CAUGHT: Manipulating Ballot Title & Explanation Statements For Charter Amendments

I've been working on the "against" statements for two proposed Charter Amendments that Auditor Kimsey is pushing forward. One amendment seeks to revamp the redistricting process, shifting control from a bipartisan committee to the County Council, effectively placing power in the hands of whichever party controls the Council at the time. The other amendment will fundamentally alter how initiatives are processed and reviewed, expanding the PA officer's authority to prohibit certain initiative subjects and potentially requiring biased statements from government officials about cost estimates and legal opinions. In essence, if this initiative amendment is approved, only initiatives endorsed by a few government officials are likely to succeed in Clark County.

The big news is that while reviewing the explanation statements and ballot titles, which will appear in the voters' pamphlet and on the ballot, I was shocked by how manipulated they are—completely non-compliant with state law. Both explanation statements and ballot titles omit significant details about the changes that would occur if these amendments are approved. They mislead voters about what these amendments actually do and use biased language to sway voters in favor of both measures.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS: After entering discussions with the PA's office on Monday, which yielded little progress, I filed an appeal as a last-ditch effort—nothing to lose, but it could add pressure to ensure the explanation statements and ballot titles are accurate and compliant with state law.

Although my appeal was denied, I managed to secure several changes to both explanation statements and ballot titles—about 70% of the issues have been addressed.

Ethics Complaint Appeals Dismissed: County Denies Due Process

Last year, I filed the first of two Ethics Complaints against elected County officials. However, in June, the Ethics Commission dismissed both complaints, and I'm now appealing that decision—not because I disagree with the outcome, but because of how the complaints were dismissed. The initial review should determine if the complaints I filed MAY result in an ethics violation, not if the violation occurred, but if, assuming all the facts are accurate, a reasonable person might conclude that an ethics violation may have occurred. This makes sense, right? No one wants frivolous complaints wasting time. However, the Ethics Commission appears to have bypassed normal procedures, essentially adjudicating the complaints and determining that they didn’t meet the standards for ethics violations. The problem is, that wasn’t their job at that stage. Without investigation, testimony, or fact-finding, almost any complaint can be dismissed using this approach.

The attorneys representing the County had to hire outside legal counsel because one of my complaints was against the PA's office. They argued that I had no right to appeal simply because they chose not to include an appeal process in the administrative procedures. Imagine that—denying due process rights by omitting the option altogether. That’s not how our system is supposed to work, and the judge agreed that this was a troubling development, echoing my concerns that people are entitled to due process. The Ethics Commission, under the guidance of unelected bureaucrats, has created a system where their decisions are shielded from fair scrutiny and correction if needed. The judge ultimately dismissed my case—not because of its merits, but because there’s no legal avenue available, or jurisdiction to do so. This is despite the Ethics Commission Chair, Adam Murray, stating in a May 9, 2023, meeting that there would be an avenue for appeal through administrative law. Apparently, that was just something he said but didn't really mean.

WINCO CASE: THEY WANT A FIGHT... THEY'LL GET A FIGHT

As many of you know, Winco served me with legal papers while we were gathering signatures for the Restore Election Confidence initiative—probably an attempt to chill signature gathering countywide. A person collecting signatures stood in front of a Winco store. I always advised against collecting signatures at Winco because of past legal cases, which could cause problems. But Winco sees this as an opportunity to get a ruling that could impact future signature gathering throughout the state.

Over the last few months, I’ve been in dialogue with Winco’s attorney, who indicated that we probably wouldn’t go much further with the case and would work out an agreed judgment. He was supposed to send me papers for review, but then he went dark.

However, God's hand was guiding me because while I was on Zoom for my other hearing about the ethics complaints, the judge suddenly called, "Winco Foods v. Robert Anderson." After a double-take, I let the judge know I was present but wasn’t expecting this. The Winco attorney then claimed I wasn’t cooperating in reaching an agreement, which was completely false. I told the judge that was not true and that I had emails to prove Winco hadn’t been acting in good faith.

As a result, if Winco wants a fight, they’ve got one. I will hire an attorney ASAP and mount a vigorous defense because I now have little doubt that this case isn’t just about me—it’s about shutting down signature gatherings across the state.

I NEED YOUR HELP, PLEASE SUPPORT ME IN FIGHTING TO REFORM CLARK COUNTY

CLICK HERE TO GIVE TO MY LEGAL DEFENSE

Recount Begins Tomorrow - Please Help Observe!

Recount Sign Up