praising “the great value of the public’s assistance in CalPERS’ efforts to protect the state pension system from fraud, waste, and abuse.”

In another example, Fellner noted that the importance of disclosing names was highlighted when a Los Angeles television station discovered that a police officer who was drawing a disability pension from one city was working full-time as a police officer for another agency.

“This type of abuse will be impossible to detect if SB224 becomes law and makes secret the names of those drawing tax-funded public pensions,” he testified, adding that 20 states maintain online public pension databases.

The law that set up PERS states: “It is the policy of this State to provide, through the Public Employees’ Retirement System: A reasonable base income to qualified employees who have been employed by a public employer and whose earning capacity has been removed or has been substantially reduced by age or disability.”

Yet in a previous court case NPRI’s attorney Joseph Becker observed that there are retirees in their 40’s collecting six-figure disbursements from PERS, while still earning income from other sources. “Only through the publication of name, pension payout and related data can the public better understand how the system works and the legislative purpose be effectuated,” he wrote.

Lawmakers should reject SB224’s effort to blinder the public. If not, Gov. Steve Sisolak — who once told a newspaper columnist, this one, that public employee contracting should be transparent and that the public employee pension system was overdue for reform — should veto it.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Newspaper column: Assisted suicide bill creates perverse incentives

Sometimes good intentions can create more problems than they solve. Take Senate Bill 165 for example.

Nevada lawmakers held hearings recently on this bill that would legalize and tightly regulate physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. The bill would allow competent adults diagnosed to be within six months of death, as diagnosed by two physicians, to be prescribed medication that the patient could self-administer to “peacefully end his or her life.”

The problem is that the 28-page bill goes far beyond that simple, seemingly liberating and decriminalizing notion by opening up the potential for widespread abuses and unintended consequences.

Dr. Brian Callister testifies

First of all, the bill requires doctors to falsify official records. “The medical certificate of death of a patient who dies after self-administering a controlled substance that is designed to end the life of the patient … must be signed by the attending physician who shall specify the terminal condition with which the patient was diagnosed as the cause of death of the patient,” SB165 reads.

Further, the bill turns suicide into an acceptable medical treatment on par with protracted and expensive treatment intended to prolong life. This provides health insurers with a perverse incentive to cover the cost of suicide but not the medical care that prolongs life.

Dr. Brian Callister, an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine, testified at a recent hearing on the bill that he once called two health insurance companies on behalf of two patients seeking lifesaving treatment in California and Oregon, both of which have assisted suicide laws. He said he was told procedures or transfers would not be covered, but he was asked if he had talked to the patients about assisted suicide, which was covered. He also told lawmakers that 50 to 70 percent of death prognoses are in error.

Others testified about family members who lived comfortably for years after being told they had six months to live.

Dr. Callister told a newspaper in 2017, “We have the physicians, the medicines, and the skills to keep people comfortable in palliative care and hospice. Assisted suicide changes the way we care for patients. It creates a dangerous segue to perverse incentives for insurance companies and there’s no going back from that.”

A group called the Patients Rights Council claims, “In California, after finding that her insurance company would not cover the chemotherapy her doctor had prescribed, a woman asked if assisted suicide was covered under her plan. She was told, ‘Yes, we do provide that to our patients, and you would only have to pay $1.20 for the medication.’”

Opponents of the bill also note that there is no requirement to have trained medical personnel present at the time the lethal drugs are being self-administered. They also note the request for the lethal drugs must be signed by two witnesses other than the doctor and one of them could be an heir, which creates a financial incentive to encourage a hastened death. There also is no requirement for psychiatric counseling.

Though the law makes it a felony to coerce someone into taking his or her own life, when does candid and honest discussion of the options cross the line into coercion? This raises a free speech issue.

Some of the drug cocktails prescribed can cause unintended pain and prolonged suffering. This is why the death penalty has been effectively put on hold in many states, including Nevada. It’s OK for the innocent but ill.

Opponents of the bill also note that a recent report on Oregon’s assisted suicide law states that avoiding pain and suffering is not the primary incentive for suicide. Fully 55 percent of those who used the state’s assisted suicide law cited a fear of being a burden to others.

The bill further restricts life insurance companies from writing fiduciarily sound contracts. Currently under Nevada law life insurance benefits can be denied only if someone commits suicide during the first two years of the insurance contract. SB165 dictates that a life insurer shall not deny a claim, cancel a policy or charge more solely because the insured has chosen assisted suicide. Nor may the company refuse to sell a policy to someone who has requested a prescription for life-ending drugs.

That, of course, means the rest of us will pay higher premiums.

This bill creates more problems than it solves.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Newspaper column: Gun background check law is a futile gesture

The frequency of gun violence calls for a senseless and futile gesture and Nevada Democratic lawmakers are just the ones to do it.

In a matter of days this past week the Nevada Legislature passed Senate Bill 143, which requires background checks to be conducted prior to the sale or transfer of any firearm by a private individual to anyone other than an immediate family member. It passed both the state Senate and Assembly without a single Republican vote. Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the bill shortly after the Assembly passed it Friday.

