|
PETITIONS: Lawsuit opposes initiative rules
Group says lawmakers' limits violate
Constitution
Sep. 19, 2008
Copyright ©
Las Vegas Review-Journal
By SANDRA CHEREB
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A group representing tip-earning casino
workers went back to court Thursday to challenge
Nevada's initiative petition requirements,
claiming rules enacted by lawmakers are onerous
and unconstitutional.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Las
Vegas argues that limiting petitions to a single
subject, requiring a 200-word summary and
allowing opposition groups to challenge
petitions before signatures are gathered
violates U.S. constitutional protections of free
speech and equal protection.
Twelve different initiative petitions were filed
in Nevada by citizens groups seeking to amend
the state constitution or change laws, according
to the lawsuit.
"All 12 were challenged by political opponents
... and not one is currently left standing," the
lawsuit said.
"The fact they knocked them all off makes our
case that much more stronger," said Kermitt
Waters, a Las Vegas attorney representing the
Committee to Prevent Employers from Seizing
Tips, or PEST.
On Wednesday, the committee refiled its
initiative over tip-sharing with the secretary
of state's office. It also intends to seek a
court injunction to block enforcement of the
petition laws, Waters said.
If allowed to proceed, petition organizers will
have until Nov. 11 to gather 58,836 signatures
and force the 2009 Legislature to either take
action or send it to a public vote in 2010.
Earlier this year, Waters tried to circulate two
other ballot initiatives to raise casino taxes
and raise money for teachers' pay, highway
construction and other projects, but those plans
were disqualified by a judge as being too broad.
The tip committee, which is backed by the
International Union of Gaming Employees, in
January filed and later withdrew a petition
seeking to ban casinos from requiring casino
dealers to pool their tips with supervisors
after the practice was imposed at Wynn Las
Vegas.
The petition was withdrawn after Wynn Resorts
LLC and other business groups that rely on
tipped employees challenged the initiative on
grounds it violated the state's single-subject
rule passed by the 2005 Legislature.
The new law also lets outside interest groups
challenge petitions before the signature
gathering process, and allows the winning side
of any court challenge to collect attorney fees
from the loser.
"Because of the legal harassment, costs and
uncertainty of whether they can survive a legal
challenge, many citizen groups ... forgo from
fear their right to file and circulate an
initiative petition, rather than exercise their
Free Speech rights to do so," the latest lawsuit
states.
The lawsuit argues that the procedures give
special interests, particularly the powerful
casino industry, too much muscle over
government.
"Historically, the railroad companies were known
as the Robber Barons, controlled the politicians
and made sure that the politicians did not pass
laws that directly affected their business
interests," the lawsuit states. "The casino
control over the politicians today seems no
different."
The challenge is the latest aimed at Nevada's
initiative petition process.
Several groups argued in U.S. District Court on
Wednesday in a separate challenge that the
current petition rules discriminate against
voters in heavily populated Clark and Washoe
counties in favor of the rural counties. They
are seeking to have a requirement that
signatures must be collected in all 17 counties
be thrown out as unconstitutional.
It has been a difficult year for ballot measure
proponents.
Two measures that would have taken room tax
money from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors
Authority were rejected by the Nevada Supreme
Court for not following rules regarding
affidavits required of petition circulators.
A proposal to cap property tax increases at 2
percent has been rejected in District Court, and
is currently before the Supreme Court. Again,
affidavit requirements required by the
Legislature are at issue.
Other petitions, including those sought by
Waters, were abandoned for a variety of reasons,
including ongoing legal challenges by opponents.
Review-Journal Capital Bureau writer Sean Whaley
contributed to this report. [up]
|
