Blog

Nevada’s lone Republican Representative, Mark Amodei, faced a setback as his proposed legislation aimed at addressing a recent court ruling on mining laws failed to advance in the House, with six Republican members joining Democrats to block the bill, dealing a blow to efforts to navigate a stricter interpretation of the General Mining Law.

The legislation, known as the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024, sought to respond to a 2022 federal court ruling restricting mining companies’ ability to use federal lands for purposes like waste disposal. The ruling, which stemmed from an Arizona case, has significant implications for mining projects in Nevada, potentially setting them back considerably.

One such project affected is Eureka Moly LLC’s planned molybdenum mine, where a district court invalidated the Bureau of Land Management’s approval due to concerns over waste rock disposal. Additionally, the Thacker Pass lithium mine, poised to be one of the largest in the U.S., faces hurdles following a similar ruling.

Before the court’s decision, mining companies routinely utilized adjacent federal lands for waste disposal. Amodei’s bill aimed to amend the 1872 General Mining Law by removing the requirement to demonstrate mineral presence before constructing support facilities. However, critics argue that such changes could empower mining companies excessively, potentially undermining environmental protections.

While Republicans and Democrats acknowledge the need for clarity in mining regulations, disagreements persist over the proposed solutions. Efforts in the Senate, including a similar bill proposed by Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, reflect a recognition of the issue’s significance. However, the fate of Nevada’s mining industry remains uncertain as debates over regulatory reforms continue.

Seven jails in Nevada are now fully compliant with Assembly Bill 286 following a settlement agreement with Elko County to ensure adherence to the law.

AB286 was designed to reduce the disenfranchisement of eligible voters in jails during election years. According to ACLU of Nevada Voting Rights Attorney Sadmira Ramic, when the bill went into effect, no jails were compliant, risking continued disenfranchisement.

However, through collaboration between the ACLU of Nevada, jail administrators, and county clerks, most jails in the state have policies in place to facilitate ballot access for eligible voters. Ramic emphasized the ongoing effort to combat outdated policies undermining democracy.

Earlier this year, the ACLU of Nevada discovered that local jails were not complying with AB286, which mandates the creation of processes to allow eligible prisoners to vote. They presented a compliance check of the bill to the Interim Legislative Operations Committee, setting a deadline for response before taking legal action.

While several jails cooperated with the ACLU to become compliant, Elko County did not respond, prompting a lawsuit. Following the lawsuit, Elko County collaborated with the ACLU, and on Wednesday, May 29, a settlement agreement was reached ensuring compliance.

The six other Nevada counties that worked directly with the ACLU to become compliant were Mineral, Washoe, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Carson City, and Clark County.

“Every Nevada voter deserves the right to have their voices heard, and people detained in our jails are no exception,” said ACLU of Nevada Executive Director Athar Haseebullah.

He credited Assemblywoman Miller, the Nevada Legislature, and Governor Lombardo for recognizing this necessity in approving AB286. Haseebullah highlighted that thousands of Nevadans now have the chance to participate in democracy.

While it was disappointing that compliance required demands and court filings, he expressed gratitude for local governments conforming with the law and praised Elko County for negotiating and achieving compliance. He reiterated the ACLU’s commitment to ensuring the right to vote for eligible voters, regardless of their location.

Most prisoners detained in jails are held pre-trial or serving misdemeanor sentences and have not lost their right to vote.

The primary election process in Washoe County continues to be under scrutiny as voters report a litany of issues with mailed ballots and sample ballots.

The Registrar of Voters (ROV) office is facing accusations of widespread mismanagement after many residents reported receiving mailed ballots despite opting out, and some voters received multiple ballots with different party affiliations. Additionally, the signature on the outside of the envelope has raised fears of identity theft. Other issues included ballots missing candidates from races, ballots sent out a week earlier than scheduled, and ballots transported from Arizona without proper chain of custody.

Sample ballots, crucial for voters to prepare for Election Day, have also been problematic. As per NRS 293.565(6), sample ballots must be received before early voting begins. However, many were delivered after early voting had started. Voters have reported numerous candidates and races missing from their sample ballots, which has caused confusion and frustration.

One notable example is Drew Ribar, a candidate for Assembly. Despite being registered to vote and having filed for office from his address, his name was absent from the sample ballot he received. This case is just one of many similar complaints.

The handling of the election process has led to widespread dissatisfaction. Critics argue that continuously hiring new ROVs, who claim to be doing their best, only to leave after being criticized, is evidence of systemic issues.

Compounding the issue concerns is the theft of the U.S. mail on Sunday, June 2, in Somersett, including mail-in ballots. Stolen ballots go for $25 each on the black market.

