The Old Blog in the Desert

U.S. District Court Judge Larry Hicks died following a car versus pedestrian accident in midtown Reno on Wednesday, May 29.

The incident occurred around 2:15 p.m. as Hicks was walking through the intersection at South Virginia Street and California Avenue, near the federal courthouse. The Reno Police Department reported Hicks was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

“On behalf of the men and women of the Reno Police Department, we extend our heartfelt condolences to the family of Judge Hicks,” Reno Police Chief Kathryn Nance said. “Tragedies like this leave a lasting impact on our lives, particularly when they involve cherished members of our community.”

Hicks, a former Washoe County district attorney and president of the Nevada State Bar, was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2001 and took senior status in 2013. He was a 1965 graduate of the University of Nevada and joined the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office in 1968, serving as district attorney from 1974 to 1978.

In 1979, he became a partner at McDonald, Carano, Wilson, McCune, Bergin, Frankovich & Hicks LLP. He also held prominent roles such as president of the State Bar of Nevada from 1993 to 1994, member of the State Bar Board of Governors from 1988 to 1994, president of the Bruce R. Thompson Chapter of the American Inns of Court in Reno from 1999 to 2000, and president of the Nevada District Attorneys Association from 1977 to 1978.

Judge Hicks, 80, is survived by his son, Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks, and other family members.

The Nevada Supreme Court struck down a proposed ballot initiative on Monday, May 13, allowing voters to decide on repealing the public funding approved last year for a new Major League Baseball stadium in Las Vegas.

The ruling is a setback for opponents of the funding, who viewed the ballot initiative as the most effective means to overturn critical parts of the legislation that facilitated the Oakland Athletics’ relocation to Las Vegas. The court’s decision saw five judges affirm a lower court’s ruling invalidating the referendum, with one judge dissenting and another concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Following the ruling, Alexander Marks, spokesperson for the Schools over Stadiums political action committee, announced that their efforts would now focus on placing the question on the 2026 ballot. The PAC, supported by the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA,) has consistently opposed using public funds for the stadium.

The debate over stadium financing in Nevada reflects a broader national controversy regarding using public money to finance sports venues.

Proponents, including representatives of the Athletics and some Nevada tourism officials, argue that public funding could bolster Las Vegas’ burgeoning sports scene and serve as an economic driver. However, many stadium economists, educators, and lawmakers contend that the benefits would be minimal compared to the substantial public expenditure.

The Supreme Court ruled the entire 66-page bill has to be in the ballot question to provide proper context. However, state law limits ballot referendums to 200 words, a restriction that Schools over Stadiums lawyers acknowledged made it challenging to convey the bill’s complexities. Meanwhile, the court found the 200-word description submitted by Schools over Stadiums to be “misleading” and insufficient in explaining the practical effects of the referendum.

Attorney Bradley Schrager, representing two labor union lobbyists supporting the public funding, emphasized the importance of adhering to laws that ensure voters are fully informed about proposals.

“All Nevadans have a right to participate in direct democracy, but they need to observe the laws that require properly informing the voters of a proposal. This measure obviously fails to do that,” Schrager stated.

Meanwhile, Major League Baseball owners have unanimously approved the Athletics’ move to Las Vegas, cementing the city’s growing status as an up-and-coming sports hub.

Nevada Secretary of State (SoS) Francisco Aguilar’s decision to count ballots before the polls close violates Nevada State Election laws.

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 293.363 states that the counting of ballots should commence exclusively after the polls have closed, and the process must be public and continuous until completed.

On Thursday, May 23, an article by AP writer Gabe Stern on the WFTV website reported that Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar announced a new plan allowing Nevada election officials to start tabulating in-person Election Day votes as they arrive, rather than waiting for the polls to close. The stated goal of this change was to expedite the release of election results.

However, beginning the tabulation of in-person votes before the polls close violates NRS 293.363, which explicitly states that the counting should start after the polls have closed and continue without recess until completion.

Moreover, during the 2023 legislative session, the Secretary of State’s office had a regulation approved changing the word “adjourn” to “recess,” allowing the counting board to recess while ballot counting is in process. Nevada Revised Statutes use the word “adjourn,” allowing the taking of a “recess” to appear as legal.

