Only drama in special election comes from court

The selection of former state Sen. Mark Amodei as the nominee for the special election in the 2nd Congressional District was assured the moment Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki, Amodei’s only real competitor, announced he would not seek the office.

The only question was by how much Amodei — who stepped down recently as chairman of the state party — would beat two other contenders, appointed state Sen. Greg Brower and former USS Cole skipper Kirk Lippold.

As Amodei himself said, if he’d failed to win the nomination (or if he’d won it by a less-than-impressive margin) it would have sent a very strong message.

But Amodei did win, and convincingly (221 votes to just 56 for Brower, his closest competitor).

And next Saturday, state Treasurer Kate Marshall will beat her token competition on the Democratic side — ex-Regent Nancy Price — by as convincing a margin.

What does it all mean?

Nothing, really, if the Nevada Supreme Court does the right thing and overturns that truly awful, stretched-like-Gumby-on-the-rack court ruling that led to the central committee meetings in the first place.

Secretary of State Ross Miller, recall, interpreted the plain language of the law to allow for a free-for-all election, in which major party candidates appear on the ballot simply by filing nomination papers with his office. It’s not a pretty process, but it does have the virtue of conforming exactly to the language of the law.

But a Republican Party lawsuit interrupted Miller’s proceeding and resulted in District Judge James Todd Russell declaring the major parties should each pick a single nominee. Hence, Saturday’s Republican confab, and next Saturday’s Democratic meeting.

But on June 28, the state Supreme Court will hear Miller’s well-reasoned appeal, written by Deputy Attorney General Kevin Benson. Three days after that, the filing period for the September special election will close, a period during which Miller will accept papers from anybody who wants to file.

So until the state Supreme Court finally decides the issue, we’re running two parallel election processes, one according to Miller and one according to Russell. Only in Nevada could an election time line be so convoluted, but yet so comprehensive: No matter which way the Supreme Court rules — free-for-all or party-pick — the state will be able to proceed.

Of course, the different approaches could have radically different results: In the free-for-all, with multiple candidates of all parties, the advantage goes to Marshall, who will have only one real intra-party adversary. In the party-picked approach, Amodei would have the advantage in the Republican district.

For that reason, some Republicans have accused Miller, a Democrat, and those who agree with him of skewing the interpretation to suit political needs. But that’s ridiculous for two reasons: One, most compellingly, Miller’s interpretation comports precisely with the law. Two, even if Marshall were to win a free-for-all election, her future in that seat will largely be determined by redistricting. (Ironically, that, too, is in the hands of the courts inasmuch as the Legislature and Gov. Brian Sandoval were unable to come to terms on new maps during the 2011 session.)

If the district is redrawn in anything approaching its current configuration — with 30,000 more Republicans than Democrats — any Democrat who does happen to win the special election will likely be tossed in 2012.  

The only way a Democrat could win and hold the seat after 2012 is if it’s a competitive one, and that’s something that no one — including Miller — can foresee at this point.

 

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@ reviewjournal.com.