The mail-in ballot system was a COVID-19 measure. Critics argue that the Democrat and RINO legislature used this to introduce a mass mail-in ballot scheme through Assembly Bill 321 (AB321.)

They claim this has increased mail theft and ballot harvesting, compromising the election process. Despite these issues, no one has started a petition with or filed a lawsuit against the Nevada Legislature to repeal AB321 and its associated practices.

Waltzing through the backdoor of the Tahoe House, a young woman was dancing atop the bar. She saw me and climbed down behind the bar.

“Hi, can I get you a drink?”

“Yes, a beer.”

She handed me a bottle, and I pulled down a swallow to clear my dusty pipes.

“You must be bored,” I said.

“No, why?” she responded.

“I saw you dancing on the bar,” I said

“No, you didn’t,” she returned. “I was trying to catch that Bumble Bee.”

And there it was, resting in a corner above the bar, also suffering from a powerful thirst.

The regulation of online casinos is a patchwork of state-level decisions, with each state having its own set of rules and regulations governing the industry, leading to a varied landscape in which states determine which games are permissible, impose geolocation restrictions, and establish licensing requirements.

New Jersey paved the way for legalized online casinos in 2013 when Governor Chris Christie signed legislation authorizing their operation. Since then, several other states, including Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Rhode Island, have followed suit.

Rhode Island, the most recent state to legalize online casinos, passed legislation in 2023 that took effect on Wednesday, March 1. Residents of the state can now enjoy simulcast table and slot games.

Despite the success of these seven states in legalizing online casinos, the anticipated widespread legalization across the U.S. has not materialized. Only Connecticut and Rhode Island have enacted associated laws since 2021.

Efforts to expand online casinos have faced challenges in some states. For instance, attempts in New Hampshire in 2023 failed to gain traction, and a similar initiative in Maryland was more like a “starting a conversation, rather than a realistic legislative proposal.”

Uncertainty surrounds the reasons behind the limited adoption of regulated online casinos in many states. Concerns about online gambling’s potential impact on land-based casinos have influenced decisions, particularly in Maryland, where research suggested a negative effect on traditional venues.

Additionally, the focus on legalizing sports betting following the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision has diverted attention from online casinos. Currently, 38 states have legalized sports betting, with 29 permitting online platforms.

In Nevada, online casinos are influenced by internal dynamics and broader national trends. While Nevada is renowned for its gambling industry, the state remains relatively cautious in embracing online gambling compared to other jurisdictions.

Although Nevada legalized online poker in 2013, it has not expanded to include other forms of online casino gaming to the same extent as states like New Jersey. The reasons behind this are the state’s traditional reliance on its brick-and-mortar casinos, creating resistance to protect the interests of established casino operators.

Secondly, Nevada’s status as a tourist destination has influenced its approach to online gambling. The state’s focus on attracting visitors to its physical casinos has led policymakers to prioritize the in-person gambling experience over expanding into the online space.

Furthermore, Nevada’s regulatory framework for online gambling is stringent, with strict licensing requirements and consumer protection measures. While these regulations ensure the industry’s integrity, they also create barriers to entry for online casino operators looking to enter the Nevada market.

Despite these factors, Nevada has not ruled out the possibility of expanding its online gambling offerings in the future. Proponents of industry growth anticipate that the end of federal stimulus funding may prompt states to seek alternative revenue sources, potentially making them more open to legalizing online casinos to generate tax revenue.

They stood outside the Roasting House, talking, watching Hell Betty in her bright red long handles walk across C Street to Priscilla Old Tyme Photos, where she worked, and enter the front door.

Seconds later, a sharp white light flashed from inside the shop. Worried something was wrong, the two men, including her brother Robert, rushed to the shop.

“Are you okay?” Robert called out.

No answer. Again, Robert shouted.

From the back room, Hell Betty returned, “Yeah, I’m okay?”

“What was that flash?” he asked.

“Nothing really,” Hell Betty answered, laughing. “Just the backdoor flap on my longjohns failing.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has drafted a lawsuit against Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, alleging that incorrect information provided by Aguilar’s office jeopardized his bid to appear on the ballot as an independent candidate in the Silver State.

In March, the Kennedy campaign announced it had collected over 15,000 signatures in Nevada and introduced Nicole Shanahan as his running mate. Yet, because Shanahan was not on the petition, the signatures were deemed invalid.

The campaign now faces a tight deadline until Friday, August 9, to collect the necessary signatures to secure a place on the November ballot. The Secretary of State’s office acknowledged their error following the March announcement from the campaign.

Despite this admission, Aguilar expressed readiness to contest the matter in court.

“Nevada has a rich history of independent and third-party candidates for office. Each of those candidates managed to attain ballot access by following the law,” Aguilar stated to CBS News. “We look forward to seeing Mr. Kennedy’s team in court.”

