Workman v. AG Combined Reply

8/12/2019 Workman v. AG Combined Reply

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/workman-v-ag-combined-reply 1/36

Electronically FiledJul 22 2014 02:56 p.m.Tracie K. LindemanClerk of Supreme Court

Docket 65716 Document 2014-23840



I. INTRODUCTION

2 his is a case where the Attorney General, Secretary of State and M r. Hafen3 himself have admitted that Mr. Hafen is holding office in violation of Article 15,

4 Section 3(2) of the N evada C onstitution. No one has challenged this fact in his or h e5 filings before this Court. In fact, the Attorney General and Secretary of State explicitly

17

8

9

2

21

22

6 admit, The s eo le themselves enacted the term limits s rovisions. Ar uabl

7 Mr. Hafen is not removed from office, then the people's will on term limits is

8 defeated. [Em phasis Added]. Respondents' Response ( RR ), 36.

9 nstead of attem pting to dispu te this fact, the Attorney General, Secretary o

10 State and Mr. Hafen spend m ore than sixty (60) com bined pages arguing to this Court11 that p rocedural technicalities prevent anyone from being ab le to do anything to enforce

2 the Nevada Constitution. Bu t they are wrong.

3 his Court has the ability to take im m ediate action to stop M r. Hafen from his

14 ongoing and continued constitutional violations. Relying on the reasoning of the

5 Arizona Supreme Court, in Foley v. Kennedy, this Court held,

6 lections are political matters to be decided b y the electorate, but thelegality of holding an election is a judicial question to be decidedaccording to the requ irements of the constitution.

The provisions of the constitution control in such matters, andalthough the candidates may have relied in good faith upon theAttorney General s opinion, that opinion cannot negate theprovisions of the constitution nor the authority of this court tointerpret it.

Likew ise, we reject the argum ent that equitable estoppel m ay apply torequire the holding of an otherwise unconstitutional election.

23

2 4 Internal C itations O mitted). [Emphasis Added]. Foley v. Kennedy, 110 Nev. 1295,

25 1301, 88 5 P.2d 5 83, 587 (1994). As such, Petitioner herein respectfully asks that this2 6 Coart take action as requested to declare Mr. H afen's re-election to the Henderson C ity

2 7 Council as Mayor illegal and in violation of the Nevada Constitution; and therefore, he

8 must be rem oved.



II. UNDISPUTED FACTS

2 he following facts set forth in Petitioner's Request for Lea ve to File a Writ of

3 Q uo W arranto or, Alternatively, Petition for Writ of M andam us or O ther Extraordinary

4 Relief were left und isputed and were not ad dressed in an y of the responsive filings

5 before this Court:

• Henderson Mayor, Arthur 'Andy' Hafen is currently holding office in

violation of the 1996 Term Limits Am endm ent to the Nevada C onstitution in

that he had already served alm ost seventeen (17) years in office when he w as

re-elected in 2013 . Petitioner's Request and Petition ( Petition ), 1:1-4 .

Mr. Hafen served his maximum allotted 'twelve years or more' asm em ber of the Henderson C ity C ouncil at the end of the four-year term he

was elected to in 200 7. (Petition 1:21-2 3).

• The very purpose of the term lim its am endm ent, as presented to the voters

by ballot initiative — twice - was to stop career politicians since no one w ill

be ab le to hold office for several term s. . . . local governing bo dy m em bers

would have the opportunity to focus on the issues instead of reelection.

[Em phasis A dded ]. (Petition 14:1-4); See also, PA 000028- 000031.

• M r. Iiafen publically adm itted that

It's been an honor to serve the citizens of Henderson fornearly three decades and I'm as excited about continuing toserve as your M ayor . . .

I am fortunate enough to b e [in the] position to concentrate onpub lic service full-tim e and it's a uniqu e and fulfilling positionto be in.

(Petition 14 :10-15).

M r. Hafen was featured as a key note speaker at the 2013 B anner C onference,

which ad vertised M r. Hafen would b e sharing insights on how he's built

successful personal brand, how he leveraged his name in politics to a

successful year career as City C ouncilm an and ultim ately becom ing a

6

7

8

9

1

1 2

3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8

2



popular mayor. (Petition 14:15-21).

2 The first year Mr. Hafen ran for the seat of Mayor in 2009, he knew the seat

3 f Mayor was just another Henderson City Council position. (Petition 15:16-

4 8, 16:2-4).

5 III LEGAL ANALYSIS

6 . rticle 15, Section 3(2) of the Nevada Constitution is Self-Executing.

7 o support his argument that he should remain in office, in his Response Mr.

8 Hafen argues that Mr. Workman made no pre-election challenge. Real Party in

9 Interest's Response ( RPI Response ), at 4. The Attorney General and Secretary o

10 State also raise the same argument stating Workman did not bring a challenge at thetime [Mr. Hafen was running for re-election], nor did anyone else. (RR 5).

12 rticle 15, Section 3 of the Nevada Constitution provides:3 . No person shall be eligible to any office who is not a qualified

elector under this constitution.

5 . No person may be elected to any state office or local governingbody who has served in that office, or at the expiration of his current

16 erm if he is so serving will have served, 12 years or more, unless the

permissible number of terms or duration of service is otherwise17 pecified in this constitution.

18 [Emphasis Added]. Nev. Const. Art. 15, §3. That section does not say that it only

19 applies if and only if a challenge is made prior to the individual being elected to that

20 office; it states that No person m ay b e elected if that individual has served in that

21 office, or at the expiration of that individual's current term, will have served, 12 years

22 or more. Id In 2009 when Mr. Hafen ran for the seat of Mayor, he could not again be

23 re-elected to Henderson's governing body because at the end of the current term he

24 was serving, he would have served 12 years or more. (PA000036- 000040).25 rohibitory provisions in a Constitution, like Article 15, Section 3(2), are

26 usually self-executing to the extent that anything done in violation of them is void.

27 Wren v. Dixon 40 Nev. 170, 161 P.2d 722 (1916). Relying on the case of Oaklan

28 Paving Co. v. Hilton 69 Cal. 479, 11 Pac. 3 (1886), this Court held in Wren that whe

14

3



a constitu tional pro vision is prohibitory in its language, no legislation is requi re d to2 execute such provision; for it is then self—executing. Id.3 he effect of this is that they give rise to a cause of action r egardless of whether4 the Legislature has provided a ny statutory pr ocedure authorizing one. Alper v. Clark5 County, 93 Nev. 569, 572, 571 P.2d 810, 812 (1977). Accordingly, despite the zealous6 argum ents of the Attorn ey General , Secretary o f State and M r. H afen and as suming7 ar guend o, tha t this C ourt finds Quo W arra nt° an d Wri t relief to be impr oper, by its 8 very term s , Article 15 , Section 3 (2) gives ri se to a ca us e of actio n outside an d

9 irre spective of the statutory procedures set forth in NRS Chapters 34 and 35.1

urther and as a corollary, such rights cannot be abridged or impaired by statute.Alp er v. Cla rk C ounty 93 Nev . 569, 572, 571 P.2d 8 10, 812 (1 9 77). As su ch,

1 2 re gardless of whether or not Mr. Haf en 's candida cy w as statutorily challen ged unde3 N RS Chapters 293 or 293C prior to his re-electionsin 2009 or 2013, is irrelevant.4 n a case s imilar to the matters curre ntly before this Court th at Mr. Hafen cites5 in suppo rt o f his arg um ents reg ard ing offic e en titleme nt, i n Bates v. D . C. Bd . o

1 6 Elections and Ethics 625 A.2d 891, 893 (D.C. App. 1993) the Court di scussed tha t,1 7 even though the elected official in that case was never officially challenged during the

8 ch allenge per iod and a lthough the Board mus t certify [he r] as th e w inner of the

1 9 electi on f or Com miss ioner o f AN C 3C09 , cl early sh e is not actu ally eligibl e to hold

2 the offic e . Thus, Because o f her ineli g ibility to h old office , and since the

21 incumbent's term expired without his being sworn in for a subsequent term, the office22 of Commissioner in ANC 3C 09 is currently vacant. Internal Citations O mitted). Id.

23 ccordingl y , argumen t that becau se Mr. Wo r kman faile d to challen ge M24 Hafen's qualifications prior to his r e-election, fails as a matter of law.25 . esponde n ts and M r. Hafen's a rguments regarding laches ar e 2 6

qually unpersuasive and inapplicable here.

27r. Hafen asserts in h is Response that, Wor km an is guilty of laches. (RPI

28 Response 22). The Attorney G eneral and S ecretary of State also a rg ue, Petitioner

4



W orkman is barred by the doctrine of laches from now seeking to oust Mr. Hafen from

2 office. (RR 4). In support of this argument, the Attorney General and Secretary of

3 State go on to assert that, The delay also constitutes acquiescence to the condition.

4 Id. at 5. However, the Nevada Constitution does not contain a provision by which

5 unconstitutional act is validated through the passage of time.

6 pplicability of the laches doctrine depends upon the particular facts of each

7 case. Carson City v. Price, 113 Nev. 409, 412, 934 P.2d 1042, 1043 (1997); Citing,

8 Hom e Savings v. Bigelow, 105 Nev. 494, 496, 779 P.2d 85, 86 (1989). To determine

9 whether a challenge is barred by the doctrine of laches, this court considers (1)

10 whether the party inexcusably delayed bringing the challenge, (2) whether the party'sinexcusable delay constitutes acquiescence to the condition the party is challenging,

12 and (3) whether the inexcusable delay was prejudicial to others. Internal Citations

3 Om itted . Miller v. Burk, 12 4 Nev. 57 9, 59 8-99 , 188 P.3d 11 12 , 11 25 20 08).

14 his Court addressed a similar situation in Chanos v. Nevada Tax Comm in, 1245 Nev. 232, 181 P.3d 675 (2008). In that case, using an equitable argument similar to

16 lathes, the Nevada Tax Commission argued the Attorney General should be estopped

17 from enforcing an Open Meeting Law because the Tax Commission had closed

18 hearings for deliberating and voting on taxpayer appeals for ten (10) years without

19 objection from deputy attorney generals, who were in attendance at the closed

20 hearings. Id. at 6 78-679 .

