The Nevada Supreme Court just handed Governor Joe Lombardo a big victory. They ruled unanimously that his lawsuit can move forward against the state’s ethics commission.
This isn’t just about one governor. It’s about something much bigger that every conservative should care about: keeping government power in check.
What This Fight Is Really About
Here’s the story in simple terms:
Back in 2022, when Lombardo was running for governor, he used photos of himself wearing his sheriff’s badge in campaign materials. The Nevada Commission on Ethics didn’t like this. They said he broke the rules by using government property for personal gain. They fined him $20,000 and gave him an official scolding.
But wait. There’s more to this story.
The ethics commission originally wanted to fine him nearly $1.67 million. That’s right – over a million and a half dollars for using photos of his own badge. Think about that for a minute. That’s the kind of massive government overreach that should make every limited government supporter’s blood boil.
The Real Constitutional Problem
Lombardo isn’t just complaining about the fine. He’s making a much deeper point about how our government should work. His lawsuit argues that the ethics commission violates the separation of powers because half of its members are appointed by the legislature, not the governor.
This matters a lot. Our founders set up three separate branches of government for a good reason. They didn’t want any one branch to have too much power over the others. When legislative appointees can punish executive branch officials, that’s exactly the kind of power mixing our constitution was designed to prevent.
Why This Matters to Conservatives
This case hits three big conservative principles right in the sweet spot.
First, it’s about limiting government power. When bureaucrats can impose million-dollar fines for minor violations, that’s government run wild.
Second, it’s about constitutional principles. Separation of powers isn’t just fancy lawyer talk, it’s what keeps our government from becoming tyrannical.
Third, it’s about fair treatment under the law.
Lombardo himself put it well when he said there were:
“people involved in this that I feel made decisions based on not the right thing, but partisanship.”
That’s exactly what happens when political appointees get to sit in judgment of their political opponents.
What the Other Side Says
Critics argue that ethics rules exist for good reasons. They say public officials shouldn’t use government resources for personal campaigns, even if it’s just photos. Some argue that oversight bodies need independence from the officials they’re supposed to watch.
The ethics commission’s executive director, Ross Armstrong, originally pushed for that massive $1.67 million fine. His reasoning was that every time a campaign photo appeared online, it was a separate violation. Under this logic, sharing the same photo multiple times could cost a candidate their entire fortune.
Thankfully, the full ethics commission didn’t buy this extreme approach. They voted 4-2 to impose a much smaller fine of $20,000 – that’s $5,000 for each of the four photos he used. Even so, that’s still a hefty penalty for what amounts to campaign photos.
What Happens Next
The case now goes back to Carson City District Court for further proceedings. This Supreme Court ruling doesn’t mean Lombardo wins automatically. It just means he gets his day in court to argue that the ethics commission overstepped its constitutional authority.
If Lombardo wins on the merits, it could reshape how ethics enforcement works in Nevada. It might also encourage other governors and officials to challenge similar overreach in their states.
What Conservatives Should Do
This case shows why elections matter at every level. State supreme court justices, district attorneys, and ethics commissioners all have real power over our daily lives. When we vote, we need to think about constitutional principles, not just party labels.
Conservatives should also pay attention to how ethics rules are written and enforced in their own states. Are the oversight bodies truly independent, or are they political weapons waiting to be used? Do the penalties fit the actual harm done, or are they designed to bankrupt political opponents?
We should support officials who fight government overreach, even when it’s politically risky. Lombardo could have just paid his $20,000 fine and moved on. Instead, he’s spending time and money to challenge a system that violates constitutional principles.
The Bigger Picture
This Nevada case is part of a larger pattern. Across the country, government bureaucrats are finding new ways to harass and intimidate their political opponents. They use ethics rules, campaign finance laws, and regulatory enforcement as weapons against people they don’t like politically.
When government officials fight back against this abuse, they’re not just defending themselves. They’re defending the principle that government power must be limited and accountable. That’s a principle worth fighting for, whether you’re a governor or just a regular citizen who wants to keep government in its proper place.
The Nevada Supreme Court got this one right. Now it’s time to see if the lower court will stand up for constitutional principles over bureaucratic convenience.
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
