John Eastman (Chapman) has published Anatomy of the Federal Litigation: Challenging the Legislature’s Actions in the Wake of Guinn v. Legislature, 4 Nev. L.J. 543 (2004). Here is the Conclusion:

Well-established federal claims of vote dilution, and violations of the due process and/or equal protection clauses, were implicated by Nevada Assembly actions, which deemed as “passed” tax increases without the two-thirds vote mandated by the Nevada Constitution. Less-established — indeed, long dormant — are claims that the Nevada Assembly’s actions, and those of the Nevada Supreme Court upon which it relied, violated the Article IV guarantee of a republican form of government. In many ways, this claim is the most interesting; it directly challenges the circular defense that no claim had been stated because all actions had been authorized by the Nevada Supreme Court. At its root, the guarantee of a republican form of government means that the people are the ultimate masters of their fate. They are the ultimate decision-makers as to the form of government under which they will live, through the constitutions they choose to adopt. A state court can no more “authorize” the state legislature to ignore the clear commands of a valid constitutional provision than the legislature can choose to do so on its own. Either action displaces the rule of the people with the rule of their agents, and replaces a republican form of government with a tyrannical one.