21 his Court reasoned that estoppel could not apply for two reasons: 1. the Tax

22 Com mission failed to prove that they were ignorant of the true state of the facts, and 2 .

23 a government body may not be estopped from performing its governmental function.

24 Id. at 679. Despite the fact that the Tax Commission submitted almost thirty 30) years

25 of hearing transcripts showing, during that period, it deliberated and voted in closed

26 sessions without objection from the deputy attorney generals in attendance and

27 although the previous deputy attorney generals failed to enforce the Open Meeting

28



Law or to object to the past Tax Commission's actions, the Attorney General cannot

2 now be estopped from performing its governmental function of enforcing the law.Id.

3 imilarly here, Mr. Workman cannot be barred or estopped, if you will, by

4 laches in asking this Court to take action to enforce the laws of this State or from

5 compelling Constitutional officers of this State from enforcing the Constitution.6 lso analogous here, this Court pointed out in Chanos v. Nevada Tax Comm n,

7 124 Nev. 232, 181 P.3d 675, 679 (2008) that while the parties therein may have had

8 differing opinions as to the interpretation of the controlling law, a d ifference of opinion

9 does not satisfy the requirement for estoppel, that the proponent be ignorant of the true1

circumstances. Here, despite the unsupported assertion that Mr. Hafen was re-elected11 under the then-established interpretation of eligibility (RPI Response 2), that does

12 not negate the undisputed fact that in 2009 when Mr. Hafen began running for Mayor,1 3 he knew that the Mayor is a seat on the City Council and that the Mayor is a full voting

14 member of the Henderson City Council, as he explicitly admitted this fact in his

1 5 Nevada Financial Disclosure Statement with the Secretary of State on February 18,

16 2009 and has failed to dispute such assertion before this Court. (PA000074). Mr.

17 Hafen cannot now claim that he would be prejudiced if he was removed from office,

1 8 when he knew at the time he ran in 2009, that he had already been a member of the

19 City Council for twenty-one (21) years, more than twelve (12) of them after the term

20 limits amendment was passed and became effective in 1 9 9 6 .

21 arlier, in Foley v. Kennedy 110 Nev. 1295, 885 P.2d 583 (1994), this Court

2 2 held that the State was not estopped from canceling an illegal election, even though the

23 organizers relied to their detriment on erroneous advice of the Registrar. The court

24 analogized that case toGreen v. Osborne, 1 57 Ariz. 36 3, 758 P.2 d 13 8, 1 40 -41 (1988

25 where the Arizona Supreme Court held an erroneous opinion of the State Attorney

2 6 General did not estop the State from canceling an illegal election, because that

2 7 opinion cannot negate the provisions of the constitution nor the authority of this Court

28 to interpret it. Id.

6



One might also ask why the Attorney General and Secretary of State are fighting

2 so hard to protect Mr. Hafen when he is completely obliterating the will of the voters

3 who voted in favor of term limits?

4 his is even more peculiar when the Secretary of State has devoted much of his

5 time in office to ensuring numerous incumbents, who also were also barred by the

6 same Article 15, Section 3(2), were not allowed to run for office in 2008. (PA000076-

7 000094). The Attorney General and Secretary of State admit multiple times in their

8 response before this Court that all of these facts and policy concerns were well-

9 known prior to Mr. Hafen's running for Mayor. (RR 4, 6). If all of these facts and

10 policy concerns were well-known prior to Mr. Hafen's re-election, then why did theSecretary of State (who is in charge of enforcing the election laws of this State) and the

2 Attorney General, both who swore an oath to support the Nevada Constitution, fail to

3 bring an action against Mr. Hafen at that time?

14 n 2008, it was reported, Just one day before early voting is set to begin, the

5 Nevada Supreme Court has decided the issue of term limits. Nearly two dozen long

16 time elected officials can't be elected again. (PA000092). At that time, candidates had

17 already submitted everything to run for office and when the decision came down,

8 was too late for any new individuals who may have been interested to run. Id. Yet

19 even with that fact, the Nevada Secretary of State still made it his mission to ensure

20 that Article 15, Section 3(2) was enforced. So why did he not exercise this same duty

21 with Mr. Hafen- either in 2 00 9 or 20 1 3?

22 n fact, after this Court's 2008 decision(s), the Secretary of State boasted, It

23 h s been nd rem ins the s non of his office to u hold the will of the ico s le o

24 Nevada, and this decision further reaffirms that priority. [Emphasis Added].

25 (PA000093). Why did the Secretary of State undertake to uphold the will of the

26 people with respect to almost two dozen other local politicians, but not Mr. Hafen?

27 f the Attorney General and Secretary of State are going to argue that Mr.

28 Workman should have raised a challenge earlier because all of the facts to bring the

7



challenge were known at that time, then w hy isn't the Secretary of State charged with

2 having d one the same- especially in light of the fact that the S ecretary of State is the3 Chief E lections O fficer charged with enforcing the election laws of this State?

4 urther, and while an argum ent can and has been made, that a runner-up in an

5 election has no entitlement to office; (RP I Respon se 8-9); See also,Ingersoll v. Lamb,

6 75 Nev. 1, 4-6, 333 P.2d 982, 983-84 (1959), that is not accurate with respect to

7 vacancy prior to an election. As set forth herein, M r. Hafen should have b een barred by

term limits from running for re-election in both 2009 an d 2013; and, as such, his name

9 should not have been placed on the ballot in either election. NRS 293C.190(2)

10provides,

xcept as otherwise provided in NR S 293C .115, a vacancy occurringin a no m ination for a city office after 5 p.m. of the first Tuesda y after

2he first Monday in March and on or before 5 p.m. of the second

3 uesday after the second Monday in April must be filled by theperson who received the next highest vote for the nomination in the

14 rimary city election.

5 [Em phasis Added]) A ccordingly, had the Secretary of State challenged M r. Hafen's6 candidacy in Feb ruary of 2013, as he did prior to the elections with virtually two dozen

1 7 other local politicians in 2008 , M r. Hafen w ould ha ve been d eclared ineligible to run

8 for office as a result of term limits (which, it is undisputed that he knew the M ayor was

9 a m emb er of the City Cou ncil at the time) and, if that had o ccurred prior to April 9,

2 0 2013, M r. W orkm an, who received the next highest vote in the prim ary (PA0 00006),

21 would have filled the vacancy pursuant to NRS 293C.190.

22 r. Hafen also argues M r. Workm an should be barred from bringing this action

23 because he waited more than a year after the 2013 election. (RPI Response 4 .2 4 H owever, this delay argum ent also fails as a ma tter of law because, for example, in

25 the case of a recall of an elected official, the Nevada C onstitution does not even perm it

2 6 circulation of a recall petition for a local elected official un til at least six (6) m onths

2 7

28

See also NRS 293.16 5.

8



after the election. Nev. Const. Art. 2, §9, stating ( No such petition shall be circulated

2 or filed against any officer until he has actually held his office six (6) months. . . ). It

3 would seem the drafters of Article 2, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution disagree

4 with Mr. Hafen's exaggerated assertion that The law rightfully forecloses an

5 unsuccessful candidate from lying in wait, gambling on the election outcome, and then6 seeking to undue the adverse results more that a year after losing, because in other

7 circumstances, like in the case of a recall petition, individuals cannot bring a petitio

8 until at least six months after the individual has held the office.RPI Response 3); Id

At the end of the day, Mr. Hafen's re-election to the Council as Mayor (twice),

10 in violation of Article 15, Section 3(2) of the Nevada Constitution cannot negate thaConstitutional provision, or the authority of this Court to interpret and enforce it.

C. The fact that Mr. Hafen was re-elected as Mayor (twice) does notsomehow reconcile Mr. Hafen s election to conform with Article 15Section 3 2) of the Nevada C onstitution.

The Attorney General, Secretary of State and Mr. Hafen all suggest, if the co

were to agree with Workman's challenge now, it would prejudice Mr. Hafen and all

the voters who voted for him. R R 5); RPI Response 20, ( . . .decline to litigate thosefundamental rights against Mayor Hafen and voters who would rightfully challenge

any attempt to render their vote nugatory after the fact. ); RPI Response 5,

( Unw illing to let the voters have their say. . . ).

However, these arguments fail because Nevada Courts have held that voters

may no more violate the Constitution than a legislative body may do so. Am for Med

Rights v. Heller 2 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1317 D. Nev. 1998); citing, Citizens Agains

Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v. City of Berkeley California 454 U.S. 290,

295 (1981) ( . . .voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot

measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation ). Simply stated,

just because the voters voted for Mr. Hafen in violation of the Constitution, does not

mean that the will of those voters somehow makes Mr. Hafen's election Constitutional

What about the will of the voters of the entire state, who voted overwhelmingly-

12

3

14

5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



twice, for the passage of the term limits amendment? Is the will of those voters less

2 important than the will of those who voted for Mr. Hafen? Fortunately, we don't have

3 to guess the will of the voters who enacted term limits. It is undisputed that The very

4 purpose of the term limits amendment, as presented to the voters by ballot initiative

5 twice - was to 'stop career politicians since no one will be able to hold office for

6 several terms. . . . local governing body members would have the opportunity to focus

7 on the issues instead of reelection.' (Petition 14:1-4); (PA000028- 000031). It can

8 be argued that Mr. Hafen got re-elected by utilizing the very tactics the term limits

9 amendment was intended to avoid.

