Challenge spurs uncertainty in race for commission seat

When the state Supreme Court makes its much-awaited ruling on term limits, it will dispel a cloud of uncertainty hanging over the primary election.

However, some haze could linger over one contest: the three-way Republican race for the district seat that County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury has held since 1981.

Campaign money could be thrown down a black hole, votes could be discarded and the Republican who winds up in the general election may not be purely the people's choice.

If the high court rules to disqualify Woodbury, based on 12-year term limits passed by voters in 1996, the Clark County Republican Party would choose a replacement.

State law doesn't limit the choice to candidates on the ballot, so it's possible that someone who doesn't run in the Aug. 12 primary -- and for whom no one casts a vote -- could wind up in the general election.

A local GOP leader said he and other party officials are discussing how they would go about replacing Woodbury if he's declared ineligible, but have formed no solid strategy.

"We're kind of in uncharted territory," said Bernie Zadrowski, chairman of the county Republican Party. "We all want Bruce to be there, but we think it's important to be prepared."

Zadrowski said he has received calls from people who expressed interest in running for commissioner if Woodbury is bumped out. A few of the callers would make excellent candidates, he added.

'A LITTLE BIT OF CHAOS'

Brian Scroggins, a Republican contender, said he's OK with party leaders looking at prospects outside the ballot.

"If that's the process," Scroggins said. "As long as it's an even playing field. I would take my chance with the central committee."

As a favor to Woodbury, he is holding off on serious campaigning until after the high court makes a decision, he said.

In return, Woodbury has agreed that, if disqualified, he would endorse him, Scroggins said. A good word from Woodbury would carry weight with the central committee, he said.

Woodbury, however, wouldn't confirm or deny that he'd back Scroggins.

"While I'm a candidate, I'm not commenting on other candidates," Woodbury said. "I have no reason to believe I'm ineligible."

Duane Christy, the other rival candidate, said he disagrees with having the party pick a replacement. He thinks the second place finisher should run in the general election because that would reflect the will of the voters.

Christy said that, unlike Scroggins, he is campaigning hard.

"I'm a serious candidate," Christy said. "I'm out here spending my time in 110-degree heat, meeting people, knocking on doors."

Christy, who owns a collection agency, estimates he will spend $50,000 of his own money to campaign in the primary. If he's pushed aside unfairly, he would explore legal remedies for being reimbursed, he said.

Woodbury also has invested in the race. He said he has spent between $200,000 and $300,000 in campaign funds, mostly donations, and would recoup none of it if he's ruled ineligible.

"A lot of uncertainty out there, and a little bit of chaos," Woodbury said. "There's nothing I can do about any of it except to move forward as a candidate."

DEAD VOTES

One thing won't change, regardless of whether the court decision comes before or after the Aug. 12 primary.

Woodbury, a 27-year fixture on the commission, a man so revered that a beltway is named after him, will have his name on the ballot even if he's ineligible. It's too late to delete his name from the system.

And he could garner the most votes anyway.

Two years ago, Kathy Augustine drew 26,391 votes in the state Treasurer's race and came in second, even though she'd died a month earlier. In 2000, a dead Missouri governor beat future U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in that state's senatorial contest.

Woodbury has the added advantage of being alive.

If he is disqualified before the primary, election officials will notify the public as best they can that he is no longer in the race. That might include displaying signs at the polls -- a measure normally used for, well, dead candidates.

Any votes for Woodbury would be tossed out.

"We wouldn't tabulate them," said Larry Lomax, the county registrar of voters. "It would be as if his name were not on the ballot."

A thornier question is whether it would be proper to discard votes for Woodbury if the high court declares him ineligible after the primary, given that he was an actual candidate when people cast their votes.

A civil rights lawyer argues that disqualifying a candidate after an election raises serious constitutional questions.

People who voted in good faith for a viable candidate would suddenly find their votes don't count, said Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for Nevada's American Civil Liberties Union. Also, the pending court decision might prompt Woodbury supporters to forgo voting for him, in fear their votes will be rendered meaningless, Lichtenstein said. Of course, that impact would matter only if Woodbury is allowed to run, but it speaks to how the looming uncertainty can influence voters, he said.

"Either way, it's a very problematic situation," Lichtenstein said.

This scenario would be far different from the court judging him ineligible before the election, and his name remaining on the ballot, Lichtenstein said. In that case, people would go to the polls knowing that any votes for Woodbury wouldn't count.

ELECTION IN LIMBO

All three candidates questioned why a term-limits brouhaha erupted during an election after the issue lay dormant for so many years.

Matt Griffin, deputy secretary of state, said the timing couldn't be avoided.

By law, Secretary of State Ross Miller couldn't issue a challenge until after the candidates in question had entered the races, Griffin said. Otherwise, there would be nothing to challenge, he said.

Also, this was the year when a number of elected leaders reached the 12-year mark after the term limits were passed, Griffin said.

Dan Hart, a political consultant, said Miller appears to have no cloaked agenda for the timing.

"You have to take him at his word," Hart said. "He's a guy who's not been political."

But Lichtenstein contends that the term-limit question could have been cleared up a long time ago.

Springing it on candidates and voters now has created a "logistical nightmare" and might compromise the election, he said.

Christy said the justices at the high court need to make a ruling soon and get the election out of limbo.

"Let's make a decision," Christy said. "Whether we agree with them or not."

Contact reporter Scott Wyland at swyland@reviewjournal.com or 702-455-4519.