Regent files challenge against longtime commissioner’s eligibility

Regent Steve Sisolak filed a challenge against Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury on Thursday, arguing that the longtime incumbent can't seek re-election because of 12-year term limits passed by voters in 1996.

Sisolak filed to run against Woodbury after the secretary of state disputed Woodbury's candidacy based on term limits.

Sisolak's challenge, however, probably will be short-lived because it will be decided by District Attorney David Roger, who issued a formal opinion earlier this week stating that the term limits don't apply to Woodbury and three other candidates.

"Based upon our previous decision, we would in all likelihood deny his challenge," Roger said Thursday. "We would inform Mr. Sisolak we did not find probable cause."

If Sisolak wanted to continue challenging Woodbury's eligibility, he would have to file a petition known as "declaratory relief" directly with District Court, Roger said. The court would determine whether Sisolak's claim had merit.

Sisolak, a Democrat, said he will take his challenge as far as he can, even to the state Supreme Court. He said he wanted to put forth a term-limit case in Clark County so it would apply to Woodbury, a Republican.

There's a chance that a Pershing County case wouldn't affect Woodbury because it's in a different locale, even if the Supreme Court ruled against the candidate in question, Sisolak said.

Sisolak said he never meant to suggest he'd withdraw from the contest if Woodbury ran.

He claims he and Woodbury made an agreement: If Secretary of State Ross Miller pursued a legal challenge against Woodbury, then Woodbury would bow out; if Miller decided that term limits didn't affect Woodbury, then Sisolak would quit. Woodbury said he was taken aback by Sisolak's action.

"This one surprised me because I got a call from him last week where he was basically expressing support for me as a commissioner and a candidate," Woodbury said.

Woodbury denied telling Sisolak he would quit if Miller pushed ahead. If a court declares his candidacy unlawful, then he would end his campaign, Woodbury said.

Forcing a 27-year incumbent off the ballot would remove a big obstacle for candidates vying for the District A seat.

Sisolak insists that isn't his motive in challenging Woodbury's right to run, though he acknowledged the race is much tougher with Woodbury in it.

"He is definitely a well-entrenched incumbent," Sisolak said. "He's a very formidable opponent."

Sisolak said he is merely standing behind the intent of voters who approved the amendment that limits elected leaders' service to 12 years.

The 1996 measure affects those whose political terms began after it passed.

Woodbury was elected just before the measure passed, but he wasn't sworn into office until 1997. A fierce debate has flared up about whether his term started when he was elected or sworn in.

Sisolak argues that because the measure uses the word "serve" not "elect," it clearly points to 1997 as the beginning of Woodbury's term.

But Roger, in a letter to the secretary of state's office, says the language is ambiguous.

Any interpretation should favor the candidates and the rights of voters who chose them, Roger wrote. He argued that no probable cause existed to disqualify candidates who were elected in 1996.

Sisolak said he would like the courts to sort it out.

"You've got pretty bright people on both sides of the issue," Sisolak said. "It's not clear-cut. I'd like a judge to weigh in."

Woodbury said he'd prefer the matter be resolved at the polls.

"In the end, if there's any doubt about the situation, we should go to the voters and let them decide," Woodbury said.

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