Signature gathering could be premature

By David McGrath Schwartz (contact)

Thursday, April 17, 2008 | 2 a.m.

In a stroke of supreme confidence and a demonstration that money is not an issue for the world’s sixth-richest man, Las Vegas Sands has been aggressively collecting signatures for three initiatives, even though a judge has yet to hear legal challenges to them.

If a state court were to order even the smallest change to any of the petitions, all signatures gathered would be thrown out and backers would have to start over gathering the nearly 59,000 required signatures.

“It’s a heck of a gamble,” said Dan Hart, a political consultant for the Nevada State Education Association, which is collecting signatures to qualify its own ballot initiative.

The teachers union, which is proposing a constitutional amendment to increase the state gaming tax from 6.75 percent to 9.75 percent for casinos with gross revenue of more than $1 million a month, started collecting signatures only last weekend, after a state judge said its petition passed constitutional muster. (Major casinos have appealed that decision to the state Supreme Court.)

By contrast, Las Vegas Sands, whose chairman is Sheldon Adelson, began collecting signatures for its petitions in early March, said Robert Uithoven, a political consultant for the gaming company.

On Saturday at the Clark County Democratic Convention, paid signature gatherers were collecting signatures from Democratic delegates for the three petitions.

Assuming a court doesn’t change the petition language, Uithoven said he thought enough signatures would be gathered in two to three weeks. He would not disclose how many signatures are in hand or how much money has been spent on the ballot measures.

“Obviously there’s some risk involved with collecting the signatures now, but there is also the deadline,” said Scott Scherer, an attorney for the Sands-funded advocacy groups. The signatures have to be gathered by May 20.

Two of the petitions would divert some room tax money that currently goes to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. One would allocate the money for education and the other would divert money to education, roads and public safety.

The third petition would require two-thirds of voters to approve any ballot initiative that raises taxes.

Many political observers wonder about the wisdom of collecting signatures before at least some of the legal maneuvers have taken place.

“Apparently, money is not an issue,” said Danny Thompson, head of the state AFL-CIO and chairman of Nevadans for Nevada, which has challenged the proposed two-thirds measure. “There’s a good chance these things will be changed” by a court.

Scherer, though, said he is confident the petitions will clear legal hurdles.

Scherer said those challenging the room tax diversion petitions — the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and several local governments — cannot under state law take a position on a ballot initiative.

Authority spokesman Vince Alberta would not comment on the signature collection. But opponents of the ballot measures to divert room tax money said a 2002 state Supreme Court ruling — in Glover v. Concerned Citizens for Fuji Park and Fairgrounds — allows government agencies to spend resources fighting ballot initiatives.

Uithoven said the petitions have been thoroughly vetted by attorneys.

The first hearing in state District Court on the petitions to divert room tax money is Friday. A hearing on the two-thirds petition is scheduled for May 1 in District Court.