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.

On March 5, U.S. District Court Judge J. Michelle Childs, an Obama appointee, agreed to expedite the lawsuit Greenville County Republican Party v State of South Carolina, 6:10-cv-1407. This is the lawsuit in which the Republican Party is seeking to prevent non-Republicans from voting in Republican primaries, especially primaries for municipal partisan office. The basis for expediting the case is that some of these partisan municipal elections are being held this year, and candidate filing for these races closes on March 30.

Judge Childs also agreed to let the intervenors participate in the lawsuit. The intervenors were brought together by Independent Voting. However, the intervenors must submit their evidence by March 8. The Republican Party had argued against letting any intervenors into the case, because the party had argued that they would cause the case to be delayed. The intervenors include some Democratic state legislators, and some officials of the Constitution Party, the Independence Party, and the Labor Party. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for this news.

On March 4, the Washington State Senate passed SB 5171, which moves the primary (for office other than President) from late August to early August. The filing deadline moves three weeks earlier, into late April. The bill passed with only one “no” vote.

Washington uses a top-two system. One of the disadvantages of that system is that all avenues to the November ballot are shut off early in the year (except for write-ins). In a traditional system, even if the major parties choose their nominees in the first half of the year, there is usually a method for independent candidates, or new parties, to get on the ballot later. This flexibility is useful if some important and unexpected public event occurs in the middle of the year, to make it possible for voters to support someone entering the race late, in response to that unexpected event.