Here in Arizona, we are used to strange interactions between ethics and politics (yes, dear reader, they do intersect).
But when we feel we may have things somewhat well in hand, all we need to do is gaze northwest, where the State of Nevada reminds us that all is odd in the universe.
The question posed in the latest Silver State brouhaha: Whether an elected official’s vote is an exercise of free speech.
Sparks City Councilman Michael Carrigan (and the Washington Post) convey the basis for the debate, which will be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court this Wednesday, April 27:
“I have the distinction of being the only elected official in Nevada to ever be brought up on ethics charges for losing a vote,” Carrigan said.
“The question is whether Carrigan should even have participated in an application for a new casino in this boomtown near Reno. It has turned into a major constitutional showdown with national implications for how states may police public officials who face a potential conflict of interest in conducting the people’s business.”
The state ethics commission had determined that Carrigan “crossed the line when he voted on the casino issue after his longtime friend and volunteer campaign manager was hired by the developer.”
“Nevada’s law forbids a public official from voting on an issue when a ‘reasonable person’ would suspect a conflict because of financial ties or the interest of a spouse or family member. It also includes a catch-all category for ‘any other commitment or relationship that is substantially similar to a commitment or relationship’ like those spelled out.”
Read the whole story here.
For more information on the Supreme Court case (Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, Docket No. 10-568), click here.