Despite this setback, the Kennedy campaign has gathered enough signatures to appear on the Utah ballot. The super PAC supporting Kennedy, American Values 2024, claims to have secured sufficient signatures for him to appear on the ballot in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and South Carolina.

The PAC has also announced plans to spend an additional $10-$15 million on signature collection efforts in other states.

However, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, alleging illegal collusion between the Kennedy campaign and American Values 2024 regarding ballot access.

The core issue remains that a staffer from the Nevada Secretary of State’s office incorrectly advised the Kennedy campaign that he did not need to list a vice presidential candidate on the petition to qualify for the ballot, despite state law requiring independent candidates to include their running mate.

Nevada State Police have identified Joshua Fitzgerald, a 31-year-old man from Mount Shasta, Cal., as the victim of a crash on Interstate 80 in Fernley on Tuesday, April 16. According to Nevada State Police, Fitzgerald succumbed to injuries sustained in the crash on Wednesday, April 24.

The crash, near mile marker 53 on eastbound I-80, involved Fitzgerald’s gray 2013 Dodge Ram. Preliminary investigations revealed that Fitzgerald lost control of the vehicle, causing it to overturn multiple times before resting on its roof between two travel lanes.

A 2024 Freightliner towing an enclosed trailer, traveling in the adjacent travel lane, was also involved in the incident. In an attempt to avoid the overturned Dodge, the Freightliner driver braked and steered left, but the front right of the Freightliner struck the side of Fitzgerald’s vehicle, causing the Dodge to rotate clockwise and come to rest on its roof facing southbound in the right shoulder dirt area.

The Nevada Highway Patrol Northern Command West has investigated eight fatal crashes resulting in ten fatalities in 2024.

Many people today are increasingly concerned about media bias and coordinated attacks against those who challenge the prevailing narratives. These concerns often stem from personal experiences and observed patterns within the media landscape.

For example, Jeff Church, a notable figure, faced allegations of sexual harassment that he claimed were part of a deliberate attempt to tarnish his reputation. According to Church, a whistleblower revealed that WCSD President Beth Smith orchestrated a plan to frame him.

Despite having evidence, including video footage showing Church was not near the accusers, mainstream media outlets like the Reno Gazette-Journal (RGJ) did not fully report the story. Instead, they released a version just before Judge Breslow dismissed the Church case, allegedly without allowing Church to present his defense. Breslow reportedly described the case as reading “like a political blog,” further fueling suspicions of bias.

Similarly, public officials have dismissed election-related grievances as the “rantings of a conspiracy theorist,” an unusual move that raises questions about the impartiality of public servants. Such dismissals contribute to the perception there is a concerted effort to suppress dissenting voices.

This perception becomes reinforced by the observation that various media outlets, local and national, appear to synchronize their messaging, often attacking individuals who challenge the status quo. Critics argue that this coordinated effort is more about pushing a specific agenda than practicing real journalism.

In political campaigns, the same consultants and media companies often represent both candidates and incumbents, creating a network of interests that seem to work in unison against perceived threats. For instance, Alexis Hill and Beth Smith are part of a group that targets dissenters, particularly those who question the use of tax dollars in the election system, school system, and homeless initiatives.

Concerns about financial transparency and accountability are at the heart of these criticisms. Questions about using substantial funds—such as the $300 million spent on the Cares campus or the $1.3 billion school budget—remain unanswered, with critics suggesting misuse due to a lack of auditing.

In cases involving the judiciary, such as those in the Washoe County Courts, there is a sense that the ones who wear the robes are ignoring legitimate grievances. When court decisions align with negative media coverage, it raises further suspicions of a coordinated effort to protect vested interests. This pattern is evident when Rubber Stamp Russell appeared to disregard the law and dismissed a case, followed by a barrage of media attacks coinciding with the Nevada Supreme Court’s rejection of an appeal.

These observations suggest a web of interconnected interests among candidates, incumbents, courts, and media outlets. Critics argue that this network acts together to suppress challenges to their power and funding in elections, schools, and homelessness.

Professor Ferguson leaned against the Silver Dollar bar, his eyes alight with the fire of a man who had glimpsed secrets hidden in the dust of time.

“You see,” he began, his voice carrying the weight of conviction, “dinosaurs didn’t succumb to some mass extinction event. No, they were simply the prehistoric snacks of the Nephilim.”

The bartender, accustomed to the eccentricities of Virginia City’s patrons, raised a skeptical eyebrow.

“But why?”

Ferguson’s grin widened, his gaze distant yet intense.

“Because,” he declared, “when ancient beings stroll through time, they craved a hearty meal, and what’s heartier than a dinosaur?”