The Nevada Supreme Court on Monday rejected a proposed ballot initiative that would have allowed voters to decide whether to eliminate public funding for construction of a new MLB stadium in Las Vegas that lawmakers approved last year.
Monday’s ruling was a blow to funding opponents who see this year’s ballot question as the most effective means of eliminating key parts of the sweeping bill that paved the way for the Oakland Athletics to move to Las Vegas.
Nevada Supreme Court reconsiders Chasing Horse’s request to dismiss sexual abuse charges
Five justices voted to uphold the lower court’s ruling invalidating the referendum. One justice dissented, and another concurred in part and dissented in part.
In a statement after the ruling, Alexander Marks, a spokesperson for the Schools Rather than Stadiums political action committee, said the focus now is on gathering questions on the 2026 ballot. The PAC is backed by the Nevada Education Association, a statewide teachers union that has long opposed public funding for stadium construction.
Nevada’s stadium funding debate mirrors the debate taking place across the country over whether public funds should be used to fund sports stadiums.
People gather outside the Nevada Supreme Court in Carson City on May 8, 2018. On Monday, May 13, 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected a proposed ballot initiative that would have allowed voters to decide whether to eliminate public funding that lawmakers last approved. The year his new MLB stadium is built in Las Vegas. (AP Photo/Written by Scott Sonner)
Mr. A’s representatives and some Nevada tourism officials said public funding could further spur the growth of Las Vegas’ sports scene and serve as an economic engine. But stadium economists, educators and some lawmakers have increasingly warned that the benefits will be minimal, especially when compared to the high sticker price.
The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that the 66-page bill must be included in its entirety as a ballot question. But ballot referendums can be no longer than 200 words, which lawyers for schools rather than stadiums acknowledged made it difficult to explain the complex bill during oral arguments last month.
The court said the 200-word statement submitted by the school over the stadium was “misleading” and that while it “describes the general effects of the referendum, it does not address the practical effects of this particular referendum.” has not been explained.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“All Nevadans have the right to participate in direct democracy, but proper information for voters is important,” said Bradley Schrager, a pro-public funding union lobbyist and attorney representing two of the plaintiffs, on Monday. “We need to comply with the laws that require us to provide it,” he said. This proposal clearly fails to achieve that. ”
MLB owners unanimously approved the Athletics’ move to Las Vegas.
