The Nevada Supreme Court on Monday struck down a proposed ballot initiative that would allow voters to decide whether to revoke public funding that lawmakers approved last year for a new MLB stadium in Las Vegas.
Monday’s ruling dealt a blow to funding critics who saw a ballot issue this year as the most effective route to repealing key parts of the sweeping bill that paved the way for the Oakland A’s to move to Las Vegas.
NEVADA SUPREME COURT WILL REVIEW CHASING HORSE’S REQUEST TO DISMISS SEXUAL ABUSE CHARGES
Five judges voted to uphold a lower court ruling that nullified the referendum. One judge dissented, while another agreed in part and dissented in part.
In a statement after the ruling, Schools Over Stadiums political action committee spokesman Alexander Marks said his goal now is to get the question on the 2026 ballot. The PAC is backed by the State Education Association of Nevada, a state teachers union that has long opposed public funding of the stadium.
The debate over stadium funding in Nevada mirrors that unfolding across the country over whether public funds should be used to help finance sports stadiums.
People gather outside the Nevada Supreme Court in Carson City, May 8, 2018. The Nevada Supreme Court on Monday, May 13, 2024, struck down a proposed ballot initiative that would allow voters to decide whether to repeal funding public that legislators approved last time. year for a new MLB stadium in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/By Scott Sonner)
A’s representatives and some Nevada tourism officials have said public funding could help Las Vegas’ growing sports scene and act as an economic engine. But a growing chorus of stadium economists, educators and some lawmakers had warned it would bring minimal benefits, especially compared to the high public price tag.
The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the entire 66-page bill must be included in the ballot question to provide its full context. But election referendums cannot be longer than 200 words, which lawyers for Schools Over Stadiums admitted made it difficult to explain the complex bill during oral arguments last month.
The court ruled that the 200-word description presented by Schools over Stadiums was “misleading” and “explains the general effect of a referendum, but does not describe the practical effects of this specific referendum.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Attorney Bradley Schrager, who represents the two plaintiffs lobbying for public funding, said Monday that “all Nevadans have the right to participate in direct democracy, but must respect laws that require properly informing voters”. of a proposal. “This measure obviously does not achieve that.”
MLB owners unanimously approved the A’s move to Las Vegas.