The bill is an effort to fix the fundamental flaw that made a similar background check requirement narrowly approved by voters in 2016 unenforceable. The backers of the ballot initiative, Question 1, tried to avoid having a fiscal note saying how much the background checks would cost Nevada taxpayers by requiring the checks to be run through an FBI database and not the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History, which handles all background checks for federally licensed gun dealers in the states. The FBI refused to do the checks and the attorney general declared the law unenforceable and a district court judge agreed.

SB143 requires the state criminal history repository to be used.

Question 1 passed with only 50.45 percent of the voters approving it, failing in every county except Clark. Ninety percent of Eureka County voters rejected it, as did 82 percent in Elko and White Pine, 74 percent in Nye, 88 percent in Lincoln, 76 percent in Mineral and 89 percent in Esmeralda, for example.

In pressing for passage of the bill Friday an assembly member mentioned the Feb. 14 shooting at a Florida high school a year earlier and read the names of those killed.

Another mentioned the Oct. 1, 2017, mass shooting that left 58 dead at a Las Vegas country music festival as being a reason to require background checks on private firearms sales.

The New York Times a year ago reported that the guns used in both of these shootings, as well as 17 others in recent years, were all obtained legally and the shooters all passed background checks, though a couple probably should not have. So this law would have done nothing to prevent any of those shootings.

Additionally, the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California Davis partnered with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to study the impact of a similar California background check law passed in 1991. The study found that over the next decade there was no impact whatsoever on firearm homicide and suicide rates.

UC Davis and Johns Hopkins earlier looked at two states that repealed similar background check laws in 1998 and found that over the next decade there was no impact on the rate of firearm deaths.

While SB143 would have no impact whatsoever on gun violence, it would impose considerable costs and time to be spent for those law-abiding Nevadans who try to comply with the rather vague law. Running afoul of the law once is a gross misdemeanor and more than once is a felony.

The law requires both private gun seller and buyer to appear together with the firearm at a licensed gun dealer. Since such dealers are usually open during regular business hours, presumably both buyer and seller would have to take time off from work to do so. The law also says the dealer may charge a reasonable fee, though reasonable is not defined.

One dealer testified this past week that currently background checks can tie up employees for a half hour and sometimes up to two hours. “That’s money out of my pocket,” she said.

How many dealers will be willing to actually perform such background checks, if any, and at what “reasonable” fee?

The law does not go into effect until Jan. 2, 2020. What was the rush? Couldn’t some of these unknowns have been addressed before ramming the bill through merely to satisfy Democrats’ liberal base with a feel good measure that will accomplish nothing?

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Newspaper column: Bundys may have to face trial after all

Cliven Bundy walks out of federal court with his wife Carol on Monday, Jan. 8, 2018, in Las Vegas, after a judge dismissed criminal charges against him and his sons accused of leading an armed uprising against federal authorities in 2014. (R-J pix by K.M Cannon

This past week prosecutors appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the decision by a Nevada federal judge to dismiss with prejudice all charges against Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy, two of his sons and a self-style militiaman from Montana because the government failed to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. 

Knowing the track record of the liberal 9th Circuit, odds are the court will order the defendants back to face charges.

The Bundy family has grazed cattle on public land in Clark County since the 1880s, but 25 years ago the Bureau of Land Management told the family it could no longer graze cattle in the spring because they might harm the hatchlings of the threatened desert tortoise — a contention range biologists say is bogus. Since those months are the only ones in which cattle gain weight on the desert range, Bundy refused to comply and stopped paying the BLM its grazing fees. 

In April 2014, saying Bundy owed more than $1 million in grazing fees and trespass fines, contract cowboys backed by heavily armed BLM and FBI agents started rounding up the Bundy cattle. In response, armed men from across the West gathered for a face-off with the federal agents.

To avert a potential bloodbath the agents backed down and left, but Bundy and others were later indicted on charges that included obstruction of justice, conspiracy, extortion, assault and impeding federal officers.

Two of three scheduled trials took place, but a year ago during the third trial of Cliven Bundy and his co-defendants Judge Gloria Navarro abruptly halted proceedings and ruled that the prosecutors had willfully and flagrantly failed to disclose evidence that could have been used by the defense, including information about an FBI surveillance camera, documents citing the presence of snipers, certain maps, FBI logs, threat assessments that showed the Bundys weren’t violent, documents reportedly showing that no threatened desert tortoises were ever found to be harmed by Bundy’s cattle, and internal affairs documents detailing possible misdeeds by the Bureau of Land Management agent in charge, who was later fired.

The judge ruled the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning charges could not be brought against them again. 

Curiously, most of that information cited would have allowed the defense to argue the defendants were provoked and were acting in self-defense, arguments the judge previously ruled were impermissible. The appeal goes into excruciating detail about this seeming contradiction.

In response to the appeal, Bundy’s lawyer Larry Klayman asked the appellate court to dismiss the prosecution’s appeal because it had missed the filing deadline. Though the prosecution asked for deadlines extensions, the court has not yet granted such an extension.

