Nevada already staring at paycheck-protection issue

Jeff Schweers

Wednesday, June 3, 1998 | 10:01 a.m.

On a day that millions of Californians were casting votes on a paycheck- protection initiative, factions on both sides of the issue argued the fate of a similar petition drive in Nevada.

After hearing four hours of testimony Tuesday, Chief District Judge Myron Leavitt announced he would take under advisement a lawsuit filed to stop the petition.

The petition drive supports a measure being pushed by the Nevada Republican Party that would require unions to obtain a member's written permission before spending dues on political campaigns, lobbying or any activity to influence governments.

"This should be expedited because, no matter what I do, this is going before the Nevada Supreme Court," Leavitt said. He noted that the filing deadline for the petition initiative is June 16.

George Chanos, a lawyer for the Nevada Republican Party, said that 60,000 signatures have been collected to get the Paycheck Protection Act on the Nov. 3 ballot. Only 48,000 signatures are needed.

"You are being asked to disenfranchise voters ... based on specious arguments of federal election impairment and contract impairment and freedom of assembly," Chanos said. "We're fighting in court to keep it on the ballot, while people in California are voting on it today."

Unofficial results indicated the California initiative failed by a narrow margin Tuesday.

Leavitt made the distinction that California is a union-shop state, where union membership can be a condition for employment. Nevada is a right- to-work state that gives unions the status of voluntary organizations with which membership is not a condition of employment.

The lawsuit was filed by Nevadans for Fairness, a political-action committee whose trustees include AFL-CIO and other union leaders, Gov. Bob Miller and the state mining association.

Richard McCracken, representing Nevadans for Fairness, said the Republican Party's initiative has a fatal flaw that prevents it from being put on the ballot.

McCracken argued that the paycheck-protection initiative was unconstitutional because it limited freedom of speech and assembly and would pin employers between the provisions of federal labor and election laws and those of the statewide initiative.

Jeremiah Collins, a Washington, D.C., lawyer for the Nevada State Educators Association, said the initiative unconstitutionally restricted the rights of a voluntary organization and its membership.

Chanos and David Frederick spent an hour trying to refute the union arguments, saying they were trying to protect workers from unconstitutionally being compelled to make political contributions to causes with which they didn't agree.