1n addition, with respect to Mr. Hafen's right to hold office and his fight to

1 1 continue to unconstitutionally retain his seat as Mayor, when presented with issues

12 regarding the competing interests of term limits passed overwhelmingly by the voters

1 3 versus Constitutional issues of the right to run for and hold public office, this Court

14 has unequivocally held that term limits prevail. See, Nevada Judges Ass n v. Lau, 11 2

1 5 Nev. 5 1 , 5 6-5 7, 910 P.2 d 898, 901 -02 1 99 6).

1 6 n Nevada Judges Ass n v. Lau, this Court held as follows:

1 7 ince the right to run for office is not deemed a fundamental rightand term limits do not hinder the equal participation of all citizens tovote in an election the nature of the asserted injury caused by theinitiative does not appear to be u nconstitutionally severe.

As for the state interests put forward as justifying term limits, theargument for passage of the initiative placed on the ballot reads asfollows:

Proponents argue that passage will stop career politicians since no

one will be able to hold one office for several terms. Passage maylessen the power of lobbyists and special interest groups since stateofficials and local governing body m emb ers will only be in office fora limited amount of time. State officials and local governing bodymem bers would h ave the opportunity to focus on the issues instead ofreelection. A greater number of Nevadans would be allowed to serveas state officials and as m emb ers of local governing bodies.

It is clear that the reasons cited above for term limits primarily applyto legislative and executive bodies which are besieged by lobbyistsand special interest groups. The term career politicians is used as a

1 8

19

2 0

21

22

23

24

25

2 6

2 7

28

10



pe jorative . Ca ses tha t hav e uphe ld te rm limi ts fo r legisla tors cite as o ne of t he a dvantag es o f term limit s that care er polit ician s will beeliminate d allowing a return to th e citizen re presentativ e s envision e d

3 y the founde rs of this na tion

4 [Emphasis Added]. Inte rnal Cita tio ns Omitt ed ). Id. In othe r words if th ere is a

5 conflict between voters saying, we want term limits and a cand idate saying, I have

6 a right to run for and hold office - the voters prevail. The la nguage in N evada Jud ge s

7 Ass n v. Lau, is clear: Pro ponents arg ue that passage will stop career politicians since

8 no one w ill be able to hold one officefo r several te r ms. Id. Yet here, Mr. H afen is

9 arguing th at he should be able to retain his seat as Mayor and continu e legislating for

1 the City of Henderson, despite the fact th at he has been a member of that governin g

body for significantly more than the several term s that Art icle 15, Section 3(2) was

12 passed to prohibit. In fact, Mr. Haf en has held office on the Henderson City Council

3 for more than six (6) terms and m ore than twenty-five (25) years.

1 4 his would not be the first tim e the Nevad a Suprem e Court has t aken action ,

5 after an individual was unlawfully elected. In, Chac ha s v. Miller , 120 N ev . 51, 56,

1 6 83 P.3 d 827, 831 2004), the g eneral elec t ion for Ma yor was he ld on June 3 , 2003,

1 7 whe reby M iller was r e-ele cted. D espi te his r e-ele ction, almo st one year later on

8 Febru ar y 11, 2004, this Court h eld that M iller wa s not eligible for re-election at the

1 9 time h e ran for M ayor. Id.

2 imilar ly, here Mr . Hafen is and was at the t ime of his r e-election as May or, in

21 clear violation of Article 15, Section 3(2), completely defeating th e purpose and intent

2 2 of the Constitutional term limits amendment and mu st be removed immediately.

2 3 . Q u o Warra nt ° Action s2 4 ogether, the Atto rn ey General, Secretary of State and M r. Hafen direct this

2 5 C ourt to more than fifty (50) cases from m ore than six teen (16) sta tes to suppor t their

2 6 claims a n d spend m o re than a c ombined si xty 60) p a ges doing so . It canno t be

2 7 disputed that there is a wide split of authorit y across the nation in th e area of Q uo

2 8 Warra nto a ctions. As r eprese ntati ve exam ple s, the fo llow ing Co urts have h eld t he

2



opposite of those cited and relied up on by the A ttorney Gene ral, Secretary of State and2 M r. Hafen:

3 he Court in W hitehurst v. Jones, 117 Ga . 803, 45 SE 49 (1903) held that where

4 the relators in quo w arrant° broug ht suit in their capacity as residents and citizens of

5 mun icipality for the purpose of ousting the M ayor and C ouncilmen, that this was

6 sufficient interest to permit them to maintain such an action. Later, in W alker v.

7 Hamilton, 209 Ga. 735, 76 SE2d 12 (1953), the Geo rgia Suprem e C ourt held that an

8 individual being a resident or taxpa yer of the city whose office was b eing called into

9 question w as a sufficient interest to sustain the bringing of an action to test the right of

1the Defend ant to hold the office of M ayor of the city.

n Jackson v. State, 42 So. 61, 62 (Ala. 1905), the Court held Th e state has the

2 undoubted right to require every one who claims to hold, and is exercising the

3 functions of a public office under constitutional or statutory provisions to show1 4 lawful right to hold such office, and authority to exercise its functions, and t s

5 un importan t tha t the su it is brou ght on the relation of a private person. [Emphasis

1 6 Added]; Citing, M ontgomery v. State ex rel. Enslen,107 A la. 372, 18 So. 157 (1895).1 7 imilarly, the New Jersey Suprem e Court has held, A taxpayer and inhabitant

8 of the city subject to its mun icipal government is interested in the due selection of its

9 officers and is entitled to interpose by information in the nature of Quo Warranto whe

2 such officers have b een illegally selected. Goff v. Hunt, 80 A .2d 104, 106 (N.J. 1951).

2 n North Carolina it has also been held that Residents, qualified voters and22 taxpayers of an incorpora ted town had the right to institute action in nature of q uo

23 warran t° to determine the right of one to hold the office of chief of police of the town.2 4 State ex rel. Barlow v. Be nfield,58 S.E.2d 637 (N.C . 1950).

25 uch more recently the Florida Supreme Court held, W hen bringing a petitio

2 6 for writ of quo warra nto, individual mem bers of the public have standing as citizens2 7 and taxpayers. W hiley v. Scott,79 So. 3d 702 Fla. 2011). And in Connecticut, the

28 State Suprem e Cou rt held in 2012 as follows:

12



In actions in quo warran t°, this court has held th at a plaintiffs status asa taxpayer constitutes a justiciable interest sufficient to establishstanding. State ex rel. Waterbury v. Martin 46 Con n. 479, 482 (1878).W e have explained, [a]s [a taxpayer, a plaintiff] is interested in havingthe duties annexed to the several public offices recognized by the citycharter performed by p ersons legally elected thereto, and is entitledupon this proceeding to a determination as to the right of therespondent [public official] to exercise the office which he hasassumed , although no other person now claims it. Id.; see alsoMeyerv. Collins 49 Conn.App. 831, 834 n. 6, 717 A.2d 771 (1998) (statingtaxpayer of town in which charter authorizes office has standing toproceed in quo w arranto action); Carleton v. Civil Service Comm ission10 Conn .App . 209, 216, 522 A.2d 825 (1987) ( [a] taxpa yer qu alifiesfor standing [in a quo warrant° proceeding] because as such he isinterested in having the duties annexed to the several public officesrecognized by the city charter performed by p ersons legally elected orappointed thereto whether or not another person claims the office ).

1 1

1 2 Bateson v. Weddle 48 A3d 652, 656 (Conn. 2012). Again, Mr. Workman does not

1 3 dispute that there is a split of authority across the country when it comes to Quo

1 4 Warrant° proceedings. For every state that supports the position of the Attorney

1 5 General, Secretary of State and Mr. Hafen, there is a state that supports the position of

1 6 M r. Workm an. How ever, we are not before the rest of the country, we are before this

1 7 Court, in Nevada. Mr. Workman respectfully submits that, with respect to Quo

1 8 W arrant° actions, it is unn ecessary to look any further than the prior opinions of this

1 9 Court to support the fact that M r. Workm an has standing herein.

