On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Nevada Commission on Ethics v Carrigan, 10-568. This is the case involving a city councilmember in Sparks, Nevada, who wanted to vote in favor of allowing a casino. He did cast that vote, but the Commission on Ethics then censured him, because if the casino had been approved, the councilmember’s friend and past campaign manager would have personally benefited, since the friend was a paid consultant to the casino project.
The opinion, by Justice Scalia, is only eleven pages. The opinion unanimously holds that the censure did not violate freedom of speech. However, Justice Alito wrote a concurrence disagreeing with parts of the opinion, and Justice Kennedy wrote a concurrence saying this case does not decide the issue of whether censure is constitutional when the legislator’s vote is influenced by friendship.
The chief basis for the Court’s opinion is that recusal rules have existed in Congress ever since the early 1790’s, and therefore the founding fathers could not have believed that recusal laws violate the First Amendment. Scalia differentiates between voting in a legislative body by a member of that body, and ordinary voting by citizens. The opinion says, “Voting by a legislator is different from voting by a citizen. While a voter’s franchise is a personal right, the procedures for voting in legislative assemblies pertain to legislators not as individuals but as political representatives.”
