Ethics panel will appeal censure ruling

LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Ethics Commission announced Monday it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court a recent state Supreme Court decision tossing out its censure of a Sparks councilman.

Ethics Commission Chairman John T. Moran said the commission will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to schedule a hearing on the state court's decision on a casino project vote made by Sparks City Councilman Michael Carrigan.

Caren Jenkins, the Ethics Commission executive director, said 95 percent of appeals to the Supreme Court are rejected. But the Nevada law stating when public officials should abstain from voting is similar to laws in other states and the court could clarify the constitutionality of these laws, she said.

On July 29, the state Supreme Court on a 5-1 vote tossed out the Ethics Commission's censure of Michael Carrigan. In 2005, he cast a vote supporting construction of the Lazy 8 hotel/casino, although his friend and campaign manager Carlos Vasquez was a consultant on the project.

Carrigan publicly disclosed his relationship with Vasquez at a city council meeting before voting. He said he would not gain financially from the project.

The Ethics Commission censured Carrigan for not abstaining from voting. He appealed to the courts.

The state Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Michael Douglas found:

"Because voting is a core legislative function, it follows that voting serves an important role in political speech.  Based on our recognition of voting as a core legislative function, and in connection with other jurisdictions' holdings that voting in a legislative setting is protected speech, we conclude that voting by an elected public officer on public issues is protected speech under the First Amendment."

Douglas noted that court agreed the Ethics Commission should take steps to ensure the integrity and impartiality of voting by public officers. He pointed out ethics laws require public officers to refrain from voting when "the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his situation would be materially affected by ... his commitment in a private capacity to the interests of others." 

But the court decided the state law was overbroad in defining what relationships would trigger abstaining from voting.