Court speeds up city hall case

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 | 1:49 p.m.

Opponents of city hall file Supreme Court brief (5-4-2009)
LV to Supreme Court: Take your time on city hall decision (4-30-2009)
Opponents of downtown city hall file court brief over election (4-28-2009)
Supreme Court asked to expedite Las Vegas city hall case (4-24-2009)
Appeal notice filed in city hall fight (4-23-2009)
Culinary-city case crawls way to state high court (4-23-2009)
Judge rules against Culinary Union over ballot questions (4-17-2009)
Goodman makes his (public) entrance (4-16-2009)
City, Culinary make final arguments; Friday ruling likely (4-16-2009)
Theatrics ahead in city’s legal battle with Culinary (4-16-2009)
City, Culinary bring redevelopment fight to District Court (4-15-2009)

CARSON CITY – The Nevada Supreme Court has agreed to accelerate its consideration of the Culinary Unions’ effort to place two redevelopment-related proposals on the ballot.

The court said it appears to have the authority to order a special election or to delay the June 2 municipal election, if need, but won’t address those issues now.

It ordered both sides to submit additional briefs whether the petitions bearing 14,000 signatures should be placed on the election ballot.

Two groups, backed by the Culinary Union, gathered signatures on the petition to force the city to get voter approval for redevelopment issues, like the proposed new city hall. Opponents of a new city hall say its the wrong time for the city to pursue the estimated $267 million project.

District Judge David Barker ruled the petition was flawed and should not be placed on the ballot.

The Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Committee and the Las Vegas Redevelopment Reform Committee have appealed to the Supreme Court to overrule Judge Barker.

The Supreme Court, in an order signed by all seven justices, said the Las Vegas City Council and City Clerk Beverly Bridges have until May 11 to file an answering brief. And the taxpayer groups have until May 18 to submit their final reply brief.

There will be no extensions granted, said the court.

In its order, the Supreme Court said, “Although it appears that this court has statutory authority to extend the deadline for voting … and arguably may have equitable authority to require a special election, we decline to decide these issues at this time.”

There is only one race on the city election ballot – the contest for Ward 4 and the city council says it would cost an extra $450,000 to put these additional questions on the ballot.

The council has suggested the court allow this issue to be placed on the November 2010 election ballot. But the opponents of the courthouse say the structure will already have been built by then.