Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Sun Editorial:

A recall for what?

The campaign to toss city councilman doesn’t rise to the standard

What do you think?

Send your thoughts in a letter — no more than 250 words. Include the writer’s name, address and phone number. Anonymous letters will not be considered. E-mail: [email protected].

On Tuesday, voters in Las Vegas’ Ward 6 will determine whether to recall Councilman Steve Ross, and their decision could have serious consequences.

In many respects, this looks just like any other campaign: Ross’ detractors have made any number of allegations about his conduct and performance in office, and Ross has fired back. His opponent, Byron Goynes, has offered himself as the alternative to Ross.

But this is unlike a regular campaign because it’s not supposed to be about who the better candidate is. A recall is an extraordinary measure: It is a special election called to determine whether an incumbent deserves to be removed from office before the end of his term. Voters should be cautious about exercising their right to recall a candidate, and typically they are. Recalls are rare and usually brought when an elected official has committed a crime.

The “Toss Ross” campaign has alleged a number of terrible things about the councilman in its attempt to make its case, but most of the attacks are standard election fare — he allegedly failed to live up to a campaign promise, and he voted contrary to some residents’ wishes on a zoning issue.

The closest thing to a real issue for a recall is this: The state Ethics Commission found he violated ethics rules by twice voting on an issue when he had a conflict of interest. But that decision found he didn’t act willfully, and it isn’t new — it was issued in 2009.

So, why the rush to recall him now?

The real issue isn’t the ethics case, it’s a dispute between Ross and a car dealer in his ward. The car dealer was angered over Ross’ refusal to support a waiver that would have allowed him to sell used cars. The dealership closed and a recall drive was launched.

Ross’ opponents have the legal right to try to use a recall to kick Ross out of office, but that’s not what recalls are supposed to be about.

We have disagreed with Ross and his positions over the years, and we were critical of his actions when he voted despite his conflict of interest. However, we have seen nothing in this campaign that rises to the level of a recall. This is a dispute over a councilman’s position and a decision he made — not something so terrible that demands his immediate removal from office.

There is a larger point: If this recall is successful, it will send a chilling message to elected officials across the valley. But elected officials may be hesitant to take positions that conflict with the views of wealthy residents and business owners who could fund a recall campaign. That’s not the way the country is supposed to work.

Voters elected people to represent them for a term, and they expect those officials to make decisions. In Ross’ case, he was re-elected to the City Council in 2009 to represent the people of Ward 6 and, yes, he made some decisions that angered some of his constituents. However, he has one year left on his term, and if the residents of Ward 6 don’t like him, they’ll have an opportunity to toss him next year. Until then, Ross should be allowed to finish the term he was elected to serve.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy