The LVS's reporters are being a bit dishonest in framing this law suit as a union-vs-union dispute. It is a dispute between a union and the state and national democratic leadership - it stabs a knife in the heart of the democratic party's power to craft its primary selection process as it sees fit and has implications that reach far beyond Nevada. Of course some people (generally those aligned with and sympathetic to the Teachers Union) want readers to see it as a local union-vs-union issue (which is why I question the honesty of LVS' reporters over the last several days as they have clouded the true nature of the dispute through mischaracterizations).
If the teachers are right about equal protection in the Nevada primary, not only are all state selection processes open to equal protection suits, but what is to be said about Superdelegates like Bill Clinton whose votes cast at the national convention count for far more than the votes cast by common citizens in state primaries (What about "One person, one vote", Mr. President?). Clinton has far more superdelegate endorsements than Obama so far - if the teachers are right, and Clinton wins the nomination by a slim margin of delegates based primarily on her superdelegate advantage, is not another equal protection suit in the works challenging the power of superdelegate votes to swing the selection process? Even further, what about the electoral college itself - a system that distorts the "one-person, one-vote" into a strange proxy system that gives the presidency to candidates that don't win the popular vote? The logic exhibited by the law suit, by Bill Clinton's cheap shots in the press, and by the comments on this page are a slippery slope that is going to require some creative acrobatics by our courts to avoid falling down... that is, of course, assuming our courts will be persuaded by whatever constitutional arguments the Teachers could make with a straight face.