Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

News


Woodbury, others still can seek re-election

CARSON CITY -- Long-serving Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury and three other Southern Nevada candidates will be able to run for office this election season, according to District Attorney David Roger.

In a letter to Deputy Secretary of State Matt Griffin, Roger said any ambiguities in the term limits measure approved by voters in 1996 "should be resolved in favor of candidacy where possible."

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • Alleging fraud, authorities raid voter group
  • NORM: Simpson planned acquittal party
  • Nevada's economy dead last
  • NORM: Hard-core fans ask: Has Jacko moved?
  • NORM: Emeril stirring up new LV sports bar
  • NORM: 13th Agassi slam another big hit
  • NORM: Letterman gives an 'A' to O.J. jury
  • Judge: Attacker 'gleeful'
  • 'REALLY, REALLY CLOSE': Obama edges McCain in poll
  • Circle of friends surrounds lost pal



  • Roger said his office "finds that probable cause does not exist to remove the challenged candidates from the ballot."

    The decision means Woodbury, university Regent Thalia Dondero and Clark County School Board members Ruth Johnson and Mary Beth Scow will be able to run in the November election, at least for now.

    Because of term limits, it will be the last time the candidates will be able to seek re-election.

    A candidate facing any of the challenged candidates could still file an independent challenge by a June 2 deadline. But the challenge would again go to Roger. A post-election challenge to any of the winning incumbents is also a possibility, if the issue ultimately goes to the Nevada Supreme Court from another county, which is expected, and Secretary of State Ross Miller's position is upheld.

    A Pershing County term limits case is set to be heard June 20.

    Woodbury said he was pleased with the decision and that he will now move forward with his campaign.

    "It is very well-reasoned and very thorough, and I think it is persuasive," he said.

    "That is wonderful music to my ears," said Dondero, who is running unopposed for one last term as a regent of the Nevada System of Higher Education. "Originally we had been told it was all right to run. I thought the decision was wonderful, and I applaud our district attorney. You don't take these things lightly."

    If Dondero had been required to withdraw, there would have been no other candidates on the ballot for the seat.

    The filing deadline for candidates ended May 16.

    "It's a big relief," said Clark County School Board member and candidate Mary Beth Scow. "We were kind of feeling in limbo for a period of time."

    Numerous opinions all said the 12-year limit should start in 1998, she said.

    School board member and candidate Ruth Johnson said: "It was not a surprise. It was in line with what the district attorney's office had been saying all along."

    Roger's decision not to challenge the candidacies of the four incumbents follows a similar decision Friday by Washoe County District Attorney Richard Gammick not to challenge the candidacy of Regent Howard Rosenberg.

    The challenges of the local Nevada officials were initiated by Miller after questions were raised about the effective date of the term limits ballot measure.

    Miller has contended that local officials elected in 1996 have served the 12 years allowed under the voter-approved amendment and cannot run again. Others argue that because the amendment was passed in 1996, it did not begin affecting regular elections until 1998.

    Other candidate challenges have been initiated by Miller and are proceeding in other Nevada counties.

    Miller said he believes his legal interpretation is correct, and that ultimately the Nevada courts will say so. Miller thinks the term limits apply to local officials elected in November 1996 because they were not sworn in until January 1997.

    "I'm confident 12 years means 12 years under the constitution and ultimately a court will decide the issue," he said.

    The Pershing County challenge involves School Board member Todd Plimpton.

    Asked whether a favorable decision in a Pershing County case could be applied to candidates in other counties, such as Woodbury, Miller said it was a legal question the attorney general's office would have to answer.

    The definitive answer may ultimately come from the Nevada Supreme Court.

    In his letter, Roger said the term limits amendment to the constitution has been interpreted by a former attorney general as not applying to state lawmakers until 1998. He said local elected officials should be treated no differently.

    Applying two different standards to the elected officials could potentially violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, he said.

    Woodbury said if the issue does end up before the Nevada Supreme Court, he will try to ensure the justices have Roger's opinion, which is similar to the one issued by Gammick on Friday.

    Until then, Woodbury said he will move forward with his campaign.

    Roger said he does not believe a case from another county would affect Woodbury or other Clark County candidates challenged by Miller. But the attorney general's office could use a ruling in another case as cause to pursue a post-election challenge, he said.

    "We would not be a party to that," Roger said.

    Roger said he does not believe his opinion creates any conflict of interest, either because of the representation his office provides to the Clark County School Board or because Johnson's husband works as a deputy in the office's civil division.

