Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, July 1, 2010 | 7:42 p.m.
Travis Chandler
Boulder City Councilwoman Linda Strickland
CARSON CITY — The Nevada Supreme Court has tossed out recall petitions aimed at removing Boulder City Council members Linda Strickland and Travis Chandler.
The court ruled that the recall petition had to be signed by 25 percent of the voters who actually cast their ballots in the 2007 election in which the council members were elected.
Those seeking to oust Strickland and Travis argued that the recall petition required only 25 percent of registered voters.
The recall petitions were presented to the Secretary of State Ross Miller to force a recall election. But Miller and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto both said the petitions had to contain the signatures of 25 percent of those who actually voted in the 2007 election.
In May 2009, Senate Bill 156 passed unanimously in the state Senate and Assembly and clarified that any registered voter in the district the elected official represents may sign a recall petition.
But Miller said he was sticking with his original interpretation of the law for the Boulder City recall petition because it took place before the new law was enacted. The petitioners disagreed with the ruling and filed a lawsuit to overturn the decision.
District Judge Todd Russell issued a summary judgment allowing the recall to proceed.
The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Kristina Pickering, reversed Russell.
“While all registered voters can vote in a special recall election, only voters who voted at the relevant baseline election can qualify a recall petition and it takes 25 percent of them for a special election to be called,” the court’s ruling said.
Pickering said it may be more difficult to get the signatures of those who actually voted in the prior election.
But the decision said allowing a recall with 25 percent of all registered voters “would make a low-turnout election readily subject to a do-over at the behest of those who simply stayed home and didn’t bother to vote.”
“Allowing citizens who did not vote to call for a do-over arguably disenfranchises those voters who participated in selecting the official,” the court said.
Strickland argued this same point before the court in April.
Chandler said he was pleased with the reversal. “We felt confident, and that’s why we went ahead with an appeal,” Chandler said.
Proponents of the recall cited the Senate bill to back up their interpretation that the signature of any registered voter counted.
Matt Griffin, deputy of elections at the Secretary of State’s Office, said the court’s ruling has made the bill unenforceable.
“The court has spoken and we’ll enforce the decision of the (Nevada) Supreme Court,” he said.
It is unknown if the petitioners will file an appeal with the United States Supreme Court.
"Allowing citizens who did not vote to call for a do-over arguably disenfranchises those voters who participated in selecting the official," the court said--
That above is common sense, but not to some people apparently-
People too lazy to vote in the original election making important decisions? Ummm...I wouldn't want them making important decisions in my city, but some people didn't mind===
I absolutely agree "race_car_diva," I'm not a supporter of either of these council members, but they were voted for and elected, and those who did not vote originally should not have any say in this matter.
I concur with the Court's decision. For me this is a nobrainer. Even if the law had been passed before this election, I would think it would be struck down for the reasons given by the Court.
Great news. Congratuations, Linda and Travis.
dear linda and travis,please keep boulder creek open,its a great course and the staff's wonderful,best in the area
So, let me get this straight. If I voted in an election for two councilpersons and then moved away from the town I voted in, I am still eligible to sign a recall petition for or against those elected after I have established residency in another state, and a person who was not even old enough to vote at the time of the first election but at the time of the recall effort is now old enough to vote is prohibited from exercising her/his right to cast a ballot or signing a recall petition.
Come on Chuck. You know that the mission of these two are to close the golf course. I don't understand why people want to get rid of a rateable. I agree with the people who are against recalls. I feel that if you don't like these people, you vote them out. Their time will come. This town needs an increased tax base and these two anti-business obstructionists will never take another risk unless they get their osterity program in place and control the council.
dear bc,
i didnt know they were against boulder creek,in fact,i didnt even know they were alive until i read the above article.i just happen to be a golfer who discovered boulder creek and as a clark county resident would love to see them keep it open.
i'll say it again,its the best facility in the valley and the staff's very congenial.another positive is that i usually see a proportianate number of youth golfers present.kids that might otherwise become involved in gangs,violence,drugs and crime if they didnt have this place to go to for positive recreation and life skills building.
perhaps linda and travis should consider this if its thier mission to close the place.
Chuck, that's the problem with these two. They used to attend council meetings, speak and get loud, ranand got elected. People might vote for you if they don't really know what your about. Chandler even supported the idea of selling land to make everyone in town millionaires. There is two distinctly different cultures here and it's polarizing. They are in the minority and generally vote against most things the other side wants to do. Strickland has her agenda, but Chandler is a true obstructionist. But Strickland asnd her husband is an airplane owner, so going after expenses at the airport is off limits. They voted against progress to build a Hampton Inn when Hampton was ready because they wanted additional appraisals of the land. Hampton later pulled out but were ready to build at that point. Until they get one more vote their way, it stays status quo and it's ugly. I like Boulder Creek and spend money there. I'm sure in a better economy, it will prosper. Bad decisions were made in the management in the beginning and a water line costing a good buck had to be built, but closing it would loose this rateable. Despite the economy, it runs more efficient, but still at a loss.
This was a no brainer. Obviously the guy who actually sued to begin with, has more money then brains. His suit not only had no merit, but defied common sense.
folks do tend to have alot of money who live in boulder city,doubt i could afford anything out there