Background
In 2023, the Nevada Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 519 to support school-district capital projects. Section 2 required every county with a population from 52,500 through 57,500 to levy a property tax of between one and 25 cents per $100 of assessed value. Section 8 imposed a default 25-cent levy if a covered county did not act by June 30, 2024. A separate provision allowed, but did not require, counties below 100,000 residents outside that narrow band to adopt a similar tax.
Elko County had 53,702 residents in the 2020 census and was the only Nevada county within the designated range. It sought declaratory relief, contending the mandatory provisions were unconstitutional local or special laws. The district court agreed, severed Sections 2 and 8 and a cross-reference in Section 3, and left the remainder of A.B. 519 intact. The Legislature appealed, arguing that population classifications are permissible and that the tax supported a legitimate school-funding purpose.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. Justice Stiglich first applied Nevada’s test for deciding whether a statute is local or special. A population classification must be rationally related to the law’s subject and cannot serve simply as a proxy for a named locality. The unusually tight 5,000-person range bore no demonstrated relationship to school capital needs or to a county’s ability to levy taxes. Legislative testimony repeatedly described the mandate as applying specifically and exclusively to Elko County, confirming that the neutral-looking numbers were chosen to reach one county.
The court then held that the provisions violated Article 4, Section 20 of the Nevada Constitution, which forbids local or special laws regulating county business. Sections 2 and 8 did not prescribe how property would be assessed or how taxes would be collected, so they did not violate the separate prohibition on special assessment-and-collection laws. But they compelled an ongoing county tax for an open-ended collection of school projects. Under Nevada precedent, a law regulates county business when it covers multiple projects and has a permanent rather than temporary effect. Unlike limited bond authorizations for a school, jail, courthouse, or defined river improvements, A.B. 519’s mandate had no single project or endpoint.
Because Article 4, Section 20 resolved the case, the court did not decide whether the provisions also violated the constitutional requirements for generally applicable laws or a uniform system of county government. The severed remainder of A.B. 519, including discretionary authority for other smaller counties, was not disturbed.
Key Takeaways
- A facially neutral population bracket is a local or special classification when its narrow boundaries lack a rational connection to the statute’s purpose and function as a substitute for naming one county.
- Legislative history can expose that connection. Repeated statements that a provision exclusively targets Elko County supported the court’s conclusion.
- A local law regulates county business when it permanently directs county administration across multiple projects; a temporary authorization tied to one defined project is materially different.
- Levying a tax is distinct from assessing or collecting it under Article 4, Section 20, although the levy here still failed under the county-business clause.
Why It Matters
The decision places a meaningful constraint on Nevada legislation drafted around census brackets. Population classifications remain available, but lawmakers need a defensible relationship between the population range and the policy problem. A bespoke band that captures one county—particularly when sponsors say that is the design—will receive close constitutional scrutiny.
For counties, school districts, and public-finance counsel, the scope-and-duration analysis is now central. A targeted measure is more defensible when it funds a defined project for a limited period; an indefinite mandate governing a county’s revenue decisions is much more likely to regulate county business. The ruling invalidates Elko County’s compulsory levy while preserving the rest of the school-capital framework. Drafters should document why a population threshold corresponds to the regulated problem and test how it will operate after later censuses. Counties reviewing a targeted bill should examine whether its duration, breadth, and legislative history reveal a forbidden local command.