Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, the venue for Super Bowl 2024, was powered entirely by renewable energy for the first time in Super Bowl history.

The stadium, home to the Las Vegas Raiders, has entered into a 25-year agreement with NV Energy to purchase power from a newly installed solar facility. These include a cutting-edge chiller plant, high-efficiency air handling units, energy-efficient lighting, and a sophisticated lighting control system.

CEO Doug Cannon says the new solar installation can generate approximately 10 megawatts of power, equivalent to the energy consumption of about 46,000 households.

“We have enough power for Usher and all of his lights and all the fanfare that’ll be there,” remarked Cannon, highlighting the stadium’s capacity to support the extravagant productions typical of Super Bowl halftime shows.

In addition to its reliance on renewable energy sources, Allegiant Stadium has implemented various sustainability initiatives. The stadium’s roof, constructed from ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), a recyclable plastic material, offers climate adaptability, insulation performance, self-cleaning properties, and a long lifespan. Furthermore, the stadium collects around 12 thousand pounds of food scraps during each game, which become food for animals on local farms.

Raiders President Sandra Douglass Morgan emphasized fostering environmental consciousness among stadium guests.

“When you come to a game, you may be thinking about just focusing on the game, but when they hear that and know that we’re being conscious of our environmental footprint, hopefully that guest will leave and have that same mindset when they go back home,” she stated.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, who toured the stadium’s main electrical entry room, praised the reliability of renewable power showcased by Allegiant Stadium, asserting its potential to inspire similar initiatives.

Recent whispers suggest Mayor Hillary Schieve may be considering stepping down, paving the way for an unexpected succession plan involving City Councilman Devon Reese.

The orchestrated maneuver would mean that Schieve’s resignation would lead to Reese’s appointment as Mayor by a council predominantly sympathetic to their cause. This purported strategy would secure Reese’s position in municipal governance, ensuring continuity in executing the agenda favored by his alleged “puppet masters.”

It all comes down to strategic calculus, balancing Reese’s electoral prospects against the desire for mayoral incumbency. If Reese’s bid for Ward 5 succeeds, his ascent to the mayoral seat could trigger a domino effect, necessitating another appointment to fill his vacant council position, thereby bolstering the council’s aligned majority.

Critics of this speculated plan decry its undemocratic nature, highlighting concerns over the erosion of public trust and electoral integrity. They argue that such behind-the-scenes machinations subvert the fundamental principle of representative democracy, depriving citizens of their rightful voice in choosing their leaders.

There is skepticism surrounding the purported rationale behind these potential moves, particularly regarding cost-saving measures often cited to justify appointments over elections. Critics argue that avoiding special elections comes at the expense of democratic principles, prioritizing expediency over transparency and public participation.

Neither Schieve nor Reese has denied the so-called rumors.

In the name of “protecting democracy,” we are witnessing the quiet cancellation of democracy itself, though many are yet to acknowledge the profound implications of this reality.

On Sunday, January 14, NBC News published a story about fears that Trump might use the military in “dictatorial ways” if he returns to the White House. This article highlighted a loose network of public interest groups and lawmakers quietly strategizing to thwart any attempts by Donald Trump to expand presidential power.

The story quoted former high-ranking officials, all warning of Trump’s potential misuse of the Department of Defense for political purposes. This narrative, framed as a defense of democracy, was reminiscent of a similar storyline from the summer of 2020.

Since late 2023, when Joe Biden’s team leaked a strategy memo portraying Trump as an “existential threat to democracy” for the 2024 campaign, there has been a concerted effort to insert terms like “existential” and “democracy” into public discourse. The recent NBC story continued this trend, with Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, proclaiming, “We’re about 30 seconds away from the Armageddon clock when it comes to democracy.”

Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward echoed these sentiments, stating, “We believe this is an existential moment for American democracy.”

The coalition formed to combat Trump’s alleged threats includes organizations such as Democracy Forward and Protect Democracy, both known for filing numerous lawsuits against Trump in the past. The article suggested that a future Trump presidency might require new forms of external control over the military, referencing Senator Richard Blumenthal’s bill to “clarify” the Insurrection Act.

This scenario, however, is not new. In the summer of 2020, a similar narrative emerged with the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), a group of around 100 former officials, think-tankers, and journalists who conducted simulations of contested election scenarios. The TIP’s predictions and warnings about Trump’s unwillingness to leave office were widely covered in major media outlets, depicting apocalyptic scenarios of mass unrest and violence.

