SAN FRANCISCO - Having suffered two court defeats already, backers of a Las Vegas ballot measure that would upend Nevada redevelopment and lease-revenue bond laws have filed a last-ditch appeal to the state Supreme Court.
The conflict stems from a political tussle between Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which represents rank-and-file casino workers, and Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman over his plans to reshape the city's downtown.
The union gathered enough signatures to place two measures on the city's June 2 election ballot.
One is an initiative that would require voter approval for any new redevelopment plans or projects, and also require voters' approval for city "lease-purchase" agreements; the other is a referendum to repeal the city's redevelopment plan.
City officials said both measures were illegal and refused to place them on the ballot.
Citing a need for speed, the measure's backers went directly to the state's highest court seeking an order placing their measures on the ballot. They lost that battle, and lost again when a district court judge ruled against them April 17. Now they are trying to gain a Supreme Court hearing on the merits of the case, with the clock ticking louder as the election date nears.
Las Vegas and its lawyers argued the measures needed to be kept of the ballot because they were clear violations of the state and federal constitutions.
The referendum to repeal the city's redevelopment plan would effectively terminate the Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency and leave holders of its debt hanging, they said. The agency, which already had outstanding obligations, sold $85 million in redevelopment bonds in March.
The initiative targeting lease-purchase agreements was designed to torpedo Goodman's plan to build a new city hall financed with lease-revenue bonds.
The union and its supporters appear to have undermined themselves with both their legal strategy and their petition-gathering strategy.
District Judge David Barker's April 17 ruling did not address any legal questions about lease-purchase agreements. He ruled that the union's initiative was illegal simply because it violated the state's "single-subject" rule.
"The initiative petition includes two distinct subjects, one relating to voter approval for all lease-purchase agreements (whether for redevelopment projects or otherwise), and the other seeking to govern the Redevelopment Agency by popular vote," he wrote. "They are not functionally related or germane to one another."
Judge Barker also agreed with the city's argument that the Redevelopment Agency referendum would have illegal and draconian impacts on outstanding agency debt.
Barker said the referendum misleads voters because it tells them it would only have a future effect of preventing new redevelopment projects or debt.
"The petition fails to inform the voters of the true effect of passage of the referendum: termination of the redevelopment plan and the impairment of the outstanding securities of the Redevelopment Agency," he wrote.
Arguing that an immediate ruling was needed, the plaintiffs sought a direct hearing with the Supreme Court.
After April 6 oral arguments, the high court, without discussing the merits, ruled that the case should have gone to district court in the first place, setting the stage for Barker's April 17 ruling in favor of the city.
Now the plaintiffs have appealed Barker's ruling to the Supreme Court, as there is no intermediate appellate court in Nevada. An appeal was formally lodged Thursday, but no briefings or hearings had been scheduled as of Friday.
Meanwhile, Las Vegas city clerk Beverly Bridges told local press Thursday that she has already ordered ballots printed to be sure that overseas and military voters have enough time to exercise their franchise in the June 2 election.