2 r. H afen admits in his Response that, [W]hen the prosecuting officer refuses

2 1 to institute such proceed ings there is no remedy, unless the contestant be permitted

22 to bring the action on his own relation. [Emphasis Added ]. (RPI Response 7-8);

23 Citing, State ex rel. McM illan v. Sa dler 25 Nev. 131, 58 P. 284, 286 1899) modified24 59 P. 546 (Nev. 1900) and modified 63 P. 128 (Nev. 1900). This is one of the r equ ests

25 currently before this Court, to allow M r. W orkman to p roceed with this action in one

26 form or another. W ho better than him? M r. Hafen effectively admits that because the

27 Attorney. General and Secretary of State have refused to institute such proceedings, the

28 only remedy for M r. Wo rkman to seek is to receive permission to bring the action on

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

1 3



I his ow n relation, w hich is ex a ctly what h e is doing. I d

2 r. Workma n is a citize n and taxpa y er of the C ity of Hende rson and, a s such,

3 he has a dir ect inte rest i n the q ualifi cations of th e mem bers of Hen derso n's gov erni ng

4 body. T he Hender son City Co u ncil, which undisputed ly includes the Mayor, regularly

5 makes d eci sions tha t di rectly af fect Mr. Wo rkm an; and thu s, Mr. W ork man sho uld be

6 gra nted lea ve t o procee d. A n exam ple of Mr. H afe n's decis iona l vote at the Hender son

7 City C oun cil tabl e tha t direc tly a ffects Mr. Workm an i s the f act t hat afte r his re-

8 elect ion in 2013 , M r. Hafe n p articipa ted in a vo te to amend Ch apter 2 .40 of the

9 Henderson M unicipal Code to include the following language:

o ld office o u tside of the city so lon g as that off ic e is not in consistent

1hile pur suant to sect ion 1.080 of the city cha rter a city em ployee may

1 2 ederal law.wit h the emplo yees job dut ies, o r woul d vio late a p rovis ion of state or

not ho ld the office o f mayor o r c ouncilm em ber„a cit y e mployee ma y

3 (PA 0 00102 & P A 000117). T his has a d irect affect o n Mr. Wor k man becau se he is

1 4 city em ployee and this w as an issue that came up during his run for office. PA000107-5 00 0115). Dur ing his cam paign, it w as con vey ed to M r. Workm an by City o

1 6 Hen derson staff that if he d id not withd raw h is can didacy , he c ould f ace d iscipli ne

17 under He nderson Mu nicipal C od e 2.40. ( PA 000107- 00 0115). A t th e time, t he only

8 appl icable langu age c ontain ed in Hend erson Muni cipal Code S ectio n 2.40 was : A

1 9 City Emplo yee may ru n fo r or ho ld p olitical offi ce so l ong as that offi ce is no 2 inco nsistent wit h the employ ee's job dut ies. (PA000 102). As se t forth herein , roughly

2 1 six (6) m onths later , the ab ove languag e wa s added , wh ich Mr . Haf en part icipa ted in.

2 2 (PA00011 6- 000118) . Mr. Workm an is still an employee o f the City o f Henderson and

2 3 th us, such ac tion has a direc t effec t on Mr. W orkm an. M r. W orkma n w as also 2 4 candidate for the seat of Mayor who ran against Mr. Hafen.2 5 lte rnate R equ est for Wri t Relief

2 6 he A tt orney Gen e ral, Secre ta ry of Stat e and Mr. H a fen all fai l t o oppose a

2 7 port ion of the r elie f Mr. W or kman h as request ed o f this C ou rt. Citin g to Mr.2 8 W orkman's P etition at p ages 7-8, th e Attorney G eneral and S ecretary o f State asser t

1 4



that Workman requests that, if the Court denies his motion for leave to seek a writ of

2 quo warranto, it grant him alternative relief in the form of a writ of mandamus

3 commanding the Attorney General or Secretary of State to bring a petition for writ of

4 quo warranto against Mr. Hafen. (RR 19). However, that citation actually reads as

5 follows:

6 pecifically, Petitioner asks this Court to grant alternative Writ reliefdirecting the Attorney General or the Nevada Secretary of State (as

7 hief Elections Officer), to take appropriate action or m nd te th tM r Hafen be imm ediately removed from office

9 [Emphasis Added]. (Petition 7:26-8:1). Neither the Attorney General, Secretary of

10 State nor Mr. Hafen address the request that this Court mandate that Mr. Hafen beimmediately removed fromoffice. Id.

12 [C]onsideration of extraordinary writ relief is often justified 'where an

3 important issue of law needs clarification and public policy is served by this court's

14 invocation of its original jurisdiction.' Internal Citations Omitted). Mountain View

5 Hosp. v. Dist. Ct. 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 17, 273 P.3d 861, 864 (2012); See also,

16 International Game Tech. 122 Nev. at 142-43, 127 P.3d at 1096 (consideration o

17 writ relief is appropriate where petitions raise important issues of law in need o

18 clarification, involving significant public policy concerns, of which this court's revie

19 would promote sound judicial economy").

20 dditionally, this Court has further held that mandamus will lie to compel the

21 governor to perform this duty t the suit of ny citizen instituted to enforce

22 compliance with the law if the act is constitutional. (Citations Omitted). [Emphasis

23 Added]. State Bar of Nevada v. List, 97 Nev. 367, 368, 632 P.2d 341, 342 (1981); See

24 also, City of Las Vegas v. Cragin Indus., Inc., 86 Nev. 933, 935-37, 939-40, 478 P.2d

25 585, 587-88, 589 (1970) (recognizing citizens taxpayer standing to challenge the

26 placement of above-ground electrical wires within their taxing district), disapprove

27 of on other grounds by Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass n , 11 7

28

5



N ev. 94 8 , 955 -56 n . 7, 35 P.3d 9 64, 9 6 9 n. 7 (200 1), abro g ated b y Mo r gan v. Felt o n

2 123 Nev. 577, 586, 170 P.3d 982, 988 (2007).3 n a dd itio n and de spi te the ar gum e nt o f M r. H afen o f it s in ap pli cab ili ty ( RP I

4 R esp o nse 1 5), t h e Gracey Co u rt, in a ddre ssing th e iss u e of st andi n g for w rit p e tition s ,

5 fo un d th at wh en a p eti tio n s eek s to en fo rce a p ub lic du ty a nd inv ol ves a p ub lic rig ht,

6 the P etitio ner " is not requir e d to show that h e has a ny le g al or speci a l inte rest in the

7 re sult , i t be in g su ff icien t if h e show s tha t he is i nter es ted, a s a c it izen , in ha v ing th e8 laws executed and the right enforced. State v. Gracey 11 Nev. 223 (1876).9 t sim ply ca nnot and h a s not been dispu ted th at enf orcem ent o f the N evad a

1 0 Con stitut io n an d the l aws o f this S tate i s an u rg ent m atter o f pu b lic co n cern . As a s heer m a tter o f pub li c pol icy, th is Co u rt sim ply s h ould n ot al low M r. Ha fen to c onti n ue

2 office in violation of the Nevada C onstitution.3 . utie s of th e Att o rney Gene r al an d the S ecre t ary o f State

14 R S 34 .160 r ecogn izes th a t thi s cour t may is sue a writ o f ma n damu s to r eq uire

5 a p u blic o ffice r to pe rform a n ac t legal ly req u ired b y his o r her o ffice . See a lso, Luce16 v. Teuton 21 9 P .3d 89 5, 897 (N ev . 2 009 ). Mr . H afe n a rgu es tha t "M anda mu s i s o nly

1 7 ava ila ble to en for ce min is teri al acts a nd can no t s erve to co nt rol the ex er cise o f th e

18 powers of other constitutional officers. . .. R P I Response 14).19 M inis te rial fu ncti o ns a re inh e rent a nd i nc iden tal po w ers o f the l egis la tive

20 execu tive a n d jud icial d epart m ents a nd a re met h ods o f imp le men ta tion t o acc o mpli sh

21 or p u t int o effec t the b asic functi o n of each d epart m ent. N ev. C onst . Art. 3 , §1; S ee

22 also Galloway v. Truesdell 422 P .2d 237, 83 Nev. 13 (1967).

23 u rther , purs u ant t o Arti c le 15 , Sect ion 2 o f the N eva d a Co n stitut ion, p rior to 24 taki n g off ice, al l offic e rs- e x ecuti v e, jud icial a n d m in ister ia l- m u st tak e and s ubsc ribe

25 to the following oath: 26 do sole m ly [ so lem n ly] sw ear ( or a ff irm) t hat I w ill

sup po rt pr ote ct and d efe nd the cons titutio n and g over n men t of th e U nited State s , and the c ons ti tutio n and g ove r nme n t of th e St at e of

28 Ne v ada again st all e nem ies, w h ether dome stic o r fore ign, an d tha t Iw ill bea r tr ue fai th, all egi anc e a nd loy alt y t o th e s am e, any or din an ce, res olu tio n o r l aw of any st ate no twi ths tan din g, and th at I w ill we ll a nd

27

16



faithfully perform all the duties of the office of on which Iam about to enter; (if an oath) so help me God; (if an affirmation)under the pains and penalties of perjury.

3

4 [Emphasis Added]. Nev. Const. Art. 15, § 2. Article 5, §7 provides that, the Governor

5 shall see that the laws are faithfully executed. Mr. Workman made a request to the

6 Governor to act to enforce Article 15 Section 3(2) with respect to Mr. Hafen's

7 unconstitutional retention of office; however, his position was that it is a legal matte

8 for the secretary of state's and attorney general's offices. (PA000026). The Attorney

9 General and Secretary of State also refused to act when requested, leading to the

10 instant action before this Court. (PA000001- 000003; PA000009- 000024).n his Response, Mr. Hafen asserts, Workman seeks a writ of mandamus

2 against the Secretary of State.. . (RPI Response 20, FN6). The Attorney General and

3 Secretary of State incorrectly assert, Mandamus is not available to compel the

14 Secretary of State to initiate quo warranto. (RR 1 9). However, Mr. W orkman does not

5 ask this Court to compel the Secretary of State to initiate a Quo Warranto action;

16 Specifically, Petitioner asks this Court to grant alternative Writ relief directing the

17 Attorney General or the Nevada S ecretary of State (as Chief Elections Officer),to take

8 appropriate action or mandate that Mr. Hafen be immediately removed from office.

9 [Emphasis A dded]. (Petition, 7 -8).

20 s the Attorney General and Secretary of State admit, the Nevada Secretary o

21 State is the Chief Officer of Elections for this State. (RR 20); NRS 293.124. As

22 Chief Officer, the Secretary of State is responsible for the execution and

23 enforcement of the provisions of title 24 of NRS and all other provisions of state

24 and federal law relatin2 to elections in this State. [Emphasis Added]. NRS

25 293.124; See also, Las Vegas Convention Visitors Auth. v. Miller, 124 Nev. 669

26 70 0, 191 P.3d 113 8, 11 58 (2008).