The Transition Integrity Project (TIP) is a group of progressive academics, political operatives, and former government officials who came together to simulate potential scenarios that might unfold during the 2020 U.S. presidential election and the inauguration in January 2021. The project was not a government initiative but a Democratic-led effort to explore possible outcomes and challenges related to the electoral process.

TIP conducted “war games” or simulations involving hypothetical scenarios where different actors, including political campaigns, legal teams, and the media, responded to various situations, such as a narrow victory, a defeat, or a contested result. The simulations aimed to identify potential risks and vulnerabilities in the electoral system and the transition of power.

TIP says it was not predicting specific events but exploring possibilities and assessing how various stakeholders might react in different circumstances. The project gained attention for its findings and analysis in the August 2020 report “Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election and Transition.”

The report highlighted concerns about potential disputes over election results, legal challenges, and the role of institutions in ensuring a smooth transition. Some saw it as a valuable exercise in understanding and preparing for potential challenges to the democratic process, and others criticized it as a blueprint for disrupting U.S. elections.

The co-founders of TIP are Rosa Brooks, a law professor and former Defense Department official, and Nils Gilman, a historian, and scholar. The project involved the participation of various individuals, including Jennifer Granholm (current Biden Administration Secretary of Energy), John Podesta (former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman), and Norm Eisen (former Obama administration ethics czar.)

Looking back, the TIP story in 2020 seems like a precursor to the current political situation. It outlined “potential abuses of power” by Trump, eerily resembling the tactics used against him during the Russia collusion investigation. The report also hinted at the possibility of Trump casting doubt on election results, manipulating classified information, and using foreign interference to question legitimacy — ironically mirroring the same tactics employed against him.

TIP also delved into the concept of “color revolutions,” causing speculation about the group contemplating mass protests as a response to a Trump victory. Despite denials from TIP organizers, the association with color revolutions, often linked to regime change efforts abroad, fueled suspicions.

Democrats believe that drastic measures are necessary to prevent a perceived threat of a Trump dictatorship. The heightened paranoia raises concerns about potential pre-election actions, setting the stage for a chaotic campaign season.

Initially seen as a warning against Trump’s abuses, TIP has a different significance now. It reads like a playbook, with the “loose-knit group” attempting to delegitimize Trump’s presidency. The ongoing efforts to remove Trump from the ballot and suppress third-party challengers further underline the conviction that each side believes the other will be the first to abandon democratic norms.

The Biden administration, faced with declining poll numbers, has centered its messaging on “protecting democracy.” However, this narrative is losing its impact as “democracy” is increasingly associated with actions contradicting the principles it is supposed to represent. Legal maneuvers, censorship, and attempts to eliminate political opponents raise questions about who is committed to preserving democracy.

There is a valid point in highlighting the distinction between a Constitutional Republic and a pure Democracy in the context of the United States. The U.S. is indeed a Constitutional Republic, where the powers of the government are limited — the Constitution — and there are checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

In a pure Democracy, decisions are made directly by the majority of the people, which could potentially lead to the oppression of minority rights. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were wary of the pitfalls of direct democracy and designed a system that combines democratic principles with safeguards to protect individual liberties.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, celebrated for her unparalleled knack for losing to no one, experienced another exhilarating defeat in Nevada’s state-run Presidential Preference Primary.

In a spectacle that resembled a twisted political version of dodgeball, Haley found herself engulfed in a landslide of epic proportions, securing a victory as substantial as a politician’s word. While the outcome failed to dispense any of Nevada’s prized Republican delegates, it did serve a generous helping of humble pie to Haley, who persists in clinging to her campaign like a lost puppy with a malfunctioning GPS, trailing behind Trump.

Trump, the undisputed titan of Republican politics, smartly avoided the ballot, opting instead to focus on the impending Nevada GOP caucus, leaving Haley and her motley crew of contenders to scrap over the consolation prize of zilch. And oh, what a prize it was!

Haley managed to snag a whopping 30.8 percent of the vote, an accomplishment akin to being the last kid chosen for kickball. Meanwhile, “None of these candidates” swooped in like a political wrecking ball, clinching over twice as many votes at 62.9 percent.

Pence, bless his heart, brought up the rear with a pitiful four percent, though he had the sense to exit stage left before the thrashing began.

Even Gov. Joe Lombardo opted for the resounding “none of these candidates” option, a clear message that Nevada wasn’t buying what Haley and her crew were peddling. Washoe County Republican Party Chair Bruce Parks summed it up succinctly: “They couldn’t care less about us, so why should we care about them?”

