Nevada Legislature Follow Louisiana's Example in Suing to Remove Themselves from Ethics Commission Jurisdiction

It's only been a few months since the Louisiana state court decision that applied the constitutional Speech and Debate Clause to remove state legislators from the state ethics commission's jurisdiction, and already a similar case has been filed in Nevada. In my blog entry on the Louisiana decision, I suggested that, and explained how, such a decision could also be applied to local government council members and other local government officials acting in a legislative capacity. The Nevada Commission on Ethics has jurisdiction over local government officials, but no local government official is involved in this matter.

The Nevada case has been expedited, because the matter is scheduled to be heard by the Nevada Commission on Ethics on December 11. A court hearing is scheduled for November 24. I hope to be able to post pleadings when they have been filed.

The situation is as follows. A state senator, Warren Hardy, is the full-time president of the Las Vegas chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a nonunion contractors association. The allegations against him, filed by a citizen with union ties as well as ties to the opposing political party, are that he did not sufficiently disclose his relationship with ABC, did not recuse himself with respect to certain matters and votes, and used his position to obtain unwarranted privileges for himself and/or ABC. Most of the allegations were dismissed, but the ethics commission found probable cause with respect to allegations involving two legislative bills.

As with the Louisiana case, this one does not necessarily involve any limits on how the senator voted (which is what the Speech and Debate Clause is supposed to protect), only on his voting at all. There is disagreement over how to interpret the ethics statute, but this case has little to do with interpretation, focusing as it does on the ethics commission's jurisdiction. The Nevada legislature, like Louisiana's, wants to handle its members' ethics issues itself, even though it didn't specify this in its legislation, which it had every right to do (and which other state legislatures have done). It apparently would rather not be seen by voters as removing itself from the ethics commission's jurisdiction; it would rather have a judge do the dirty work for it. This casts a shadow on the ethics of the legislative leaders in their decision to sue.

I won't go further into the constitutional issues, because I did that at length in my blog entry on the Louisiana case.

For those interested in the history of the case before the ethics commission, here are the documents:
Executive Director's Report and Recommendations
Executive Director's Supplemental Report and Recommendation
Panel Determination (probable cause)
Amended Panel Determination

And here are three newspaper articles on the case:
Las Vegas Business Press, 3/17/08
Las Vegas Review Journal, 7/3/08
Las Vegas Review Journal, 9/12/08

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---