27 he Attorney General and Secretary of State go on to argue that no statute or

28 constitutional provision exists which imposes a clear, present [mai duty on the

2

17



I Secretary of State to act in a case such as this one . . Emphasis Added]. (RR 20).

2 This argument is disingenuous. The Secretary of State himself, in his Biennial Report

3 for July 1, 2010 — June 30, 2012 admits that among his Constitutional and Statutory

4 Duties he Certifies all statewide candidates and ballot questions and reports and

5 certifies primary and general election results and Supervises state and local

6 elections, and enforces state and federal election laws. (PA000122).

7 urther, this Court analyzed a similar argument to the contrary in Miller v. Burk8 124 Nev. 57 9, 588-89, 188 P.3d 1112, 1118-19 (2008) and found as follows:

9 RS 293.182(5)(a) (providing that, if a candidate 'fails to meet anyqualification required for ... office pursuant to the Constitution or a

10 statute of this [s]tate,' the candidate's name must not appear on theballot for the election to the office). Thus, even though no l w directsthe filing officers to inquire into a candidate s qualifications for

12 ffice, a writ of mandamus may issue to require the filing offices tocomply with the l w by excluding the candidates' names from the ballot.

[Emphasis Added]. Thus, even if no law explicitly directs the Secretary of State to tak

action, mandam us may issue to require him to com ply with the law.

The Attorney General is a Constitutional officer in the executive branch, whose

duties are established by the legislature. Nev. Const. Art. 5, §19; See also, Whitehead

v. Nevada Com m 5 on Judicial Discipline 110 Nev. 874, 878 P.2d 913 (1994).

Mr. Hafen argues that, the Attorney General's decision whether to lend the

State's name to a quo warranto proceeding. . . is discretionary. (RPI Response 14).

However, as this Court held in Foley v. Kennedy 110 Nev. 1295, 885 P.2d 583 (1994),

estoppel cannot be applied to cancel an illegal election. In arriving at its decision, this

Court relied on and adopted the reasoning set forth in Green v. Osborne 157 Ariz.

363, 758 P.2d 138, 140-41 (1988), which held an erroneous opinion of the State

Attorney General cannot constitute grounds to estop the cancellation of an illegal

election, because "that opinion cannot negate the provisions of the constitution nor the

authority of this Court to interpret it. Id. Accordingly, the opinion of the Attorney

General cannot be discretionary in this case because, that opinion cannot negate the

3

14

5

16

17

8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8



1 provisions of the constitution nor the authority of this Court to interpret it. Id.

2 espondents and Mr. Hafen are incorrect in their interpretation of

3ueck v. Teuton 125 Nev. 674 2009).

4 he Attorney General, Secretary of State and Mr. Hafen all assert that Mr.

5 Workman cannot rely on ueck to reach the merits of this case because in Lueck this

6 Court proceeded on the basis of its inherent powers to 'preserve the integrity of the

7 judicial process' and its 'supervisory authority and duties over the proper

8 administration of justice.' (RR 11); See also, RPI Response 7, FN 2. The parties

9 argue that because this Court has no such supervisory duties over municipal office

1 holders, that this Court is unable to reach the merits of Mr. Workman's Petition. Id.

1 1 Again, they are wrong. This Court clearly has many other powers and duties in

1 2 addition to its powers to prese rve the integrity of the judicial process.

1 3 his court is obligated to enforce the Constitutions of the United States and

1 4 Nevada. Holyfield v. State 101 Nev. 793, 806, 711 P.2d 834, 842 (1985). The

1 5 provisions of the Nevada Constitution are the supreme law of the State and must be

16 enforced by courts in letter and spirit. [Emphasis Added]. Wren v. Dixon 40 Nev.

17 170, 187, 167 Pac. 722, 726 (1916). The Nevada Constitution is the law absolutely

1 8 controlling the legislature, executive, and judicial departments and its provisions "take

1 9 effect on laws already passed as w ell as to those to be enacted in the future.Id.

20 his Court is Mr. Workman's sole means to swiftly protect the term limits

2 1 amendment to the Nevada Constitution for the people of this State who

22 overwhelmingly voted for it- twice. By continuing to hold the seat of Mayor, Mr.

23 Hafen is committing ongoing and continuing violations of the clear constitutional

24 prohibition set forth in Article 15, Section 3(2) and thus, it is necessary and proper for

25 this Court to enforce the Nevada Constitution, find Mr. Hafen in violation of Article

26 15, Section 3(2) and take action to remove him from office.

27 he Attorney General, Secretary of State and Mr. Hafen do not once dispute the

28 merits of Mr. Workman's requests before this Court- essentially admitting Mr. Hafen's

19



ongoing Constitutional violation. Instead, they spend more than sixty 60) pages telling2 th is C ourt it c ann ot hear t he m erits of this case (li kely because M r. Hafen has already

3 admitted defeat on the merits); however, those assertions are inaccurate.4 or the following reasons, it is appropriate for this Court to act in this case:5 h e in terpreta tion and enf orce ment of the Nevada Con stitutio n are exclus ively

6 judicia l functions. Wren v. Dixon supra. This is not a new conce pt. This has been long

esta blish ed thro ugh history and has rem aine d the ve ry fo undati on an d bedr ock o f our

8 system of government.9 n the se m inal case o f Marbu ry v. Madis on 5 U.S. ( 1 Cra nch) 1 37, 2 L. Ed. 60

11 803), the U nited State s Supr eme C ourt f irst a nswer ed the basic ques tions o f the

duties of the judicia ry and the s eparation o f powers. In Mar b ury Chief Jus ti ce

2 M arshal l sai d that the j udiciar y, n ot Con gres s, was the branch of g overnm en

3 empowered to interpret the Constitution. Id He fur ther declared that the jud iciary was

1 4 suprem e in the are a s of consti tutional inte rpretation, d eclaration o f legal duti e s, and

5 application. d T he preceden t of Ma rbur y is beyond challenge.16 n th is case, it is for this C ou rt to dete rm ine whet he r the Nev ad a Constit uti o

1 7 has been bre ac hed and t he consequ enc es that fo llo w from suc h a breac h. While th e

8 ju di ciary occa si onally ma y find it ne ce ssary to in te rpret the St ate Const itu tion in

1 9 mann er at varian ce with a co n struction g iven it by a n other branc h, the cry o f allege

2 conflict can not justi fy c ourts av oid ing their Co nstitution al r esponsib ilit y. Powell v.21 McCormack 395 U.S. 486, 548-49, 23 L. Ed. 2d 491, 89 S. Ct. 1944 1969).22 oreove r, as set fort h in Baker v. Car r 369 U.S. 186, 7 L. Ed.2d 66 3 , 82 S. Ct.

2 3 691 1962):2 4 eciding wh ether a mat ter has in an y maiiner b e en commit ted by the

Co nstitutio n to another bra nch of g ove rnment, or w hether t he a ction of25 hat bran ch e xceeds wha tever au thor ity has been commi tted, is itsel f a

26 e licate ex erci se in con stit utional i nter pretation , an d is a re spo nsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

Here , M r. Work man has ask ed t his Cour t to exercise its inherent po wer to en for ce the

Nevada C onstitutio n . Accordin g ly, Mr. W or kman resp e ctfully su bm its that, a s the

2 7

28

2



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ultimate interpreters and enforcers of the Nevada Constitution, this Court has the

ability and duty to take action herein.

G. The Attorney General Secretary of State and Mr. Hafen appear to

take inconsistent positions with respect to the application of Lor ton

In his Response to Mr. Workman's Petition, Mr. Hafen does not actually address

or provide any legal argument at all as to the applicability of Lorton v. Jones to Mr.

Hafen. Instead, Mr. Hafen essentially submits that the Attorney General is well within

her discretion to apply Lorton prospectively only. (RPI Response 18-20). The only

authority cited to, in support of this position, is Lorton itself. However, unless a point

is obvious, it should be supported by the citation of authority. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and

Error § 733. Recently, this Court reiterated its important precedent that, It is well

established that this court need not consider issues not supported by cogent argument

and citation to relevant authority. Berkson v. LePome, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 46, 245

P.3d 560, 566 (2010); Citing, Edwards v. Emperor s Garden Rest.,122 Nev. 317, 330

n. 38, 130 P.3d 128 0, 1288 n. 38 (2006).

The Attorney General and Secretary of State do address this issue.

Preliminarily, the Attorney General and Secretary of State admit that the Reno City

Charter at issue in Lorton v. Jones is, for these purposes, the same as Henderson's

City C harter. RR 27).

The Attorney General and Secretary of State further admit, The general rule is

that judicial interpretations of law in civil cases should be given retroactive

application. Id; Citing, Miller v. Ashurst 8 6 Nev. 241, 244, 468 P.2d 35 7, 35 9 (1970)

The Attorney General and Secretary of State rely on the following standard todetermine howLorton v Jones should be ap plied,

(1) 'the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a newprinciple of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on whichlitigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impressionwhose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed;' (2) the court must'weigh the merits and demerits in each case by looking to the priorhistory of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whetherretrospective operation will further or retard its operation;' and (3)courts consider whether retroactive application 'could produce

21



ubstantial inequitable results.'

2 (RR 28); Citing, Breithaupt v. USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 110 Nev. 31, 35, 867 P.2d3

402, 405 (1994) (In ternal Citations Omitted).

4 . Lo rton v. Jon es does not o verrule pas t precedent or decide an issue

5 hat was not clearly foreshadowed.