Nevada GOP Chairman Michael McDonald echoed the sentiment, implying that Haley’s disregard for Nevada voters met a resounding “thanks, but no thanks” at the ballot box. Ouch.

But fret not, for Haley’s camp remains undeterred, marching forward with the unwavering determination of a toddler refusing to consume their greens. Spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas proclaimed that the campaign was forging ahead, presumably armed with positive affirmations and a bulk-sized supply of resilience.

As for the murmurs of a rigged process, Haley’s campaign manager, Betsy Ankney, played the age-old “it’s not you, it’s me” card, insisting Nevada was never their primary focus. With their sights firmly set on South Carolina, they brushed off the Nevada debacle like a lamentable blind date, eager to venture into more promising territories.

So, as the dust settles in the Silver State, one thing is abundantly clear: Nikki Haley may have lost to no one in particular, but she refuses to let reality dampen her spirits. Onward to South Carolina, where, with any luck, she’ll receive a true Trumpian drubbing.

The Washoe County Republican Party no longer acknowledges Washoe County Commissioner Clara Andriola as a member.

During their monthly Central Committee meeting on Monday, January 29, party members voted not to recognize Andriola as a Republican and to not endorse or support her in her bid for County Commissioner. Instead, the party will support Tracy Hilton-Thomas, Vice Chair of the Washoe County Republican Party, in the upcoming June primary.

Hilton-Thomas is known for blowing the whistle on the Washoe County Registrar of Voter’s Office’s ballot and signature verification irregularities in March 2021.

The resolution lists specific examples, including Andriola’s approval of the Lands Bill privatizing public land, appointing liberals to boards, approving large expenditures, and ignoring voter rights and free speech issues. It further cites Andriola voting 87 percent of the time with the Democrats as Commissioner, claiming that she has “weakened the brand and the integrity of the Republican party.”

Andriola has contested these allegations, saying no one from the party contacted her to discuss the concerns. She argued that she has a long history of being a Republican and working to ensure responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

Chairman Bruce Parks of the Washoe County GOP countered Andriola’s claims, pointing to meetings with her to voice concerns about her alignment with party expectations. He asserted that Andriola, representing a conservative district, claimed to be apolitical, which he deemed inappropriate for her role.

Parks also criticized Governor Joe Lombardo for appointing Andriola without consulting the Washoe County Central Committee or Republican commissioners. He expressed frustration at being ignored by the governor’s office over Andriola’s voting alignment.

Despite a letter signed by some Republicans asking the central committee to reject the resolution, the committee proceeded with the decision.

My wife asked me to return a book to the library she borrowed the week before. I said yes and did so this morning after my air shift.

The library is also where we vote in the Presidential Preference Primary, something I’d forgotten about until I pulled into the parking lot. I exited my truck and went inside.

Once through the doors, only myself, three women working the tables, and one observer were there. I walked up to the first one and started to present my identification so she could find me in the voter rolls.

Before even looking for my name, she turned to the woman at the table to her left and asked, “Is his sweatshirt legal?”

“Oh, no,” the woman answered. “It is considered intimidating, I do believe.”

The woman I stood before looked at me and said, “I’m afraid we can’t let you vote until you change your sweatshirt.”

Instead of arguing the point, and because I wanted to get done and get home, I did not argue but went to my truck and put my jacket on, buttoning it up before returning to the polling place. Still, there was no one but us four in the room of 10 voting machines.

“Is this okay?” I asked.

“Yes,” the first woman said as she began looking for my name. “Here’s your card, you may select any machine and follow the instructions, then put the card in the basket when done.”

Half a minute later, I finished voting and did as instructed before exiting the building. I got in my truck, pulled out my cell phone, and took a smiling selfie while holding my “I Voted” sticker.

My two takeaways: I had no idea my old faded yellow and red Marine Corps sweatshirt, with the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on its front, could lead to voter intimidation, and I selected the best candidate possible, “None of these Candidates.”

Because of a perceived housing shortage in Washoe County, Senator Jacky Rosen has introduced the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act.

The bill, requested in 2016 by Washoe County and the cities of Reno and Sparks, involves city officials, developers, conservationists, and various stakeholders. Mirroring the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA), the Washoe bill proposes conveying 15,860 acres of public land for disposal.

Some of the land will be auctioned to developers, while an additional 3,400 acres will be for specific purposes, including roadway expansions, regional parks, and K-12 school sites. Meanwhile, all proceeds from land sales will stay within Nevada, with allocations for environmentally focused projects, Truckee River conservation, and the Nevada education fund.

