A welcome opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Nevada law that bars elected officials from either voting or advocating on an issue when they have a conflict of interest.

The unanimous ruling overturns a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court, which declared the law an unconstitutional violation of an elected official’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The case at issue involves a controversial casino project in Sparks. In 2005, Sparks Councilman Michael Carrigan voted on the measure after disclosing that Carlos Vasquez, his close friend and campaign manager, was a paid consultant on the project.

After receiving several complaints, the Nevada Ethics Commission investigated and determined that Carrigan violated the law. It did not assess a penalty, finding the violation was not willful.

Carrigan sued and a state District Court in Carson City ruled in the commission’s favor, saying the state’s strong interest in ethical government trumped any free speech issue. Carrigan took the case to the state Supreme Court. In a 5-1 decision, Nevada’s high court ruled in Carrigan’s favor. It said that the law was overbroad and a violation of the First Amendment, declaring that an elected official’s vote was a protected form of speech under the law.

Under such a ruling, an elected leader could debate and vote on issues in which he had a clear conflict of interest — all under the guise of free speech.

The commission appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and, in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court noted that an elected official’s vote “is not personal ... but belongs to the people.” Thus, the court reasoned, a vote isn’t protected speech and the state’s law isn’t unconstitutional.

The court pointed out that conflict of interest rules are deeply intertwined in American government and go back to the formation of the United States.

“Within 15 years of the founding, both the House of Representatives and the Senate adopted recusal rules,” the court noted, adding that the House rule was passed without objection within a week of its first official meeting.

Members of the House approved the conflict-of-interest rule before they voted to send the First Amendment to the states for ratification, and the court pointed out that members of the House didn’t suggest that the recusal rule violated the provision to freedom of speech. “Their failure to note any inconsistency between the two suggested that there was none,” the court said.

The fact is, as the court ruled, there isn’t a problem between conflict-of-interest laws and the First Amendment, and this is a welcome decision. Nevada’s ethics laws for elected officials are hardly rigorous, and the power of the Ethics Commission has been challenged and diminished over the years.

As it is, elected officials have been able to sidestep the law, and even when there is a violation the penalty is little more than a slap on the wrist. In Carrigan’s case, the commission didn’t punish him because he acted on the advice of his attorney. That’s not uncommon. Many government officials have voted and participated in discussions after they have disclosed a conflict on the advice of their attorneys.

The court’s ruling will hopefully reinforce elected officials’ understanding of the law. The bottom line is that the public has an overriding right to good government, and conflict-of-interest rules are just common sense.