6 orton v. J ones was a case of first impression before this Court. (RR 32); Lorton

7 v. Jones, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 8, 322. P.3d 10 51 (2014). Thu s, it did n ot overrule p ast

8 precedent. How ever, the Attorney General and Secretary of State incorrectly argu e that

9 its resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. (RR 32).

10 he Attor ney Genera l and Secre ta ry of Stat e (as w ell as M r. Hafen) a ll fail toargue o r in any way address the first issue in Lorton and this Court's conclusion that,

12 the dra fters intended to p reclude ree lection to th e local gove rning body as a whole

13 wh en a memb er has serve d on that bo dy for 12 y ears or mor e in any cap acity."

14 [Emphasis Added]. Lorton, 322 P.3d at 1 057-58 (2014).

15 ccordin gly, it appe ars th at the Attor ney Genera l, Secretary of State and Mr.

16 H afen concede that this C ourt s con clusion tha t r eelection was preclud ed to a local

17 governing bod y as a whole, regardless of what cap acity a pers on has served in, if they

have served twelve (12) years or more, is not an issue and was not in effect a new rule

19 of law as it applies to this matter.

20

21 Relyin g on Chevron Oil Co. v. Hu son , 404 U .S. 97 , 106-0 7, 92 S.Ct. 34 9, 355 , 30 L. Ed.2d 296

22 ( 1971 ) in arri ving at the t hree- part tes t to d etermin e wh ether a deci sion sho uld be appl iedretroa ctive ly, or pr ospec tively on ly, th is Court in Breithaupt v . U SAA Prop. Cas. Ins. C o. , al so

23 recogni z ed and note d , In a recen t decision, fi v e justices o f the United S tates Suprem e Courtexpressed dissa tisfaction wit h the thre e-par t test ann ounc ed in Chev ron Oil Co. A mer ican Truc kinJ Assns. Inc. v. Smith 496 U.S. 16 7, 11 0 S.Ct. 2 323, 110 L.Ed .2d 1 48 (1990 ). Al though fo ur ju stices

2 5 appro ved of the tes t in a plurality opin ion, a c oncurr ing just ice arg ued th at in al l cases pr ospectivedecisionmakin2 is incompatible with the judicial role, (Scali a , J., concurrin g ), and four d issenting

26 justice s a rgued that application of the three-part test was appropria te only in limited circumstances,(Stevens, J., d issenting). I n spite of the di sagreement w ithin the Un it ed States Su p reme Court, t hefede ral appella te c ourts hav e co ntinued to us e the thre e-pa rt test. [ Em phasis Ad ded ]. (Interna

28 C itations Omi tted). Breithau pt v. USAA P r op. Cas. In s. Co., 110 Ne v. 31 , 36, 867 P.2d 402, 406 1994).

24

7

22



n fac t, the A ttorn ey G en eral a nd S ecret ar y of S tate e xpli ci tly a rgue th at th e 2 purp o rted " new r ule" in que stion i n this c ase a s anno u nced in L orton is "th at whe n the

3 mayo r is al so a m embe r of th e city counc il, it m ay be consid ered t h e sam e off ice as the

4 o ffi ce of c ou nci lm em ber fo r pu rp ose s o f te rm lim it s." (R R 2 9). As su ch, M r. W o rkm an

5 w ll limit his di scuss ion to o nly t h at al leged "new rule" as spe c ified in the Attor n ey

6 Ge ne ral an d S ecr eta ry of S ta te's Re spo ns e in ac co rda nce w ith the pr oc edu ral ru les of

7 this C ourt . N RA P 28 .

8 ith res pec t to th e p urp or ted "n ew rul e" as arg ued by th e p art ies, sp eci fic ally ,

9 this C our t a rtic ul ated th e q ue stio n , as w he th er th e ma yo r of R eno i s su ff icie ntl y

1 disti n ct fro m th e city c ounc il to p reclu de app licati o n of A rticl e 15, S ectio n 3(2 ) tocouncil members w ho may seek to run for mayor Lorto n 322 P.3d at 1058 (2014).

2 he Atto rney G enera l, Sec retary of St a te an d Mr. H afen simp ly can n ot ar g ue

13 th at this Cou rt's ho lding as to that sp ecific ques tion w as no t fore shado wed. Despi te

1 4 b eing raised in M r. Wo rkman 's Pe tition, Mr. H afen does n ot in any w ay di spute the

5 fac t t hat , w hen he in itia lly ra n fo r t he sea t of M ay or i n 2 00 9, i n h is N ev ad a F ina nc ial

16 D is clos u re St a teme n t wi th the S ecre ta ry o f Stat e on F e brua ry 18 , 2 009 h e ex p licit ly 1 7 dec lared that th e ti tl e of t he P u blic O ffic e tha t he w a s a ca ndi d ate f o r wa s

1 8 He nd ers on Ci ty Co un cilm an . [Em ph asis A dde d] . (P A0 00 074 ). T hi s d em ons tra tes 9 that even pr ior t o this C our t's rec en t de c ision in Lorton M r. H a fen w as ve ry mu e

2 a w are o f, an d form ally a c know ledg ed, the fact th at th e seat of M a yor in the C ity

21 Henderson is simply another sea t on the Henderson C ity Council. Id .

22 e spite g iven t he o p port un ity to do so in h is R es pon se , M r. Haf e n fa ils to

2 3 p resen t any argum e nt to the c o ntrar y or a d dress this u ndisp u ted f act. H o w ca n it b e 2 4 a rg ued th at th is Cou rt's de c ision on th a t poi n t in L o rton was not clearly foreshadowed, 2 5 wh en it is an u n disp u ted f a ct tha t Mr. H afen hims e lf int e rpret ed it a s such more th

26 five ( 5 ) yea rs prio r to th is Cou rt's de cision in L orton

2 7 ot on ly tha t, but the At torney Gen eral an d Sec retary of St a te als o adm it tha t 2 8 the re was an A tto rne y G en era l O pin ion in 20 08 an d a Le gis lat ive Co un sel Op ini on

2 3



1 2011 that both addressed that exact issue- neither of which were made public until

2 much later. (RR 33); (RR 33, FN4 & FN5). There is no question that this was a

3 foreseeable decision. The fact that it was not brought before this Court prior to the

4 Lorton case has no bearing on whether or not the outcome was clearly foreshadowed.5 ccordingly, pursuant to the Chevron Oil factors, this Court's decision in

6 Lorton does not establish a new principle of law because it does not overrule clear pas

7 precedent (or any past precedent for that matter) and it also does not decide an issue o

8 first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. Breithaupt v. USA A

9 Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 110 Nev. 31, 35, 86 7 P.2d 402, 405 (199 4).

10 2 The pu rpose and history of the rule in question are clear and failureto apply the facts of this case as this Court applied them in Lorton vJones would completely obliterate the term limits amendm ent

13 iding with Mr. Workman, the Attorney General and Secretary of State admit

14 that, "The purpose of the rule in orton is to effectuate the voters' intent in passing the

15 term limits amendment to 'stop career politicians.' (RR 34).

16 n her concurring opinion in Lorton the Honorable Justice Pickering analyzes

17 the purpose and effect of the term limits amendment, which is helpful in addressing the

18 second factor of the Chevron Oil test to determine whether retrospective operation

19 will further or retard its operation, as follows:

20 hether we agree or disagree with the policies underlying term limits,the voters amended the Nevada Constitution to impose them. Nev.

21 onst. art. 4, §§ 3(2) & 4(2): id, art. 15, § 3(2). The contemporaneous

22 nderstanding of the voters who passed the amendment is evident in thequestion they voted on: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to

23 stablish term limits for state and local public officers in the executiveand legislative branches of government? Nevada Ballot Questions

24 1996, Nevada Secretary of State, Question 9(a). It is further evident inthe explanation of the amendment that appeared on the ballot—thevoters who passed the measure were told that it would limit the terms of

26 state officials and local governing body members to set terms, mostlyof 12 years. Id The measure passed decisively, twice. As enacted, the

27 mendments specifically address the two houses of the state Legislature:A person cannot evade the term limits provision by moving from district

28 o district. Nev. Const. art. 4, §§ 3(2) & 4(2). And they make no

12

25

24



exception for the legislator who serves as speaker or in anotherlegislative leadership role.

The point is to put time limits on the exercise of legislative orexecutive authority by elected politicians. This explains the referenceto local governing body. Nev. Const. art. 15, § 3(2) (emphasis added).Reno voters only ceded the power to gov rn the City—that is to say,exercise legislative authority over them—for a maximum of 12 years.Just as at the state level a member of the senate or assembly cannotperpetuate his or her tenure beyond 12 years by moving from district todistrict, a Reno city council member's authority is limited to 12 years.To me, the fact that the mayor exercises the exact legislative authority acity council member does—and has no administrative duties, Reno CityCharter, Article III, § 3.010(1)(b)—answers the term-limits question.The addition of ceremonial and riot-suppression duties doesn't changethe time limits on that exercise of ceded powers of civic governance.

[Emphasis Added]. Lorton v. Jones 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 8, 322 P.3d 1051, 1059-60

12 (2014), reh'g denied (Mar. 5, 2014). Mr. Hafen was first elected to the Henderson City

13 Council in June of 1987, and has been a member thereof ever since. (PA000032-

14 000034). As such, Mr. Hafen has served the City of Henderson for more than twenty-

15 five (25) years- seventeen (17) of them after the term limits amendment went into

16 effect. PA00003 5 - 000043 ).

17 r. Hafen has made it no secret that he has proudly become exactly what

18 Article 15, Section 3(2) was enacted to prevent: a career legislator for the City of

19 Henderson.

20 y his very own admission M r. Hafen pub lically represents and fails to dispute,

21 t s been an honor to serve the citizens of Henderson for nearly threedecades and I'm as excited about continuing to serve as your Mayor. ..

