Bad precedent

A federal judge this week rejected an attempt by County Commissioner Tom Collins to get out of a court order mandating that he not vote on a controversial road project.

The commissioner should appeal.

The dispute involves two companies attempting to win a multimillion-dollar county contract to widen a stretch of the northern Las Vegas Beltway. The matter has ended up in federal court twice because a nonunion company maintains it can't get a fair shake from pro-union commissioners.

In September, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones rubber-stamped a deal between the county and the paving company under which the controversy would go back before the commission, but Mr. Collins and colleague Steve Sisolak would abstain on the vote.

Mr. Collins later said he had never agreed to such a stipulation and went back to court to block the order.

But on Tuesday, Judge Jones upheld his order, ruling that it didn't infringe on the commissioner's liberty or property interests.

He didn't, however, address the core issue: What authority does a federal judge have to tell a local elected official that he may not represent his constituents on a specific agenda item?

In fact, the judge has no such authority.

True, Judge Jones issued his original order only after attorneys for the county and the paving company reached a deal and put it on his desk. But it nevertheless raises important separation of powers questions and comes perilously close to a dangerous judicial intrusion on the ability of local officials to govern.

Judge Jones' order sets an awful precedent that shouldn't be allowed to stand. Mr. Collins should continue his fight.