By Matt Ward
Lawyers for the Town of Pahrump have filed a motion seeking an injunction against Nye County over a controversial November ballot question.
The legal tussle between the two local governments was already in full swing — the town filed a lawsuit in District Court on Aug. 13 and the county countered with a scathing motion to dismiss last week that will likely be rebutted with a counter motion from the town later this week.
Now, the town’s attorneys are seeking an injunction to keep voters from casting their votes on whether the town board should be reconstituted into an advisory board, which would mean an end to its fiduciary independence.
Filed Friday, the motion for an injunction contains many of the same arguments outlined in the town’s lawsuit, namely that county commissioners on July 3 failed to make a determination that the citizens of Pahrump were no longer being served adequately by the town board form of government when they voted to place the question on the ballot.
The Nevada statute that outlines the authority of county commissioners over towns in their jurisdiction suggests such a “determination” should be made.
Armstrong Teasdale attorney Bret Meich, the town’s legal representative, said the injunction was filed so that two concerns could be addressed.
“The town’s concerns are two-fold. One, any question presented to the voters be a valid question, which in this case it’s not. The county failed to follow state law. And two, to make sure the public understands that the county’s effort to place the question before voters doesn’t have any effect. Individual voters are going out, spending money, advocating for or against a certain ballot question, and because the county waited until the eve of the state mandated deadline to put the question on the ballot in the first place, the town and the town’s citizens are in the unfortunate position of having to think about this question both from a legal and political point of view with not much time remaining before the general election,” he said.
The county’s legal representative, District Attorney Brian Kunzi, says the town’s argument isn’t valid, that commissioners had every right to place the ballot question without first revealing their personal beliefs about the efficacy of the town board form of government. Further, the county’s motion to dismiss suggests the town itself violated state law by its adoption of a vague town board item authorizing the lawsuit against the county during a July 24 town board meeting — the Aug. 13 complaint came to light when the Pahrump Valley Times made a random inquiry with the District Court about cases pending against the county two weeks ago.
What is gearing up to be a messy legal fight could spill over into the election.
District Judge Robert Lane won’t hear arguments for or against dismissal, and then for or against the injunction until Oct. 15. By then, hundreds of military, overseas and absentee ballots will likely have already been cast.
In charge of the election operation is Nye County Clerk Sam Merlino. She also happens to be a defendant in the town’s lawsuit.
She says she has no choice but to proceed full speed ahead regardless of the unfolding legal row.
“By law I have to get the military and overseas ballots out by Sept. 21. No matter what, this question is on the ballot at this time. Unfortunately, even with the Oct. 15 hearing, our machines and everything will already be tested, programmed and ready to go for early voting on the 20th,” Merlino said.
The county clerk says she’s bracing for one of two possibilities — either the judge rules for the county and the ballot question stands, or the judge rules for the town and votes for the ballot question are simply ignored.
“I can’t speak for the judge one way or the other. There are only two determinations he can make. One is it’s all valid and it won’t change anything that I’ve done,” she said. “Now, if he determines it wasn’t done correctly, or whatever, I have no idea what he could possibly determine because unfortunately we will have many, many absentee ballots back and voted at that time. There’s no possible way to reprint, resend ballots. I really don’t know what he could do at that point except maybe invalidate the votes at the end or something.”
Merlino said she’s never heard of a judge invalidating a vote like that.
“As far as I know, I’ve never heard of it,” she said.
Meich suggested the court could direct Merlino to alter the voting machines ahead of the start of early voting on Oct. 20.
“Ultimately, it’s in the court’s hands. We believe the sooner a court rules on the substance of the complaint, the sooner the public will be alerted to the effect of their vote. It’s within the judge’s discretion to have the voting machines changed, but that’s within his discretion. Our primary focus is to alert the public before the election that their vote, because of the county’s failure, would have no legal effect.”
As always the town board is afraid to hear from the people that they are supposed to serve. What a bunch of worthless idiots!
