Las Vegas Sun

February 25, 2017

Currently: 39° — Complete forecast

User profile
travischandler

Joined
March 5, 2009

Contact travischandler (log-in required)

Recent Comments

Total Comments: 5 (view all)

Actually, I said you could close or sell the extra golf course. The initiative leaves that up to the Council.

(Suggest removal) 7/15/10 at 3:10 p.m.

Nothing really dangerous about electing the attorney. Under the Nevada Constitution, we do that for all county District Attorneys, and the state Attorney General as well. Once in a while a campaign gets attention, but most of the time the elected attorneys quietly do a good job, and like the elected judges most of whom quietly do a good job, are retained by the voters.

Boulder City, although small, has a larger population than many Nevada counties.

(Suggest removal) 5/13/10 at 11:44 a.m.

At the conclusion of a formal legal memorandum to the Council and senior city
staff dated May 12, 2008, Mr. Olsen opined the following:

"Perhaps, as fiduciaries for the people of Boulder City, in an effort to
promote trust and confidence in local government, the Council might consider
taking this issue to the voters in the form of an advisory question along the
lines of: "Shall the City of Boulder City incur an $8.7 million long-term (or
medium-term, as the case may be) debt obligation to bind the City to its intent
to return $8.7 million expended from Utility Enterprise Fund for construction of
the Boulder Creek Golf Club?" Then the people of this community can advise
the Council as to whether or not they wish to be saddled with the additional
debt."

What is noteworthy, is that the ballot question Mr. Olsen proposed then is quite
specific, dealing with a single loan, a specific amount, and for a single
specific purpose. Under judicially created Nevada law, this referendum would
easily be considered an "administrative" act - and not suitable for the voters
to act on under his theory. On the other hand, the debt limit initiative sets
policy for the entire City, irrespective of any particular debt, project
location, or purpose. This is "legislative", and is a proper subject matter for
the voters to consider according to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Mr. Olsen (or Tiffany Gibson) also made other significant errors of fact in the
story.

Travis Chandler

(Suggest removal) 5/11/10 at 10:10 a.m.

Council member Strickland and I voted not to move the Boulder Creek Golf Club to the general fund. - Travis Chandler, Boulder City Council member

(Suggest removal) 3/29/10 at 7:43 p.m.

The City Attorney is wrong on two accounts. There is mandatory authority in Nevada Supreme Court case law that an initiative or referendum may be removed from the ballot prior to the election only if it is legally insufficient; and the only grounds for legal insufficiency they have consistently upheld is the administrative-legislative distinction, which they have admitted is vague. Other grounds for challenging an initiative or referendum are fact intensive, that is, on a case by case basis. That is why the NSC wants the courts to have plenty of time to decide the issue on most grounds: after the election.

Secondly, the US Supreme Court has expressly disapproved the administrative-legislative distinction in a couple of decisions the state courts routinely ignore.

Moreover, because the Nevada Supreme Court itself does not challenge all ballot question before an election, some may make it through. In other words, it tacitly admits there is nothing wrong with letting the voters speak to it first, and then throwing it out after the election, under a much wider menu of legal theories.

(Suggest removal) 3/5/09 at 6:46 a.m.

(view all 5)

Items submitted by travischandler

  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Stories/Blogs

travischandler has not submitted any photos to Las Vegas Sun

travischandler has not submitted any videos to Las Vegas Sun

travischandler has not submitted any stories to Las Vegas Sun