Connect with us

Nevada

Hearing held, but no ruling yet in suit challenging Green Party’s Nevada ballot status – The Nevada Independent

Published

on

Hearing held, but no ruling yet in suit challenging Green Party’s Nevada ballot status – The Nevada Independent


A Carson City judge heard arguments but did not issue a ruling on a lawsuit seeking to block the Green Party from the 2024 Nevada presidential ballot.

Carson City District Court Judge Kristin Luis on Friday heard arguments from attorneys representing the minor political party and the Nevada Democratic Party — which filed the lawsuit — but opted not to issue a ruling from the bench.

“Time is of the essence,” Luis acknowledged. “I would have to imagine that whichever way I decide somebody’s going to appeal.”

The Green Party, which has not been on a Nevada general election ballot since 2008, had appeared to qualify for the state’sballot in mid-June with about 15,000 valid signatures, well more than the requirement of roughly 10,000 valid signatures.

Advertisement

Aug. 27 is the last day a qualified minor political party can file a certificate of nomination to place candidates for the offices of president and vice president on Nevada’s presidential ballot.

But Nevada Democrats quickly filed a lawsuit seeking to block the party’s efforts to land on the ballot, saying they had reviewed a limited number of signatures via a public records request and found most of the signatures were invalid. The lawsuit claimed that some of the gathered signatures had been obtained before its petition to get on the ballot was approved and should be considered invalid.

The possibility of the Green Party’s inclusion as a qualified third party candidate on the 2024 ballot could potentially aid Republican former President Donald Trump by pulling dissatisfied left-leaning voters away from the Democratic Party in what is expected to be Nevada’s close presidential race. 

During the Friday hearing, Todd Bice, who represents the Nevada Democratic Party, argued that the minor party’s petition contained the wrong affidavit language, saying that the county clerks who validated the signatures were unaware of this until after they had validated the signatures.

Bice said the Green Party’s petition appeared to use the affidavit language for initiative petitions, not minor parties, which omits a sentence stating the circulator believes all signees were registered voters in the county they reside.

Advertisement

However, the affidavit language used by the party is the same as that recommended by the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office in its guide for minor political parties to qualify for the ballot. 

Greg Ott, an attorney with the attorney general’s office speaking on behalf of the secretary of state’s office, said during the hearing that the guide is not legal advice, and there are reminders within it to consult state law for the most accurate information.

Kevin Benson, an attorney representing the Green Party, rebutted Bice and said that the missing statement is already accounted for in the verification process. He added that the secretary of state declared it to be qualified, and the plaintiffs did not produce evidence that enough signatures were invalid to not qualify for the ballot.

“The Green Party made a good faith effort to comply with the law,” Benson said, adding that “circulating a petition is a human endeavor,” acknowledging that there will be mistakes, but that’s not any indication that anything nefarious took place.

In response, Bice said the mistakes were not human error, but “shenanigans” and signature-gatherers were not following the law.

Advertisement

“You cannot claim you substantially comply with law, because somehow you can just assume the signatures are valid,” he said.

In 2016, a federal judge denied ballot access to the party after it had not gathered enough valid signatures in time.

Minor parties must submit candidates for president and vice-president to the secretary of state’s office by the last Tuesday in August. The party has not yet submitted a candidate for the November ballot, but its former presidential candidate, Jill Stein, is running again this year. 

Stein, who is polling about 1 percent in Nevada, called the lawsuit “outrageous” in a video posted to her campaign website.



Source link

Advertisement

Nevada

Oregon lands commitment from Nevada punter

Published

on

Oregon lands commitment from Nevada punter


Oregon has found its next Australian punter.

Bailey Ettridge, who averaged 44.66 yards on 47 punts at Nevada this season, committed to transfer to the Ducks on Sunday. He has three seasons of eligibility remaining.

From Lara, Australia, Ettridge had 15 punts over 50 yards and 18 inside opponents’ 20-yard lines this season. He also had two carries for 26 yards, both of which converted fourth downs.

Ettridge replaces James Ferguson-Reynolds, who is averaging 41.64 yards on 33 punts for UO this season. Ferguson-Reynolds and Ross James are both out of eligibility after the season.

Advertisement

Ettridge is the first scholarship transfer to Oregon this offseason and his addition gives the Ducks 81 projected scholarship players in 2026. He is the lone punter presently on the roster.



