On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Nevada Commission on Ethics v Carrigan, 10-568. In 2006, a Sparks, Nevada city councilmember, Michael Carrigan, voted to approve a measure allowing casinos to be built within certain parts of Sparks that had previously been off-limits for casinos. Before he voted, he publicly acknowledged that the individual seeking to build the new casino was his friend and former campaign manager. However, Carrigan pointed out that he himself had no pecuniary interest in the casino. The bill was defeated by the city council on a 3-2 vote, so even if Carrigan had abstained (instead of voting “yes”), the result of the vote would have been the same.
The Nevada Commission on Ethics censured Carrigan. But the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the censure was improper, because elected public officials have a First Amendment right to cast votes. The Nevada Supreme Court acknowledged that elected officials can be required to recuse themselves on issues in which they have a vested interest, but said the particular law that authorized the censure is too broad. The issue of whether the casino should be built had been the leading political issue when Carrigan was re-elected, and because the councilmember won his election, it is reasonable to assume that his vote to approve the casino was a reflection of majority voter sentiment. Therefore, Carrigan points out that if he had not been allowed to vote, his constituents would have gone unrepresented. The decision of the Nevada Supreme Court is Carrigan v Commission on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not been clear about whether voting is First Amendment activity or not. If the Court rules that a vote by an elected public official is entitled to some First Amendment protection, that will have implications for votes by ordinary voters as well.
Once again basic stuff is mystified in the courts.
See the Republican Form of Govt section Art. IV, Sec. 4.
Voting in State/local legislative bodies is Democracy Stuff.
See the book – Sources of Our Liberties (1959) regarding Amdts 1 to 8.
Fully expect the SCOTUS MORON party hacks to screw up basic stuff some more — as in ballot access cases since 1968 – Williams v. Rhodes.
So, which side are you on?
What is the censure *punishment*, if any ???
ALL of the Ethics stuff is more New Age JUNK.
An act or omission is (or is NOT) a crime and/or a tort — and is not in some sort of New Age twilight zone.
FACTS – LAW — so New Age difficult and getting more and more strange.
Obviously it should be a MAJOR felony for a legislator to vote on anything in which he/she benefits more than the average citizen.
I presume the council involved is one more gerrymander council and/or an at large perversion.
P.R. and App.V.
Basically the First Amendment has ZERO to do with voting and ballot access — one more giant perversion of the law by the MORON SCOTUS party hacks for multi-decades — who invent stuff out of thin air on a regular basis.
#3, if a city councilmember votes in favor of a project that doesn’t affect the councilmember directly but does help a friend, should that councilmember be censured?
#4: I would hope the council member would abstain from the vote to avoid the perception of any collusion.
#4 What is the *punishment* in any censure ???
We the ethics folks say that you have been a bad little boy/girl by doing (or not doing) such and such. MEANINGLESS.
Recall elections in ALL regimes — to put the party hacks on notice.
See the growing chaos in WI — multiple recalls.
The forces of REAL Democracy will sort things out — to END the rule of the minority rule monarchs/oligarchs — that benefit special interest gangs.
Are things going as in 1773-1776 ???