Culinary hits snag on ballot measures

The Nevada Supreme Court won't force Las Vegas to put two disputed ballot measures before voters June 2, but those promoting the measures still can go to a lower court to seek a legal remedy.

In a ruling released Wednesday, justices did not delve into the constitutional questions raised by the city about the measures or the violations of state initiative and referendum procedure that the city is accused of committing.

Instead, they said, intervening in the case would be an extraordinary and unwarranted step by the high court.

"There are expedient and efficient remedies available in the district court to address matters such as those presented here," the ruling states. "We are not persuaded that extraordinary intervention by this court is appropriate at this time."

Culinary Union Local 226, which organized the petition drive behind the measures, released a statement Wednesday saying the fight isn't over yet.

"We will immediately file litigation in District Court seeking to protect the fundamental constitutional right of citizens to file initiatives and referendums," said a statement from secretary-treasurer D. Taylor. "We believe the rights of the voters should be respected. We find the Nevada Supreme Court's decision on this important ruling troubling."

On Monday, city officials said the printing of absentee ballots must start April 22.

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman released a statement praising the ruling.

"This is a great day for the future of Las Vegas and Nevada. Workers will have jobs. They will be able to pay their mortgages and feed their families," the statement says. "As an aside, the city will not be crippled by those with ulterior motives who try to extort us."

One measure would repeal the existing redevelopment plan, which was put in place to use incentives and tax breaks to lure development into blighted areas around downtown.

The other would require voter approval on "lease-purchase" agreements to build public buildings. That's the financing measure considered for the proposed city hall.

City Attorney Brad Jerbic told Las Vegas City Council members that the submissions met technical requirements for inclusion on the ballot.

But, Jerbic said, they would unconstitutionally interfere with existing contracts in other redevelopment projects, overreach into areas not covered by initiative and referendum law and unleash a tidal wave of litigation against the city if approved by voters.

Chris Bohner, Culinary's research director, said the city is simply afraid that voters would approve the measures if given a chance. "We followed every step to the letter. Clearly they're afraid to have the voters vote on this."

Union officials say they undertook the effort to counter the city's push for a new city hall because the project is too expensive to take on in an economic downturn. They also are critical of the way the city has handled redevelopment.

Goodman says the union is trying to strong-arm the city into forcing casino developers to negotiate labor contracts , a claim Bohner and Taylor have denied. The would-be developer of a new city hall has plans for a new casino downtown, and city officials are working closely with the company seeking to renovate and reopen the Lady Luck casino.

Contact reporter Alan Choate at achoate@reviewjournal.com or 702-229-6435.