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 293.363 mandates, “When the polls are closed, the counting board shall prepare to count the ballots voted. The counting procedure must be public and continue without adjournment until completed.”

On Thursday, May 23, an article by AP writer Gabe Stern on the WFTV website reported that Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar announced a new plan allowing Nevada election officials to start tabulating in-person Election Day votes as they arrive, rather than waiting for the polls to close. The stated goal of this change was to expedite the release of election results.

However, the decision to begin tabulating in-person votes before the polls close violates NRS 293.363. The law states that counting will start after the polls close and are to proceed without recess until completion.

Adding to the controversy, during the 2023 legislative session, the Secretary of State’s office had a regulation approved changing the word “adjourn” to “recess,” allowing the counting board to recess while ballot counting is in process. Nevada Revised Statues use the word “adjourn,” allowing the taking of a “recess” as legal.

On Tuesday, June 4, Robert Beadles, through his initiative Operation Sunlight, released video footage, photographs, and voice recordings of a tour conducted at the Washoe County elections facility.

The tour included Beadles, his attorney, their lead for observation scheduling, Washoe County Registrar of Voters (ROV) Cari-Ann Burgess, and county attorney Herb Caplan. During the hour-long walkthrough, the group asked several questions regarding election security.

In one recording, Burgess emphatically stated that USB flash drives would not be plugged into any election computers, a practice she condemned based on an incident in 2022 involving a technician named Mike. She emphasized that the only permissible use of USB drives would be on election night to transfer votes from the machines to the central count system. Burgess further mentioned that her office was implementing security measures to prevent USB use, citing potential termination for violating this protocol.

The reason behind this strict policy is well-known in the tech community: USB drives can be vectors for spyware, malware, and viruses, which can compromise an entire system. Despite this, Beadles and his team observed Mike, the same technician, using a USB flash drive in the EMS-Tabulation room. According to Beadles, Mike took a white flash drive from his pocket, inserted it into a computer that houses election votes, worked for several minutes, and then pocketed it again before leaving.

The action raised concerns, as the computer in question is supposed to be “air-gapped,” meaning it is isolated from the internet to prevent external access and ensure security. The observed use of the flash drive contradicts the security protocols outlined by Burgess.

Beadles has filed an election violation complaint with the Nevada Secretary of State’s office but has not received a response.

When questioned, county attorney Caplan and a spokesperson from the ROV stated that it was for risk-limiting audit (RLA) testing. However, Beadles pointed out that RLA testing is supposed to be conducted before the start of the election, not during the early voting period.

Nevada Canyon Gold Corp. has made a binding Purchase Agreement to acquire a two percent net smelter returns royalty (NSR) on the Lapon Canyon Project, in Mineral County, through Nevada Canyon’s subsidiary, Nevada Canyon, LLC.

The two percent NSR is being acquired from Walker River Resources, LLC, a subsidiary of Walker River Resources Corp., which holds a 100 percent interest in the Lapon Canyon Project. The project comprises 96 unpatented lode mining claims, known as the Sleeper and Lapon Rose claim groups, within the northern part of the Walker Lane gold trend.

In a prior transaction, Nevada Canyon secured an additional one percent NSR from two third-party royalty holders on the Sleeper 36 claim group, part of the same project.

Lapon Canyon has a history of high-grade gold mining, featuring approximately 2,000 feet of underground workings spread across three adits. Historical underground operations have reported numerous assay values in the one-ounce-per-ton range.

The project is accessible via secondary state roads, about 15 miles from the main highway and roughly 40 miles southeast of Yerington. A state power grid transmission line runs within two miles of the project site.

Walker River Resources has conducted exploration at Lapon Canyon, with multiple drill hole intercepts revealing significant gold mineralization. The planned drill programs will include definition and systematic drilling for geological modeling, exploration drilling to uncover new gold mineralization, and extending known mineralization in various directions, including at greater depths.

The results from these drill programs will aid in completing an initial compliant mineral resource estimate for the project.

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.