The bill further mandates an evaluation of each parcel for affordable housing suitability before bringing it to market and selling below fair market value. It also decrees around 950,000 acres of public land in Northern Nevada will receive conservation designations, creating new national conservation and wilderness areas to protect them from development permanently.

If it passes, it would be the most massive federal conservation effort in Nevada since the Black Rock Desert Act of 2000, preserving 30 percent of Washoe County, aligning it with the Biden administration’s “America the Beautiful initiative.” It also allocates approximately 20,000 acres in trust for the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.

Economic development advocates, local elected officials, and environmentalists welcome the bill. However, Reno City Council member Jenny Brekhus criticizes the model as outdated and promoting sprawl. Conservationists also express concerns about the tradeoff model, suggesting it may not be the most environmentally friendly approach.

The final bill underwent changes based on feedback during a comment period. The changes include reducing the conveyance size and adding conservation easements in response to local entities’ requests.

The bill faces the challenge of gaining approval in the Senate. While many state-specific bills have passed with unanimous consent, the current Senate climate may necessitate incorporating it into a larger legislative package.

Rosen expects help from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto chairs the public lands subcommittee.

Strong Public Schools Nevada has taken legal action against Senate Bill 1 (SB1), contesting its constitutionality.

SB1, which allocates $380 million in taxpayer funding for a new stadium for the Athletics baseball team as they relocate to Las Vegas, has sparked significant controversy. The plaintiffs argue that the bill violates five provisions of the Nevada Constitution.

“During the last Legislative Session, with important education issues outstanding, the Governor and Legislature shifted their focus to the needs of John Fisher and his lobbyists,” the group said in a press release. “For eight days, Nevada politicians singularly focused on financing a ‘world-class’ stadium for a California billionaire while ignoring Nevada’s second-class education system.”

According to the education group, the focus should be investing in the education system rather than subsidizing professional sports team infrastructure.

“Educators throughout Nevada are frustrated by the lack of focus by politicians on real priorities, like public education,” President of NEA of Southern Nevada Vicki Kreidel said. “There’s been more planning of a ‘world-class’ stadium than there has been implementing a funding plan to ensure a ‘world-class’ education for our kids. These misguided priorities are why Nevada continually ranks at the bottom of all the good lists.”

The state educational system faces challenges, ranking 48th in per-pupil funding and the largest class sizes and highest educator vacancies nationwide. Critics argue that state leaders have prioritized the needs of private interests over the urgent demands of its education system.

Significant campaign donations to candidates for the Reno City Council have sparked concern among constituents.

Councilwoman Kathleen Taylor, a member of the Reno Planning Commission since July 2019, has faced criticism for her alignment with developers and a focus on short-term construction employment rather than the long-term interests of Reno residents. Financial reports filed with the Nevada Secretary of State reveal that Lewis Roca, a law firm representing Jacobs Entertainment, has donated $2,500 to her campaign in the current election cycle.

Taylor is facing Frank Perez, who recently left his position as chair for the Washoe County Library Board, for the Ward 1 seat left vacant by longtime Councilwoman Jenny Brekhus, who cannot run again due to term limits. Taylor, appointed by the council to Ward 5 in 2022, has a year-to-date campaign haul of over $100,000 and $75,000 in cash.

The Clark County Registrar of Voters (ROV) Lorena Portillo has acknowledged an error that allowed candidates to file for a District Court seat not officially declared vacant.

County spokesperson Stephanie Wheatley confirmed that the Department 27 seat, for which candidates Casey Quinn and Melanie Thomas filed during the judicial filing period, was inadvertently placed on the ballot without an official declaration of vacancy by Gov. Joe Lombardo.

The department seat was declared vacant on Wednesday evening, January 17, after the filing deadline had passed.

The seat became vacant on Wednesday, January 10, when District Judge Nancy Allf announced her retirement after nearly 13 years on the bench. According to state statute, a seat must be declared vacant before the end of the filing period before opening during the regular filing period.

Allf’s early retirement triggered an appointment process to fill the position, with seven attorneys applying for the seat during a monthlong application period that ended on Thursday, January 11. However, none of the applicants filed for the seat in the regular election because the Special filing period for the November 2024 general election is from Sunday, June 16 to Wednesday, July 26.

County officials anticipate conducting this Special candidate filing period when candidates can file for the seat. The candidates from the Special filing period will then appear on the general election ballot.