Nevada lawmakers have arrogantly exempted themselves from the state’s open records law. Now they’re taking additional steps to shield themselves from taxpayer scrutiny. It’s an affront to the principles of democracy and transparency.

Nevada Revised Statutes (Chapter 239) explain the rationale for ensuring that the public has a right to access government documents. The purpose of the open records law is “to foster democratic principles by providing members of the public with prompt access to inspect, copy or receive a copy of public books and records to the extent permitted by law.”

In addition, the law “must be construed liberally to carry out this important purpose” and any “exemption, exception or balancing of interests which limits or restricts access to public books and records by members of the public must be construed narrowly.”

So far, so good.

But lawmakers have long claimed that the law did not cover various legislative activities. In 2015, at the behest of the Legislative Counsel Bureau — which provides legal advice to the Legislature — lawmakers rushed through a last-minute bill that exempted most legislative documents — including lawmaker emails, calendars and other communications — from disclosure.

The LCB has since used the statute to justify suppressing taxpayer-funded reports commissioned by lawmakers on accusations against various legislators. The Associated Press has been stymied in efforts to obtain emails from lawmakers.

Now, the Nevada Independent reports, LCB attorneys are withholding digital copies of lawmaker presentations under the guise that the releasing the information could violate federal copyright law. This is flat out ridiculous and will make it only more difficult for watchdogs and members of the public to follow legislation activities.

The lawyers at the LCB have a long and sullied history of interpreting the law to protect lawmakers rather than to advance the interests of the taxpayers who cover their comfortable salaries and benefits. The most glaring example: Their insistence on running cover for legislators who violated the state constitution by serving in two branches of government at the same time.

The legislative exemption from the state’s open records law is far too broad and in conflict with the principles expressed in the legislative acknowledgment of the statute’s importance. The aggressive LCB interpretation of copyright law further impinges on transparency and runs counter to the public interest. If lawmakers truly hope to “foster democratic principles” and promote accountability, they must revive legislation to narrow legislative exemptions to open record compliance and advise LCB attorneys to re-evaluate their draconian decision to limit access to online documents.