Sparks, NV - A Washoe County Judge has determined that the Nevada Commission on Ethics violated Sparks City Councilman Mike Carrigan's First Amendment rights when it forced Carrigan to abstain from voting on an amendment to the Sparks Master Plan related to the Lazy 8 Project in May of 2009.

 

On May 7, 2009, the Commission issued a Verbal Advisory opinion concluding that Carrigan could not vote on the Lazy 8 Master Plan Amendment scheduled to be heard by the Sparks City Council on May 11, 2009. Pursuant to State Law, the Verbal Opinion was binding against Carrigan. At the May 11, 2009 meeting of the Sparks City Council, Councilman Carrigan abstained from voting on the issue, citing the Advisory Opinion of the Commission on Ethics as the basis for his abstention. The matter came before the City Council again on July 27, 2009, and Carrigan abstained from voting on the issue for a second time. 

Second Judicial District Court Judge Patrick Flanagan ruled Friday, July 2, 2010 that Councilman Carrigan had a constitutional right to vote on matters of public concern and that the Commission's binding Advisory Opinion improperly applied provisions of the Nevada Ethics in Government Law in violation of the First Amendment. In the Order, Judge Flanagan explained: "the [Lazy 8] Project was a heavily contested issue during the 2006 Sparks City Council Election. In fact, the candidate that challenged [Carrigan for the Fourth Ward's seat on the Sparks City Council focused his campaign on preventing development of the Project. In a case like this, where [Carrigan] clearly stated his position on the Project during the campaign, the opposing candidate focused his campaign around opposing [Carrigan's] position on the Project, and the citizenry voted [Carrigan] in to office with full knowledge of his position on the Project; it is anything but clear that an actual conflict of interest exists. In the absence of an actual, existing conflict of interest, this Court finds it at odds with the aims of due process to deprive the citizens of the Fourth Ward of their representative voice on issues pertaining to the Project, effectively silencing their vote at the ballot box from November of 2006." (Alterations added). 

"Although the May 11, 2009 and July 27, 2009 meetings of the Sparks City Council have long since passed, this is nevertheless an important victory for the principles of representative government and political speech in the State of Nevada," said Sparks City Attorney Chet Adams.  

The Commission on Ethics has thirty days to appeal the decision to the Nevada Supreme Court.

 

###