Government critic Rob Anderson was in Clark County Superior Court last week related to two of his legal challenges against the county, both of which were dismissed.
“The judges were very critical of the county regarding the substance of the cases,” Anderson said in an email Monday.
On Friday, Anderson appeared before Judge Derek Vanderwood in response to the county’s motion to dismiss a petition he filed in July. Anderson asked the court to review how and why the Clark County Ethics Review Commission dismissed his ethics complaint against Clark County Prosecutor Tony Golik and Senior Deputy Prosecutor Amanda Migchelbrink.
Vanderwood dismissed the case.
Anderson also appeared before Judge Nancy Retsinas on Thursday in response to a petition he filed a day earlier against the Clark County Council and County Manager Kathleen Otto. In his filing, Anderson claimed the ballot titles for two charter amendments approved by the county council for the November general election were “misleading and incomplete.”
According to Anderson, the ballot titles and related explanatory statements did not “inform voters of the significant changes” Amendment No. 17 and Amendment No. 18 would have if passed.
Amendment No. 17 would increase the number of members on the county’s redistricting committee from five to seven, and no longer require the county council to obtain a list of candidates from the two major political parties.
Amendment No. 18 would change the county’s initiative process in several ways: by requiring the budget office to provide information about possible financial impacts; by asking the prosecuting attorney’s office to weigh in on the legality of the initiative; and by changing the number of signatures required to be placed on the ballot if the initiative only affects unincorporated areas of the county.
“The language used in both the titles and explanatory statements … are biased, as they frame the changes in a way that minimizes the potential drawbacks or controversial nature of the amendments,” Anderson said in his filing.
Retsinas dismissed the case.
“Even though my appeal was denied on preliminary findings, it’s clear that the (prosecuting attorney’s) office was engaging in voter manipulation by creating and submitting explanation statements and ballot titles that were not compliant to state laws,” Anderson said in his email.
Anderson also said County Auditor Greg Kimsey admitted in court “to improperly withholding the submitted explanation statements and ballot titles from the for and against committees.”
However, Kimsey said that’s incorrect. He said his office provides that information to the committees as a courtesy.
“There’s nothing in law that says the county auditor is required to provide the ballot titles and explanatory statements to the pro and con committees,” Kimsey said.
Kimsey said the county’s internal policies and procedures manual did not make this clear and will be updated accordingly.
“We will be putting the ballot titles on our website promptly after they are received,” Kimsey said.
Update: The date of the court appearance before Judge Vanderwood has been updated. An earlier version of this story included an incorrect date.