According to press accounts, Klayman also called the appeal “unprofessional and grossly unethical,” adding, “They are apparently hopeful that this court, if an appeal is heard, will relieve them from the prospect that their careers at the Department of Justice are over, much more the potential for disbarment. Given the record, this ‘Hail Mary’ attempt to skate from their own liability is destined to fail.”

But the appeal, penned by Nevada Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth White, argues,  “Any missteps were inadvertent (or at worst negligent), and those errors did not merit the court’s strong condemnation of the prosecution team.”

White also argued that court precedents show the appropriate remedy for failing to disclose would be either the dismissal of some charges or a new trial, not outright dismissal. 

In arguing that disclosure of evidence might jeopardize the safety of witnesses and agents, the appeal dredged up a long-discredited base canard. 

The brief stated, “Its goal was to produce all relevant information while protecting victims, witnesses, and law enforcement officers from harassment and threats, and from the violence that had already taken the lives of two police officers and a civilian at the hands of two of Bundy’s extremist followers.”

This refers to the fact that in June 2014, Jerad and Amanda Miller, killed two Las Vegas police officers and another man before being killed in a shootout with police.

What was not mentioned is that the Millers were a couple of leftist lunatics who showed up at the Bundy ranch standoff but were told by the Bundys to leave because of their “very radical” views. They were not Bundy’s “extremist followers.”

Despite this error, the appellate court is likely to look favorably on the prosecution’s appeal. 

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Newspaper column: Nevada still has a role to play in nuclear deterrence

After learning this past week that the Department of Energy had secretly shipped a thousand pounds of weapons-grade plutonium to the Nevada National Security Site in Nye County before the state had filed a federal lawsuit in November seeking to block such shipments, Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak and the state’s entire Democratic delegation to D.C. flew into paroxysms of apoplexy, accusing the Trump administration of deception and dealing unfairly with the state.

Sisolak put out a statement declaring, “I am beyond outraged by this completely unacceptable deception from the U.S. Department of Energy. The Department led the State of Nevada to believe that they were engaging in good-faith negotiations with us regarding a potential shipment of weapons-grade plutonium, only to reveal that those negotiations were a sham all along. They lied to the State of Nevada, misled a federal court, and jeopardized the safety of Nevada’s families and environment.”

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto was similarly indignant, charging that the Energy Department had “negotiated in bad faith, hiding the timing of their shipment and refused to share crucial information with Members of Congress who had the security clearance to know.”

Rep. Dina Titus said, “Time and again, we have seen Trump Administration officials treat Nevada as the dumping ground for the nation’s nuclear waste.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen called the shipment “deceitful and unethical” and said “the lack of transparency from the Department of Energy is absolutely unacceptable.”

Rep. Susie Lee decried, “Nevada officials were deceived by sham ‘negotiations’ while the safety of millions was jeopardized, as was the environment and economy of dozens of states. Nevada is not the nation’s nuclear dumping ground. Period.”

Rep. Steven Horsford, whose district includes what most Nevadans still call the Test Site, also bemoaned, “Our state is not a dumping ground for the nation’s hazardous waste, and we have no intention of letting it become one.”

The Energy Department responded with its own statement, saying it was inaccurate to state that the Nevada delegation was not informed and the agency made efforts to ensure members of Congress and state officials representing the states involved were notified as early as August 2018.

The agency also said, “It is also inaccurate to characterize this material as ‘waste’. This material is essential for maintenance of the U.S. weapons stockpile, and is handled with the highest standards for safety and security. NNSA routinely ships this type of material between its sites as part of our national security missions and has done so safely and securely for decades.”

Of course the shipment was secret. No one wants to give potential terrorists an itinerary. As for deceiving the court, the shipment had already been sent when the state’s suit was filed and the court was told this past week when the information was declassified.

What does anyone think the test site is used for in the first place? Since the Cold War it literally has been ground zero for nuclear tests and development of our nuclear deterrence. It is remote and secure.

Speaking of deterrence, the ruckus over the plutonium shipment came mere days before Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. is pulling out of a nuclear arms control pact with Russia because of its ongoing and flagrant violations.

“When an agreement is so brazenly disregarded and our security is so openly threatened, we must respond,” Pompeo said. “Russia has jeopardized the United States’ security interests and we can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it.”

This means the U.S. will need to catch up with its potential adversaries, Russia and China, both of which have deployed long-range, nuclear-tipped missiles. That means maintaining and, yes, even adding to our nuclear arsenal.

The very reason the plutonium was shipped to Nevada was because a federal court had ordered it removed from the Savannah River facility in South Carolina because the government had failed to build a facility to convert the plutonium into nuclear reactor fuel. It is being stored here until it can be shipped to Los Alamos, N.M., where it can be processed for weapons with which to defend our country.

That is the role the test site has fulfilled for decades and needs to continue to do, despite the histrionics from Democratic politicians.

A version of this column appeared this week in many of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel and the Lincoln County Record — and the Elko Daily Free Press.