Ethics Commission carrying case to U.S. Supreme Court

By Cy Ryan

Monday, Feb. 28, 2011 | 4:44 p.m.

CARSON CITY – The state Ethics Commission is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a key section of Nevada law that prevents conflicts of interest by elective officials.

The commission has filed its opening brief asking the court to overrule a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court last year in the case of Sparks City Councilman Michael Carrigan.

The commission said the ruling by the Nevada court “is not only contrary to centuries of practices; it would be calamitous as a practical matter.”

The Nevada court held that a key part of the state’ ethics law stopping public officials from voting in some instances was unconstitutional.

In the Carrigan case, the councilman voted in favor of his longtime personal and business friend Carlos Vasquez, who was hired as a consultant for a controversial hotel-casino seeking to be built in Sparks.

Carrigan disclosed his relationship on the advice of the Sparks city attorney and then voted with the minority of the council to approve the project in 2006.

The ethics commission ruled Carrigan violated the ethics law, but the Nevada Supreme Court overturned that decision.

The Nevada law says a public official shall not vote on issues involving a member of his household, a relation, an employer or one with whom he or she has a business relationship.

The Nevada court held invalid a section that says a public official shall not vote where there is “any other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar to a commitment or relationship described in this subsection.”

The Nevada court said that section of the law doesn't inform or guide the public officer as to what relationships require him or her to abstain.

Carrigan and Vasquez were long-time friends and Vasquez was the campaign manager for Carrigan in 2006. An estimated 89 percent of Carrigan’s campaign expenditures were made through Vasquez’s advertising firm.

The ethics commission, in its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, rejected the argument that the law violates the right of free speech of the elected official.

The U.S Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments later this year.