I am fortunate enough to be [in the] position to concentrate on publicservice full-time and it s a unique and fulfilling position to be in.

[Emphasis Added]. (PA000044- 000047). Mr. Hafen actually speaks at seminars

boasting about how he leveraged his name in politics to a successful year career

as City Councilman and ultimately becoming a popular mayor. [Emphasis Added].

PA00004 8- 000051 ).

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25



A t the end of Mr. H afen's curre n t term , he w ill ha v e ser ved th ree de cades on the

Hend erson City Coun cil. W hen h e too k offic e, pu rsuant to NR S 29 3C.18 5(2), he

executed a Declaration of Candidacy declaring under penalty of perjury that he will:

. . q u alify f or th e offi c e if e le cted t here to , inc luding , but n ot lim itedto complying with any limitation prescribed by the Constitu tion and la w s of th is S ta te c o ncem in th e num ber o f year s or te r ms fo r whi ch a pe rs on m a y ho ld the o ffice

[E m ph asis A dde d] . He ag re ed to c om pl y w ith Co ns titu tio nal lim ita tio ns- sp eci fic ally

reg a rding term li mits . This C ourt h as a s trict p olicy o f int e rpret in g ma tters in lig h t of

th e p oli cy and sp iri t of th e la w an d to av oid ab su rd resu lts . In re O rpheu s Tru st

1 24 Ne v. 17 0 , 179 P.3d 5 62 (2 008); Citin g , H unt v . War d en 11 1 N ev . 12 84 , 1 285 ,90 3 P.2 d 8 26 , 8 27 (19 95 ). T o a llo w Mr . H af en t o c on tin ue for the re ma in der of his

term as a le gisla tor fo r the C ity of H end erson w ould be pe rmitti n g Mr . Hafe n to se rve

as a mem b er o f the g o vern ing b o dy o f the C ity o f Hen de rson for l it erall y thre e (3)

d eca de s. T o p er mit su ch co ndu ct is t o c lea rly r eta rd th e p ub lic po licy be hin d this

Cou rt's d ecisio n in Lor to n to enfo rce t he spi ri t of th e la w beh in d th e term lim its

amendment and protect the will of the voters who voted for it overwhelmingly- twice.

3. Th e re is n o ri sk of subst a ntial i nequ it able r esul ts if th e fa ct s are applied to this case as this ourt applied them in Lorton v Jones

A gain, the A ttorne y Gen eral a n d Se c retar y of S tate se emin g ly ag ree w ith Mr .

W o rkma n's po sition a rguin g:

Of co urse, term limits in ge neral a lway s hav e the e ffect of lim itingvote rs' ch o ices. T he r a tiona le is t h at the detri m ent caused by li m iting ch oices in any parti cular r ace is outwe ighed by the bene fits of reduc ing

the powe r of in cumbe ncy, b ringin g new candi d ates into p o litics , and s o fo rt h. T h e pe o ple th ems e lves e nac te d th e term limi ts pro v ision s .A rguab ly, if Mr . Haf en is not r emov ed fr om o ffice then thepeople s will on ter m lim its is defeated.

[Emphasis Added]. R R 3 6). T he Att orney Gene ral and Secre tary o f Stat e adm it that if

Mr . H afe n i s n ot rem ov ed, th e v ery dr ivi ng fo rce be hin d p ass ag e o f th e t erm li mi ts

amendment- the will of the voters- is defeated. Id

2 6



he Attorney G eneral and Secretary of State conclude the Chevron O il factors2 with several cases from other jurisdictions- none of w hich are similar to the instant

3 case. For exam ple, Allen v. State Bd. of Elections 393 U.S. 544 1969) dealt with

4 states that had violated the Voting Rights Act.

5 hey also direct this Court to Div. of Elections of State v. John stone, 669 P.2d6 537 (Alaska 1983), which was a declaratory relief action seeking to declare that7 individual appointed to fill a superior court seat by the governor in 1979 was not

8 required to run in his first retention election until 1984. However, the Court ultimately9 found that the individual's untimely filing of his candidacy in the 1982 general electio

Cwou ld cause him to forfeit his seat 90 day s after that election, but mea nt only that hewould be excu sed from his noncom pliance with the filing d eadline but still required to

2 run in 1982 g eneral election in accordance w ith con stitutional requirements rathe3 than delay h is retention election until 1984 in contravention of those requirem ents.

1 4 [Emphasis Added]. Id. Accordingly, Johnstone supports M r. W orkman's position in5 that there, the Court ru led to enforce com pliance with constitutional requiremen ts.

6 espite relying on the case, the Attorney G eneral and S ecretary of State also7 admit Johnstone is arguably distinguishable from this case because here, the voters8 themselves have enacted the term limits amendment, which if applied would have

1 9 prohibited Mr. Ha fen from appearing on the ballot. (RR 39).2 he Attorney General and Secretary of State go on to admit, The term limits2 1 amendm ent was a statewide initiative which enjoyed broad support. Id. Based on the2 2 foregoing, it would be inequitable to allow Mr. Hafen to continue in office. The

2 3 Attorney General is informed and believes, based on information from the Leagu e o2 4 Cities, that Mr. Hafen is the only person currently holding office in excess of the

2 5 twelve (12) year term limitation set forth in the Constitution. (RR 34). This is not

2 6 likely coincidental- as this is in line with the explicit provisions of A rticle 15, Section2 7 3(2) of the Nevada C onstitution. To force M r. Hafen to com ply with it would be the2 8 equitable result and force M r. Hafen to abide by the rules, laws an d the C onstitution of

2 7



this State just like everyone else.

2 Duty to Maintain the Integrity of the Profession

3 ounsel herein all have a duty to maintain the integrity of the profession. See,

4 RPC 8.4. Counsel also has certain rules that require them to display a certain amount

5 of respect and decorum towards this Court as well as the opposing parties and counsel.

6 See, RPC 3, generally.

7 r. Hafen's Response contains numerous unrelated and irrelevant issues and

8 personal attacks, allegations that are not supported in the record, and allegations that

9 are knowingly false. While it is the general practice of undersigned Counsel to look

1past such inappropriate conduct the degree and frequency of personal attacks launchedat Petitioner in a legal document before this Court warrants comm ent herein.

12 r. Workman has brought this Petition in good faith, supporting all of his

1 3 arguments with citation to the law and his Appendix containing supporting

1 4 documentation for the factual contentions set forth herein in compliance with the rules

15 of this Court. In the abundance of caution, albeit seemingly unnecessary, Mr.

16 Workman unequivocally denies any and all allegations that he has asserted this action

17 out of any sort of inappropriate motivation. See RPI Response at 5 8 2 1 etc.1 8 t is no secret that the City of Henderson has a history of bending, or what

19 many view as breaking the rules for the political powers that be. (PA000145-

20 000151). This is not only unethical; it is unfair. Nevada prides itself on being a tight-

2 1 knit State and community. But that pride quickly turns to resentment when back room

22 handshakes and political back patting get to the point of completely obliterating the

23 law- here, a law that the voters of this State voted overwhelmingly to pass- twice. To

24 assert that Mr. Workman is seeking to have the law enforced equally, including with

25 respect to Mr. Hafen is somehow for revenge (RPI Response 5) or some sort of

26 inappropriate purpose is unfounded. Laws must be enforced equally no matter what.

27 This is a fact set forth in both the Nevada Constitution and the Constitution of the

28 United States not some inappropriate motive on the part of Mr. Workm an. Nev. Const.

28



Art. 4, §21 requiring, (tha t all laws be general and of unifor m operation throughout2 the State ); See also, U.S. Const. Amend. 14, §1.3 nce aga in , this is no t a basel ess reques t o n groun ds of some ob scure

4 technicality. This is a situation where we have an elected official who, at the end of h is5 curr ent ter m w ill hav e ser ved lit erall thir 0 ears on th e Hender son C

6 Counc il , more th an twenty 20 ) of them a fter the 19 96 term l im its amen d men

7 was enacted . Not only did Mr . Hafen effectively admit that he was aware, as early as8 2009, that the seat of Mayor is just another seat on the Henderson City Council, that9 fact remains undisputed. (PA000073- 000075). In add ition, M r. H afen has publically

1repre sent ed and boa sted abo ut t he fact that he has dev oted his life to beco min g

career po litician with the City of H enderson- again a fact th at remains undisputed. 1 2 (PA000044- 000047).1 3 r. Hafen's spurious and unsuppor ted attacks against Mr. Work man, in what is

4 perceive d to be an o v erstatem en t of his p os ition, see m s to be pa rt of an ov er ly

5 aggressive litigation stra tegy. However, it is the undersigned counsel's sincere hope 6 that Mr. H afen will reconsider thi s approach with respect to any futur e appearanc es in7 this case and move forward pro fessionally.