This is so frustrating. Why do these people think we are too stupid to figure out whether or not a town board form of government benefits the people? Bret Meich said because the county “waited until the eve of the state mandated deadline to put the question on the ballot in the first place, the town and the town’s citizens are in the unfortunate position of having to think about this question both from a legal and political point of view with not much time remaining before the general election”. Grab a ticket to the clue train, Mr. Meich– it’s YOUR job to think about this in legal terms, not ours. When I get my Sample Ballot in the mail, I’m going to read the arguments for and against the question and decide whether or not I’m going to vote for this. And you can bet your last billable hour dollar it’s not going to take me a couple of months to do it.
They sure do fight hard to keep their power and jobs.. Too bad they dont fight this hard for what the people of the town want instead of dumb ideas, overpriced studies and turning Pahrump into some kind of joke of a city.
If I am reading this right, this town board, right here.. this very one, has denied us our legal right to vote them out.
If so, its time for yet another lawsuit, the townspeople vs the town board and manager. Not sure if something like that can be done, but greater legal minds than I will figure it out.
i have heard time and time again from the town board members that they have a thankless job and that it comes with no monotary value. if this is the case then why are they fighting so damn hard for a job that has so many headaches and no pay check?
could it be because they are indeed putting town money in their pockets?
could it be that they have all gone power mad?
i want to know what they are afraid of by putting this issue to a vote.
i invite any or all town board members to comment here and let me know just what is scaring them so bad…. although i doubt that any of them have the courage to do so.
The never ending drama continues.From what I have read, the town board is wasting my tax dollars by trying to void my right to determine whether I’m represented by a Town board, or the county with a town advisory committee in place. To me this has been a no brainer since the ballot question was brought up. I live in a town that has about 90% of the counties residents. the five member BOCC is made up of four of my neighbors. It wouldn’t make sense for a neighbor to screw me over in representation. They would be screwing themselves over as well. And most importantly, why do I need to be paying for the costs of a duel, side by side government, when one will do the trick? And it makes the decision even easier after viewing the town board circus from the peanut gallery all these years. Now of course, the employees of the town who depend on my tax dollars for a job will be upset, as will the town manager who will be left without a job. But it’s not my responsibility to pay for and support unneeded services. That too would be dumb.
Guess who…..do you really believe that these clowns are on the board for purely humanitarian work on behalf of their fellow citizens?
From following the issues, my guess is that some if not all want us to incorporate, then support them as the new city council members. And lastly, have us pay them for the new position. And then another motivation is probably a love of power and control. Take your pick.
Just a few things to think about.
Have you noticed that Vicky Parker has been at every funtion lately? It seems she is going out of her way to involve herself in anything that will give her some free press in the last few months. Where was all this civic duty before that? Don’t buy her concern, it is not for the citizens of Pahrump but more for her own self interest, I think. If you attend the board meetings you can see how much concern she has for the people, the raised eyebrows and humming during public comment, only allowing comment at the beginning and end of the meeting. This is in the best interest of the people?
If we allow this Town board to continue they will push us to incorporation and much higher taxes.
I have to agree with Mr. Whiplash and the points he makes now and made on this topic in the past, again nothing but smoking mirrors on the part of the town. Hate to say this but, you get what you pay for and since this is an unpaid board – well you do the math.
I also want to know why the heads in beds tax that is to be used to bring tourism to Pahrump is burning a hole in the town board members and managers pocket. It is as though they have to spend this money before they become an advisory board and are going to now build soccer fields – I really see people coming from miles around to play soccer at the Pahrump Soccer Fields – now we will need a department to count the cash we will rake in from all the tourist that come to see and play at these fields. Could this be the “Fields of Dreams – if you build it they will come?” soccer fields or ?
To the tourism advisory folks – use the money to clean up the town and the reputation of the town – I think with an improved image people would be more apt to come to Pahrump as we have some nice parks, a good museum and some unique eating establishments.
I think everyone is missing an important point in this article.
If PVT is stating correctly what NRS says then commissioners are not required by law to make any kind of “determination”, before, during or after voting to have the matter placed on the ballot for the voters to decide.
The above article states, and I quote: “The Nevada statute that outlines the authority of county commissioners over towns in their jurisdiction suggests such a “determination” should be made.”, unquote.
“Suggests” and “should be” does not mean “mandatory” therefore any lawsuit becomes frivolous.