Court decision allows one candidate per party in special election

The Nevada Supreme Court has determined the two major political parties can choose one candidate each to run for the state's open 2nd Congressional District seat, putting an end to Secretary of State Ross Miller's vision of a "ballot royale."

There will be only eight candidates -- not 30 -- on the ballot when U.S. Sen. Dean Heller's replacement is chosen in a special election Sept. 13. Republican Mark Amodei and Democratic state Treasurer Kate Marshall will top the ballot with candidates from the Independent American and Libertarian parties and four independents.

The decision is important more for political reasons than legal concerns. Nevada's Congressional District 2 is heavily Republican. No Democrat has ever won election in the district, which spreads over most of the state, including a small part of Clark County.

Republicans feared loading the ballot with up to 15 Republicans and as many other candidates would split the vote and let a strong Democrat eke out a victory.

Justices determined that the 2003 law governing special elections was unclear -- it was written in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- but that earlier laws make it clear such vacancies are filled through party nomination, not free-for-alls with potentially dozens of candidates on the ballot.

Given the ambiguity, the high court affirmed District Court Judge James Todd Russell's injunction allowing the major-party central committees to each nominate a single candidate, "albeit for different reasons."

Politically the decision is a huge boost for Republican Amodei, who was facing the prospect of a ballot that also featured Republican Kirk Lippold, which might have split the GOP vote and handed the seat to Marshall.

"It basically eliminates an ugly intra-party fight," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at University of Nevada, Reno. "Kate Marshall's chances took a real hit."

In a free-for-all election, Democrats could have united behind Marshall while Republicans split between Amodei and Lippold.

Amodei, a former state senator and party chairman, has high name recognition and support from party insiders. Lippold, who in 2000 was commander of the USS Cole when it was attacked by al-Qaida terrorists in the Port of Aden in Yemen, was campaigning as a more conservative alternative to Amodei.

The decision Tuesday, however, means it will be a more conventional match in a district in which Republicans outnumber Democrats by nearly 31,000 voters.

Miller, a Democrat who joined his party in appealing the lower court decision, said he respects and will abide the court's decision.

"The justices have issued a well-reasoned opinion that allows my office to move forward with the important business of conducting a special election to fill the vacancy in the U.S. House of Representatives," Miller said in a statement Tuesday evening.

Zach Hudson, a spokesman for the state Democratic Party, didn't opine on the outcome and instead chose to turn the focus to electing Marshall over Amodei.

"We are fully prepared to elect Kate Marshall to fight to create jobs and protect CD2's seniors and middle-class from Republicans like (Mark) Amodei who support a reckless agenda that would destroy thousands of Nevada jobs and end Medicare as we know it," Hudson said.

Amy Tarkanian, chairwoman of the state Republican Party, said the outcome is key for Republicans hoping to gain ground in advance of the upcoming presidential race in which Nevada could be pivotal.

"Today's ruling moves us one step closer to preserving this important seat, carrying our momentum into 2012 and turning Nevada red again," Tarkanian said.

Lippold spokesman Jack Finn declined comment, but he reiterated that Lippold in the past has said he would not run as an independent.

The special election was needed after Gov. Brian Sandoval appointed Republican Congressman Heller to the Senate to replace John Ensign, who stepped down May 3 amid an ethics investigation into an affair with a former campaign aide.

Sandoval ordered a special election to fill out Heller's term in the House of Representatives.

Whoever prevails would have to run again in 2012.

Nevada has never had a special election to fill a vacant House seat, and the mechanics became a political tug-of-war between the major parties.

Miller, the state's chief elections officer, concluded that major-party candidates could "self-nominate" in a House special election, but the Nevada Republican Party challenged that interpretation in court, arguing the parties' central committees should nominate a single candidate.

As of the June 30 deadline, 30 candidates filed for the seat, including 15 Republicans and nine Democrats.

The Republican and Democratic central committees met last month and nominated Amodei and Marshall in anticipation that Russell's ruling would stand.

In its analysis, the high court determined state law spells out how minor political party candidates get placed on the ballot, but "in stark contrast," no method for major-party candidates is evident.

Miller focused on primary election laws in finding the special election should be a "ballot royale," but because no primary election would be held, the high court questioned the relevancy of relying on those specific statutes.

In their conclusion, justices said the law is unclear and lacks regulations, which contributed to "statewide confusion" regarding the proper process.

After the 9/11 terror attacks, the federal government encouraged states to elect new representatives quickly in the event a similar attack killed a multitude of legislative leaders.

The Nevada high court noted only Texas and Hawaii adopted the self-nominating process favored by Miller while the other states left the decision up to major-party central committees.

The lone dissent came from Justice Michael Cherry, who said that Miller's interpretation was "a careful study of the relevant material" and that "this court should yield to the Secretary's construction."

Contact Doug McMurdo at dmcmurdo@reviewjournal. com or 702-224-5512. Contact Benjamin Spillman at bspillman@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3861.