1 8 dd itionally, due to the fact that the Attorney General, Secreta ry of State an9 M r. H afen all spend m ore than sixty (60) combined pages talking about pro cedural

2 C tec hnicalit ies in an eff ort to prev ent this Cou rt from ac ting in this cas e it seem s

2 1 appropriate to point out tha t the Attorn ey General, Secretary of State and M r. Hafen all2 2 failed to timely file and serve their Responses herein as Ordered by this Court- even

2 3 despite the 10-day extension M r . Hafen received to submit his. (PA000152- 000155).2 4 T he Attorn ey General a nd Secreta r y of State's Response was due Jun e 30, 2014bu t2 5 was not filed a nd served until July 1, 2014. (PA 000155). Mr. H afen's Response was2 6 due Ju ly 8, 2014 but was not filed until July 9, 2014. (PA000154).2 7 ad ly, this disr egard for th e filing d eadlines Ordered by this Court should come2 8 as no surprise gi ven the fact that th is ac tion is b ase d on the fac t that M r. H afen is

2 9



intentionally violating the Nevada Constitution. The very individuals we entrust with

2 the power to uphold and enforce the laws of this State, seem to be of the mindset that

3 they themselves do not have to follow such rules. Public officials are not above the law

4 or Court Orders and their complete disregard for them simply should not be tolerated.5 inally, Mr. Hafen s continued threats of Rule 11 violations, in what appear to

6 be some sort of scare tactic to convince Mr. Workman and his counsel to back down

7 from this action is equally inappropriate. Mr. Hafen inaccurately argues,8 orkman s claim of being a competing office holder cannot be made

9 lerted Workman to this Court s holding in Ingersoll. Tellingly,in conformity with NRCP 11. Mayor Hafen s counsel specifically

10orkman knowingly omits this controlling authority.

Internal Citations Omitted). (RPI Response 8, FN3). Undersigned counsel is well

12 aware of the requirements of NRCP 11 and does not take the rule itself or he

3 responsibility to comply with it lightly. It is undisputed that Mr. Workman ran against

14 Mr. Hafen for the seat of Mayor. (PA000006). Accordingly, by the regularly

5 understood, common meaning of running against someone- Mr. Workman was

16 competing against Mr. Hafen for the seat of Mayor. Any arguments that Mr. Workman

17 was not a competing office holder are simply arguments trying to further muddy the

8 waters before this Court. Mr. Workman has not asserted that because he was

19 competing office holder that he automatically gets the office. All Mr. Workman has

2 0 asked is that Mr. Hafen be required to follow the law. In fact, Mr. Workman himsel

21 understands the law as set forth in the Henderson City Charter that is to be followed in

22 the event of a vacancy, which provides such vacancy must be filled by:

23 a) A majority vote of the members of the City Council, or theremaining members in the case of a vacancy in the City Council, within

24 0 days after the occurrence of the vacancy appointing a person whohas the same qualifications as are required of the elective official; or25

26 b) A special election called by resolution of the City Council Theresolution must call for the special election to be held not later than 90

27 ays after the vacancy occurs. Every candidate at the special election

28ust have the same qualifications as are required of the elective official.

30



[Empha si s Added]. H enderson C ity Charte r, 1.070 1). In the even t o f a vacan cy , i t

2 would be up to the remainder of the City Council to choose how to fill that vacancy for

th e re mainde r of t he unex pired term. Id. Th is provi sion gives th e Co uncil th e ab ility to

4 make a de c ision that b est suits the C ity and its c itizens. Fo r example, i f City mone y is

5 ti ght an d citiz ens at tend t he Co uncil meetin g wit h resp ect to choos ing w hich p ath to

6 take an d p refer tha t th e Counci l m ake an a ppo intment to fill the va ca ncy, the C ou ncil

7 has th e abi lity to d o so, withou t hav ing to i ncur costs o f a sp ecial e lectio n. How ever , in

8 the event that citizens attend the meeting and voice their desire for a special election to

9 be h el d and the C ouncil cho o ses to hon o r those wi sh es, they m a y elect tha t path as

10 well. S ection 1.07 0 of the He nd erson Cit y Charter ad d resses situ at ions like t h is and11 provid es a remed y best suited for t he Cit y of H ender son an d Mr. Wor kman h as ne ver

12 on ce challe ng ed those p rocedures. Pl ain and si m ple, like m a ny other c it izens of th e

13 City of Henderson, Mr. Workman just wants the law followed.

14 V C ONCLU S ION

15 he Attorne y General, S ecretary o f State and M r. Hafen a ll argue th a t Mr.

16 Workm an should no t be permitt ed to bring th is action, t h at this Cou rt is not perm itted

17 to hear it, a nd thus, th at this Cou rt cannot b e allowed to enforce th e Nevad a

18 Co nstituti on in this ci rcum stance. Wha t they h ave all faile d to acknow ledg e is that the

19 Const it utional pro v ision at is su e is self-e x ecuting, o ff ering its o w n private rig ht o

2 0 actio n. Co nstitu tional enfor cemen t actio ns ar e olde r than the U nited States and h ave

21 be en explic itly recogniz ed since the n ineteenth ce ntury. It h ar dly seems n ecessary to

22 add th at the C ons titution s of b oth Ne vada and the Uni ted Sta tes ar e filled with variou s

23 declaratory provisions containing no explicit private right, yet somehow, mysteriously, 2 4 have bee n seen t o be enforce able withou t them . See, Plessy v. Ferguson. 163 U.S. 537

2 5 1 8 96 ); Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 1954), etc.

26 he Attor ne y General , Secretary of State and M r. Hafen h ave all als o argued

27 that the Atto rney G ene ral and Sec retary o f St ate s du ties to brin g Qu o War ranto

28 actions an d enforce th e election l aw s of this s ta te are dis cr etionary. B u t the expl ic i

31



prohibitions set out in the Nevada Constitution simply cannot be discretionary.

2 r. Hafen should have been barred from running for the seat of Mayor in 2009,

3 because at the end of his then-current term he was elected to in 2007, he would have

4 served twelve (12) years or more. But nobody challenged him. Then in 2013, Mr.

5 Hafen again ran for re-election, after then serving more than seventeen (17) years on

6 the Henderson City Council after the term limits amendment went into effect. What if

7 no one brings a statutory challenge to Mr. Hafen and he decides to run again in 2017

8 after serving more than three decades on the Henderson City Council and gets elected,

9 does that mean , as the parties herein suggest that if the Attorney G eneral and Secretary

10 of State choose not to act, that Mr. Hafen gets another four (4) years?r. Hafen has made it more than clear that he intends to dominate the political

12 landscape of the City of Henderson indefinitely. In fact as a direct result of this Court s

13 decision in Lorton they are already diligently at work trying to find a loophole for Mr.

14 Hafen, even despite a citizen comment at the last Henderson City Charter Meeting

15 that, she believes there should be term limits on elected officials. (PA000160).

16 Instead of listening to the voice of the people, the City of Henderson Staff have already

17 drafted proposed changes to the Henderson City Charter to essentially remove the

18 Mayor from being able to vote as a City Council member, as the structure is currently

19 set up. (PA000164). Mr. Hafen simply will not accept the will of the voters and the

20 law of this State with respect to term limits.

21 r. Workman and his counsel understand and respect that this Court only

22 exercises its discretion to grant extraordinary W rit relief for very selective m atters, an

23 circumstances of absolute necessity. And by the arguments of the Attorney General,

24 Secretary of State and Mr. Hafen himself before this Court, Mr. Workman has no other

25 means of securing the relief he is requesting.

26 llowing Mr. Hafen to finish out his term for a total of three (3) decades in

27 office will not cure the Constitutional flaw in his service, nor does it protect the

28 overwhelming intent of the voters who voted for and passed the term limits

3 2



1 ame ndm ent- in two separa te elections.

2 ased on the foregoing and any ordered argum ents, M r. Workm an respectfully

3 requests that this Cou rt allow P etitioner to proceed with a Q uo W arranto proceeding,

4 grant alternative Writ relief directing the Attorney General or the Nevada Secretary of

5 State as Chief Elections Officer), to take appropriate action, or mandate that M r.6 Hafen be im mediately removed from office. Mr. Hafen has exceeded the twelve-year

7 term limit constraints set forth in A rticle 15, Section 3 2) of the Nev ada C onstitution;

8 and thus, he was not qualified for re-election thereto, and is therefore, not qualified to9 continue to unlawfully hold such seat.

1ATED this 22: day of July, 2014.

S TEPAANIE RICE, ESQ.HARDY LAW GROUPAttorney for Rick W orkman,Relator/ Petitioner

3 3

1 2

3

1 4

5

6

1 7

8

1 9

2

2

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

2 6

2 7

2 8



V. VERIFICATION

2 nder penalties of perjury the undersigned declares that he is the

3 Relator/Petitioner in the foregoing C ombined Reply to R esponses to Request for Leave4 to File a W rit of Quo Warra nto or Alternatively. Petition for Writ of Ma ndam us or

5 Other Extraord inary R elief and tha t I know the contents thereof; that the pleading is

6 brought in good f ith nd th t the m tters set forth therein re true of my own7 knowledge except as to those matters stated on information and belief and that as to8 such matters I believe them to be true.

9 xecuted this 0 day of July 2014.

1

1 1

1 2t1CR. WOR KM AN Relator/ Petitioner

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2

2 ]

22

2 3

2 4

25

2 7

2 8

4



VI. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 ursuant to NRCP 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee of Hardy Law

3 Group and that on this day, I caused to be delivered both by Federal Express, postage

4 pre-paid, by Overnight Delivery as well as electronically by the Supreme Court of

5 Nevada s CM/ECF Electronic Filing System, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

6 Combined Reply to Responses to Request for Leave to File a Writ of Quo

7 Warranto or Alternatively Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Other

8 Extraordinary Relief to the individual s) listed below at the following address s):9

Kevin Benson, Esq.10 Attorney General s Office100 N . Carson Street11 Carson City, Nevada 89701-4741

2 Todd L . Bice, Esq.Pisanelli Bice

3 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 800Las Vegas, Nevada 89169

17

oD TED this ay of July, 2014.

14Josh M. Reid Esq

5 Brandon P Kemble240 Water Street, MSC 144

6 Henderson, Nevada 89015

8

9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	steve-sebelius
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Workman v. AG Combined Reply

Documents