    The office represents the County Commission as well as the school board, and that is not a conflict, he said. The office also kept Johnson's spouse apart from any discussions on the term limits opinion, which is viewed by the courts as a satisfactory way of eliminating any potential conflict, Roger said.

    Woodbury faces numerous opponents in his bid for one last term in District A. He has been a member of the commission since 1981.

    Two Republicans, Brian Scroggins and Duane Christy, are running. So are Democrats Jeffrey White and Steve Sisolak, a regent.

    Sisolak, who said he filed initially out of a concern Woodbury would not be able to run, said he is evaluating whether to stay in the race. The last day to withdraw is today.

    "I will evaluate what it means," Sisolak said of Roger's opinion. "But I've had a lot of phone calls from people saying 12 years should mean 12 years."



    Leave Your Comment 8 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Larry Nice wrote on May 28, 2008 10:09 AM: The DA has made the decision that Woodbury et al can continue to seek reelection. Susan Johnson the school board member is Paul Johnson wife he is a deputy D. This sounds like a conflict of interest wouldn’t you think. Woodbury the Commissioner has the authority to approve the budget, staff and many other items for the DA's and his office wouldn’t you think this is a conflict of interest. Does anyone think the DA's office will rule against Bruce almighty give us a break. Mr. Bruce has to remain in office to continue to line the pockets of his friend and special interest. 20 years of lining pockets of friends should be enough. Mr.DA you cannot fool the public your interest is your deputy DA’s wife and Woodbury. When will this community and the people see between the lines and realize who runs this community. Where is the press when we need them? What has happen to independent reporting and investigation, I guess it depends on who you are!!!!!!



    Allen wrote on May 28, 2008 08:57 AM: If the above mentioned officials were really interested in serving their constituents, wouldn't they be more interested in following the "spirit" of the law rather than engaging in semantics by interpreting it in a way that defies it? An alternate way to interpret it (if you like to engage in semantics) would suggest that Mr. Woodbury wasn't entitled to run at all since 1996. After all, he had already been in office more than the mandated 12 years when it passed the first time in 1994 let alone 1996 when it became law.


    With this ruling wrote on May 28, 2008 07:09 AM: With this ruling the powers to be now have a few years to decided who they will replace their "boy" with. It is back to business as usual. Plenty of time to plot. oh, I mean plan ha ha.





    Take your marbles and go home Bruce.


    With this ruling wrote on May 28, 2008 07:09 AM: With this ruling the powers to be now have a few years to decided who they will replace their "boy" with. It is back to business as usual. Plenty of time to plot. oh, I mean plan ha ha.



    Take your marbles and go home Bruce.


    With this ruling wrote on May 28, 2008 07:08 AM: With this ruling the powers to be now have a few years to decided who they will replace their "boy" with. It is back to business as usual. Plenty of time to plot. oh, I mean plan ha ha.

    Take your marbles and go home Bruce.


    Steve wrote on May 28, 2008 07:02 AM: UNLV,

    It's obvious you were endoctrined by an extreme left-wing facility. How, exactly, does kicking politicians out of office help lobbyists? The lobbyists want the entrenched politicians...changing them often like the dirty diapers they resemble keeps the lobbyists from getting their hooks too deep into them. Even you can't be that stupid???


    CSNgraduate wrote on May 28, 2008 05:45 AM: UNLVStudent,

    The Nevada Supreme court changed the definition of the ballot question submitted to the voters in 1996, by splitting it into two parts (9A and 9B). The court had NO legal authority to do this (and the 6 justices who did this should have been impeached by the legislature and removed from office).

    Since the court proposed the remedy to the ballot, one could say that by de facto, term limits are valid (the executive branch is term limited, as is the President of the United States).

    If you check your history, it is almost impossible to defeat an incumbent for any given office, though given the state of the economy today, that might be much easier.

    Politicos and judges in this state should take heed, attempt to mess with term limits, and I guarantee you'll be kicked out of office by the voters (remember the 300% pension increase, most incumbents who didn't repeal their vote in favor were kicked out of office).


    UNLVStud wrote on May 28, 2008 04:18 AM: The term limit amendment is unconstitutional. It wasn't passed in the same form twice. It should be removed from the constitution.

    Term limits only hurt citizens and put the power of the government into the hands of lobbyists. This is excatly what the GOP wanted when they fought to place it on the ballot.

    Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice...shame? - GWB