You are on page 1of 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GARY R. SCHMIDT, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND ADAM P. LAXALT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents.

No. 75815

ORDER DIRECTING ORAL ARGUMENT AND IMPOSING STAY

This is an appeal from a district court order deciding a challenge to appellant's residency qualification for the office of Nevada State Senate District 16 and ordering appellant's name removed from the ballot, if possible, and signs posted at pertinent polling locations informing voters of his disqualification. In light of the primary election scheduled for June 12, 2018, appellant moved for an expedited briefing schedule, which motion we granted. Having now preliminarily reviewed the parties' briefs and supporting documentation, we determine that this appeal raises significant legal questions with statewide implications, and that oral argument would be of assistance in resolving this matter. Accordingly, the clerk shall schedule this matter for oral argument before the en banc court on July 9, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Carson City. The argument shall be limited to 30 minutes. Given the significant issues in this case and the necessity for oral argument, we determine that insufficient time exists for us to adequately analyze the parties' arguments and law involved and render a final decision before the periods for absentee and early voting expire and the primary election takes place on June 12. Further, we recognize that [alny doubt as to the qualifications of a candidate should be resolved in

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

(0) I947A

favor of permitting the candidate to run for public office." Russell v. Goldsby, 780 So. 2d 1048, 1051 (La. 2000); see also McKinney v. Kaminsky, 340 F. Supp. 289, 294 (M.D. Ala. 1972) ("Any questions or doubts of eligibility of a candidate to seek political office should be resolved in favor of the candidate." (citing cases)); Heleringer v. Brown, 104 S.W.3d 397, 404 (Ky. 2003) (same). Under the 2017 amendments to NRS Chapter 293, the Legislature has recognized the possibility of remedies other than those ordered by the district court in the event a person is determined disqualified from candidacy after the ballots have been printed and the primary election conducted. 2017 Nev. Stat., ch. 502, at § 1.3, at 3295; see NRS 293.182(5) (2017). Thus, in light of the unsettled issues on appeal and the policy favoring candidates' right to run for office, we believe that appellant should be allowed to run for election pending our resolution of this appeal, and therefore, we stay the district court's order until further order of this court. It is so ORDERED.

eli

Pleke4

Pickering

Stiglich

9

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge O'Mara Law Firm, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Carson City Clerk