Las Vegas counters Culinary arguments in Supreme Court brief

In the matter of two ballot measures that supporters want on Las Vegas’ June 2 city elections ballot, it’s time to slow down and think hard, according to a brief filed Thursday by the city.

The brief says that the measures, being pushed by the Culinary union, raise complicated legal issues that should not be decided hurriedly. What’s more, the case has dragged on long enough that election deadlines are passing, a development that the city blames on the union.

The union has “placed this court in an untenable position, and this court should refuse to rush the important decisions it would have made in this appeal,” states the filing before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is in response to a Culinary legal filing on Tuesday.

The union is appealing a district judge’s decision not to order the Las Vegas City Council to place the measures on the ballot. That hearing was fast-tracked, as was an earlier hearing before the Supreme Court.

That’s enough accommodation, the city’s brief says: “They should not be offered yet another chance for extraordinary relief simply because they got answers they did not like.”

The union gathered signatures to put two ballot measures before voters.

One asks for the repeal of the redevelopment ordinance, which sets guidelines for how and where the city uses incentives to lure development into blighted areas. The other gives voters power over paying back “lease-purchase” agreements, which is the financing method being considered for a proposed new city hall.

The City Council called them legally flawed and voted not to put them on the ballot, setting off litigation.

Both sides blame the other for why the case has dragged on past early election deadlines. Union representatives say the City Council deliberately delayed its vote keeping the measures off the ballot, and then said it had to wait to file the Supreme Court appeal because the court hadn’t issued it a docket number.

The city dismisses that contention in its brief, saying there are legal avenues to file emergency appeals, and City Attorney Brad Jerbic has said he waited to bring the matters to a council vote because of ongoing talks with the union to settle the matter beforehand.

The union argues that not putting the issues before voters would rob them of initiative and referendum rights. In response, the city says the union is using those arguments to cloak badly botched measures that would create legal, procedural and constitutional nightmares for the city.

In arguing against a fast-track hearing on the lawsuit, the city’s brief notes that right now ballots have only been prepared for the Ward 4 council race, which is the only contest left for voters to decide.

Recasting the election to involve citywide ballot measures would boost the number of absentee ballots to 18,000, up from 4,900 currently. Running a citywide election would cost the city an additional $450,000.

Also, absentee ballots were mailed Thursday, with the rest set to go out today. Printing new absentee ballots would take a week, and it would be another week before those would be ready for mailing. Sample ballots were sent to be printed Thursday.

All these deadlines are set in state law, according to an affidavit from City Clerk Beverly Bridges.

The issues raised in the lawsuit are significant, argues the city. They include whether a local government must put initiatives and referenda on the ballot, even if flawed; whether a section of state law concerning ballot measures applies to local measures, or only statewide ones; and if Nevada courts have the power to order a special election, something the union’s brief argues could be done in this case.

The issues raised “are of such importance and complexity that the court should not attempt to brief, argue and decide them as established legal principles in any scant time that may be left,” the city’s brief states.

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