Constitutional Law

Nev. high court tosses portion of state's ethics law

By By The Associated Press

CARSON CITY, Nev. ? The Nevada Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a portion of the state?s ethics law yesterday in a case involving Sparks Councilman Michael Carrigan.

The high court said the law the Nevada Ethics Commission relied on when it censured Carrigan for voting on the controversial Lazy 8 casino project in 2005 was overly broad and lacked ?necessary limitations to its regulations of protected speech.?

The ethics panel said Carrigan should have abstained from voting because his friend and campaign manager, Carlos Vasquez, also worked as a consultant for the Red Hawk Land Co., which was backing the casino project.

Carrigan disclosed his relationship with Vasquez on the record but voted on the advice of the city attorney, saying he didn?t stand to ?reap either financial or personal gain or loss? by his action.

Carrigan petitioned a judge in Carson City for a judicial review of the ethics commission?s ruling. Former District Judge Bill Maddox rejected Carrigan?s constitutional claims and said the state?s interest in having an ethical government outweighs a public officer?s right to exercise his free speech through voting.

Yesterday?s 5-1 Supreme Court decision reverses the lower court ruling.

The majority opinion written by Justice Michael Douglas said a ?catchall? provision in the law that extends defined voting prohibitions ? such as in matters involving family members, business partners or employers ? to any other ?similar? relationship was vague and overly broad.

?This catchall language fails to adequately limit the statute?s potential reach and does not inform or guide public officers as to what relationships require recusal,? the opinion said.

Justices also said voting by public officials amounts to protected speech under the First Amendment.

Justice Kris Pickering, in a lone dissent, disagreed. She said invalidating conflict-of-interest laws ?is a mistake that I fear opens the door to much litigation and little good.?

Earlier this month, a Reno judge found that the ethics commission violated Carrigan?s First Amendment rights when it forced him to abstain for another vote involving the project last year.

Full post as published by First Amendment Center on July 29, 2010 (boomark / email).