On Sunday, I mentioned some of the reasons why voters don't have access to important information in the upcoming Municipal Court elections.

True enough, voters won't know who's bankrolling candidates until the end of early voting -- when about half of all ballots are cast. But I made a mistake in taking a shot at the seven candidates for Las Vegas Municipal Court who didn't file their financial disclosure statement with the secretary of state. Turns out they didn't have to.

The one candidate who did file at the secretary of state's office, Tony Liker, probably read the state statute the same way I did. And herein lies another campaign finance wrinkle.

NRS 281.561 requires candidates for offices that pay at least $6,000 to file a financial disclosure form with the secretary of state within 10 days of filing for office. But the law also states that judicial candidates must provide financial disclosure information pursuant to a judicial canon which specifies the form should be filed with the Administrative Office of the Courts.

If non-judicial candidates "do not fall under the requirements of NRS 281," as the city of Las Vegas claims, it seems odd they're included in 281.561. Why not a subsection that specifies judicial candidates are not subject to the provision, the same way 281.561 specifies that the supervisor of a conservation district is not subject to the law?

Indeed, all of the candidates for the open Municipal Court seat filed timely disclosures with the Administrative Office of the Courts. But if you want to see the disclosures for Lynn Avants, Patrick Antonio Ferguson, Bill Gonzalez, George Greenberg, Martin Hastings and Bill Henderson, you'll have to call the Administrative Office of the Courts, which does not put the information online.

Showing Nevada the love

The pandering began in earnest Tuesday when Nevada-specific news releases began arriving from Democratic presidential candidates.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's well-oiled machine spit out the first response to the Bush administration's announcement that it would reintroduce Yucca Mountain legislation. "The Bush administration's latest announcement that it will continue to pursue its misguided policy on Yucca Mountain is very disappointing," Clinton said. "I've long opposed using Yucca as a site for nuclear waste."

Glad we now know she's "long opposed" the dump. Guess her hubby's veto of interim storage goes a long way toward Yucca bona fides.

Clinton's answer about what to do with the waste will undoubtedly evolve. For now, she would "work with the scientific community to address this problem and come up with alternative solutions."

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd also went Nevada-specific this week when he touted a bill he has introduced to provide the National Guard with $38 billion in additional funding over the next five years. Dodd issued news releases specific to early caucus/primary states. In the Nevada release, it is noted that Nevada has 3,599 National Guard members.

"Nevada's National Guard bears a heavy burden," the release states. Dodd's comments deal with the issue from a national perspective, referencing last week's report by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves that nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units are not equipped for combat.

Both will be back for full pander, with the other candidates in tow, March 23 and 24 for two big events. The Culinary union has invited them all to a Friday evening rally before thousands of fired-up service workers.

No need to talk about Yucca Mountain, the National Guard or alternative energy there, though. The Friday event is designed to kick off labor negotiations between the Culinary and the majority of Strip properties for a new contract. The candidate with the best "Si, se puede" will do better than the one with the best Shiite-Sunni partition proposal.

On March 24, the candidates will take part in a health care forum at Cox Pavilion on the UNLV campus.

One candidate decided to gamble with his pandering this week. Edwards' campaign said Wednesday that the former senator will not take part in the August debate in Reno to be aired on Fox News and key affiliates. As Edwards courts the left of the party, he risks losing the union constituency that could help him win Nevada's caucus. The unions are sticking with the state party, and I suspect Edwards will be alone with his boycott of the event. He's obviously playing a different strategy here -- hiring only non-Nevadans to run his campaign.

Who knew he was a gambling man?

Erin Neff's column runs Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.