July 4, 2008 / July 10, 2008

IUGE EDITORIAL - July 10, 2008

STATE of NEVADA v. IUGE

AG Masto to Crush Initiative

            A federal judge ordered the PEST Committee, as removing parties, to file a brief in support of the federal court’s jurisdiction over the federal constitutional claim within ten days. On May 28, 2008 the judge ordered the plaintiffs’ and cross-defendant Secretary of State to file a brief in opposition to our claim within ten days.

             The PEST brief will give reasons why the initiative issue must be brought to federal court. Our argument, essentially, is that in the plaintiff’s (Steve Wynn) original complaint against us, he raised U.S. Constitutional issues which we can now bring to federal court to resolve. Additionally, we felt that because of special interest pressures, we cannot get a fair shake in Nevada courts on this issue. We filed our brief complying with the judge’s order outlining the reasons for federal jurisdiction over the case on June 05, 2008. 

            A key element in our argument is that by trying to kill our petition, they (Steve Wynn & friends) are exercising “prior restraint on core political speech.” The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the imposition of restraint on a publication before it is published. Of course, in this case, we argue that the petition should receive an up or down vote by the people and should not be stopped by prior restraint before it is heard by the people.  

            The Attorney General’s Supplemental tries to explain that the issue is “not ripe for review,” because the initiative has not made it to the ballot and been voted on by the people. That is ridiculous logic, indeed. She is saying that an opponent to an initiative can use the courts to kill it, but that a proponent can only offer his arguments if and when it gets on the ballot. This argument is so convoluted and unfair that any reasonable person would reject it out of hand. It is easy to see that the underlying reason for all these legal maneuvers is to run the clock so we will not have time to collect the necessary signatures to place the measure on the ballot. The AG is doing Steve Wynn’s laundry for him.      

            The Attorney General also tells the federal judge that he should be “highly insulted”  that we dared to claim that special interest pressures in Nevada prevent us from getting a fair shake. We say that the only thing that would insult the federal judge is the fact that Nevada special interests are permitted to inhibit a citizen’s right to bring a petition to a vote. Special interests provide the financial motivation for elected politicians and judges to give these fat cat special interests the political outcome they desire on any issue that suits them.

            The fact is that every initiative that was registered with the secretary of state’s office was stifled by the “single subject rule” or the inadequate “description of effect” guidelines. When we moved to have our case removed from the state courts and heard in federal court, suddenly all subsequent initiatives were allowed to go forward. This is not a coincidence; they are simply circling their wagons.

            The Attorney General was elected by the people and she should not accuse the PEST Committee of a “brazen attack on the judiciary” simply because we are demanding our rights under the United States Constitution.

-30-

International Union of Gaming Employees  •  Copyright © 2000  •  All rights reserved