Source link

Continue Reading

Nevada

‘Winnemucca Day’ helps fuel Backus, Wolf Pack to 58-40 win over Utah State

Published

on

‘Winnemucca Day’ helps fuel Backus, Wolf Pack to 58-40 win over Utah State


RENO, Nev. (Nevada Athletics) – Nevada Women’s Basketball returned to Lawlor for the first game of 2026, hosting Utah State.

The Pack picked up its first conference win of the season with the 58-40 victory over the Aggies.

Freshmen showed out for the Pack (5-9, 1-3 MW) with Skylar Durley nearly recording a double-double, dropping 12 points and grabbing nine rebounds. Britain Backus had five points to go along with two rebounds and a season high four steals.

Junior Izzy Sullivan also had an impactful game with 17 points, going 6-for-11 from the paint and grabbing five boards. She also knocked down Nevada’s only two makes from beyond the arc, putting her within one for 100 career threes.

Advertisement

The Pack opened up scoring the first four points, setting the tone for the game. It was a close battle through the first 10 as Utah State (6-7, 2-2 MW) closed the gap to one.

However, Nevada never let them in front for the entire 40 minutes.

Nevada turned up the pressure in the second quarter, holding Utah State to a shooting drought for over four minutes. Meanwhile, a 5-0 scoring run pushed the Pack to a 10-point lead.

For the entire first 20, Nevada held Utah State to just 26.7 percent from the floor and only nine percent from the arc, going only 1-for-11.

For the Pack offense, it shot 48 percent from the paint. Nevada fell into a slump coming out of the break, only scoring eight points.

Advertisement

It was the only quarter where the Pack was outscored.

The fourth quarter saw the Pack get back into rhythm with a 6-0 run and forcing the Aggies into another long scoring drought of just under four and a half minutes.

Durley had a layup and jumper to help with securing the win.

Nevada will remain at home to face Wyoming on Wednesday at 6:30 p.m.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Nevada

EDITORIAL: Nevada’s House Democrats oppose permitting reform

Published

on

EDITORIAL: Nevada’s House Democrats oppose permitting reform


Politicians of both parties have promised to fix the nation’s broken permitting system. But those promises have not been kept, and the status quo prevails: longer timelines, higher costs and a regulatory maze that makes it nearly impossible to build major projects on schedule.

Last week, the House finally cut through the fog by passing the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act. As Jeff Luse reported for Reason, the legislation is the clearest chance in years to overhaul a system that has spun out of control.

Notably, virtually every House Democrat — including Reps. Dina Titus, Susie Lee and Steven Horsford from Nevada — opted for the current regulatory morass.

The proposal addressed problems with the National Environmental Policy Act, which passed in the 1970s to promote transparency, but has grown into an anchor that drags down public and private investment. Mr. Luse notes that even after Congress streamlined the act in 2021, the average environmental impact statement takes 2.4 years to complete. That number speaks for itself and does not reflect the many reviews that stretch far beyond that already unreasonable timeline.

Advertisement

The SPEED Act tackles these failures head on. It would codify recent Supreme Court guidance, expand the projects that do not require exhaustive review and set real expectations for federal agencies that too often slow-walk approvals. Most important, it puts long-overdue limits on litigation. Mr. Luse highlights the absurdity of the current six-year window for filing a lawsuit under the Environmental Policy Act. Between 2013 and 2022, these lawsuits delayed projects an average of 4.2 years.

While opponents insist the bill would silence communities, Mr. Luse notes that NEPA already includes multiple public hearings and comment periods. Also, the vast majority of lawsuits are not filed by members of the people who live near the projects. According to the Breakthrough Institute, 72 percent of NEPA lawsuits over the past decade came from national nonprofits. Only 16 percent were filed by local communities. The SPEED Act does not shut out the public. It reins in well-funded groups that can afford to stall projects indefinitely.

Some Democrats claim the bill panders to fossil fuel companies, while some Republicans fear it will accelerate renewable projects. As Mr. Luse explains, NEPA bottlenecks have held back wind, solar and transmission lines as often as they have slowed oil and gas. That is why the original SPEED Act won support from green energy groups and traditional energy producers.

Permitting reform is overdue, and lawmakers claim to understand that endless red tape hurts economic growth and environmental progress alike. The SPEED Act is the strongest permitting reform proposal in years. The Senate should approve it.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending