Regular readers may have caught my Friday column in the Review-Journal about a truly bizarre Nevada Supreme Court ruling in the case of the Caesars Entertainment arena proposal planned for the Strip. A committee affiliated with Caesars commissioned an initiative petition that would create a special taxing district on the Strip to fund the project, and got the required signatures last year.
But the project is being fought vociferously by another committee affiliated with rival MGM Resorts International and Boyd Gaming, which oppose a Casears arena in part because it would be built with tourist tax dollars wrung from the special taxing district. Plus, the opponents argued, the way the initiative is written, it would allow only the Caesars project, and not other potential arenas proposed for downtown, UNLV, and Henderson, near the M Resort.
The Supreme Court agreed with that argument, and ruled last week that the legally required description of effect that appeared on every page of the petition was “deceptive and materially misleading” because it failed to mention the exclusivity of the Casesars site. The ruling remanded the case to the 1st Judicial District Court in Carson City, with orders to re-write the description of effect, but it also specifically denied a motion by opponents that the measure be tossed off the November ballot, where voters are slated to decide its fate.
That created a good deal of confusion at the tail end of last week. Supporters said the court intended simply for the description to be re-written so when it’s published in state-issued voter guides, the voters will have the correct information. But opponents argued that the high court had delivered a death blow to the initiative, since under state law, if the description of effect is re-written in any way — even a change of a single word — then the signatures collected thereunder are invalid and the process must begin anew. That would force Casears back into the field to collect signatures, with a tight November deadline. The measure couldn’t appear before voters until November 2014 at the earliest.
(You can read the Supreme Court’s order for yourself here: Taxpayers-v-Committee-ORDER.)
Sure enough, on Friday, arena opponents filed a motion in the First District, asking District Court Judge James Todd Russell to explicitly do what they claim the Supreme Court implicitly ordered: Toss out the signatures and begin anew, with the re-written description of effect.
(You can read that motion for yourself here: Taxpayers-V-Committee-MO-SIGNATURES.)
“How can one saythat signatures collected with a ‘deceptive and materially misleading’ description of effect are valid, when the very purpose of the description of effect is to accurately inform registered voters about the initiative as they ‘decide the threshold issue of whether they event want the initiative placed on the ballot,’” the motion reads. “Such a conclusion would be absurd and NRS 295.015(2) makes it clear that the Legislature did not intend such an absurd result.”
“By instructing this [District] court to modify the description of effect, the Nevada Supreme Court is presumed to have known that NRS 295.015 requires invalidation of the signatures previously collected,” the motion adds.
So, why didn’t the Supreme Court explicitly say the previously collected signatures were invalid as a result of the deceptive and materially misleading description of effect, strike the measure from the ballot and be done with it? The motion suggests that justices implied that in their order.
“While the [pro-arena] Committee will certainly urge an expansive reading of footnote 4 in thie order of remand [which denied a motion to remove the initiative from the November ballot] this court should apply it based solely on its plain language — the Nevada Supreme Court declined to remove the initiative from the ballot,” the motion reads. “Instead, the Supreme Court remanded the case to this [District] court for ‘proceedings consistent with this order.’
“As a result of those proceedings, the description of effect must be modified. Once the description has been modified, this court will have no choice other than to invalidate all of the signatures that were collected prior to the amendment of the description of effect.”
The arguments over what the Supreme Court meant in its order will clearly continue, with one possible explanation that justices preferred not to strike the arena initiative from the ballot to avoid irritating Caesars, which has spent considerable time and money on the initiative. If Russell invalidates the signatures, he’ll bear the wrath of the company instead. Then again, if he doesn’t knock it off the ballot, he’ll irk MGM Resorts International, which doesn’t want to see the measure go before voters, requiring an expensive and hard-fought campaign leading up to November.
But the post-order arguing is unique in another aspect, too: It’s hardly common for this much ambiguity to exist after a ruling is made, much less on such a fundamental point. Justices without wasting too much paper could have easily settled this in their order, with just a line or two. The fact that they did not is noteworthy in and of itself.
UPDATE: Who’s to do the dirty work? It looks like the Supreme Court will! In response to a motion for rehearing/clarification, the court today (Tuesday, June 26) unanimously signed an order that sets a schedule for briefs specifically addressed to the issue of NRS 295.015, and what effect it might have on allowing the initiative to go forward to the November ballot. In other words, “whoops — my bad!”
Petition signers don’t have the time to study the details on their way into the supermarket. Some rely on the news for the gist of those things. Most signers just like what the (sometimes paid) volunteer says about the petition and sign. Then forget about it while they go into the store.
I did not sign that petition. I was sure it was all about the Caesars site from all the media coverage so I had already made my mind up. It was only about the one site. They want to build it? Fine, its their property let them use their own money. They don’t need any special tax district to help it along. I know they say it will be their money they spend they just want to control where the revenues go….we have elections and representatives for that. No on the tax district. That will be my vote and no I do not work for MGM or any other casino.
Once on the ballot voters who may or may not have been watching the issue would have to be properly informed and different from the signers the vast majority of the voters probably have not had the chance to read the details. But hopefully they do read the papers…at least watch the news on tv. It is true the voters would need good details in the ballot but that would not effect the vast majority of the signers who did not read it on the way into the store anyway.
Thanks for the links, shows you are serious about being accurate but in the past I have found you to be good at getting the info correct even as you will occasionally try to slant it in favor of your opinion. I don’t see that in this piece.
The details are to inform registered voters with the sample ballot. Petition signers presumably made up their minds long before signing the petition or they like the pitch from the volunteer who obviously supports the project or is paid for positive attitude, and the signatures they get. These volunteers are salespeople selling to those who have mostly made their decisions already.
On the MGM/Caesars battlefront you probably nail it. But it doesn’t change the facts the signers are not the ones that need correct details, the voters are the ones who would be hurt with a vague write up in the sample ballots come October and November.
I think the NV Supreme court did a good thing here and they probably saved their own butts along the way.
If I may capture your caption; Who’s to do the dirty work here; it appears it’s the taxpayers again. I’m afraid I fell asleep partway through your missal; all I caught was the taxpayer paying for a sports arena.
I lived in Vancouver Washington during the time that Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen wanted the taxpayers of the state to build him a brand new football stadium for his team. “It’s good for the local economy.” I lived at the other end of the state and I didn’t care to pay for a private business’ stadium, much less still have to travel over a hundred miles to pay over $100 to see a game (which I don’t care for) full of players making $5 million a year. It’s a business, build your own stadium.
Yet right across the river from me (Portland, Oregon) they were giving a huge property tax break (taxpayer subsidy) to microprocessor builder, Intel, to ‘build local;’ “It’s good for the local economy. And I believe yesterday’s R-J mentioned how Washington’s (DC) Farm Bill will subsidize corporate farmers nearly $1 trillion dollars.
Now tell me again why the taxpayer should subsidize businesses (and connected politicians) in this corporate capitalistic atmosphere. If a local basketball court will benefit the local businesses; let them or the team owner build it.
I wouldn’t sign that petition neither. Just another lame attempt by somebody who has more money than me trying to make me pay for their excesses that I will probably never enjoy.
Arenas are a losing proposition. They tell people it will benefit them, but in the long run, it never does. The only people it pleases are the tourists. And they don’t pay my taxes.
The powers that be can’t seem to take any steps to fix the economic devastation we’re in now, and they want an arena? I don’t care if, in the long run, it will improve the economy of Las Vegas. It does nothing for me nor you RIGHT NOW.
And I don’t need to add another useless politician in the mix who is gonna tell me this is good for Las Vegas. They sure come up with a lot of promises, but nothing worth a shit to anyone. I find out that politicians all seem to want to look at the little guy as victims waiting to happen.
We have a Governor who only steps forward and emphatically stands in the way when someone tries to raise taxes on mining/casinos. But he sure seems to say nothing when someone says they are going to raise my taxes. That tells me the Governor is not my friend. And will never be.
My question is this. As a taxpayer, why should I pay for a stupid arena, when the filthy rich here in Las Vegas don’t even pay their fair share of taxes to begin with?
I hate this clouding the situation all the time and making the little guy pay for pipedreams and rich motherfuckers’ excesses.
A knucklehead like Adelson will spend upwards of $100 million dollars for a total nincompoop candidate’s Presidential campaign (Romney), but he can’t afford a thin dime for an arena. Don’t make sense.
Don’t sign any petitions. Tell ‘em to go pound sand. Make these filthy rich vampires build their own arena. They want to build an arena? Fine. JUST GET THE HELL OUTTA MY POCKETS!!
Okay, Mr. Sebelius. Sorry. Through with my rant…..
Well, Well.
This issue certainly united people from markedly different ideologies. Seems for the same reasons too. We all know stadiums are a losing proposition and we don’t want to “invest” in any way, in those projects.
I wonder why this is not seen by all when it is the steel wheels train to Victorville under discussion?
Check this picture out,
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=480554685304517&set=a.224321947594460.75723.224319224261399&type=1
So, if the court requires new signatures there be even less time to get them.
Could be dragging it out even longer, maybe not have the time to make it on the ballot.
Surprise! The court gets to stop it and point the finger at Boyd and MGM?
Actually, Caesars gathered the signatures last time in three months, starting in August, so if the court rules they have to start again, they would actually have more time this year than last.
The identities of the litigants, to my way of thinking, has definitely affected this case. The fact is, signature-gatherers did lie about the effects of the petition (I personally was told it was for an arena “downtown,” and when I read and objected to that, the paid collector said, “Downtown, the Strip, what’s the difference?”). I cannot help but think that if this petition were filed by a regular Joe, it would have been struck by now. I cannot prove that, and I know it’s a serious allegation, but that is my honest belief, based on what I’ve seen in this state in the last 20 years.
I like it Steve. Nice honest response in a forum as public as this and I agree. Even as I do not on most other things.
Juice is one of the things I got from your original piece. My thoughts were blown out by the courts action so, back to bizarre it goes. Still seems to me the voters are the ones who need the accurate write up, those who signed or those who did not had already made up their minds. Like you had. You signed it because you knew all about it and more. Then you :) lambasted the paid collector for lying to you! Love that move. I might take some time to actually talk to these people from now on, I will be using that tactic and thank you in advance.
In my 30 years here this seems to be the norm. Juice Speaks. My wife is 45 years here and there was a time when it was much better, but juicier. Sort of off topic but Ralph Lamb is a consultant on the new Vegas series this fall, I am looking forward to that. I met him at Bob Taylors one time a few decades ago. He is the real Vegas IMO. Supporting on topic, want to know how Vegas breathes? Talk with Ralph Lamb.