The Nevada Supreme Court has struck down a proposed ballot initiative that would allow voters to decide whether to repeal the public funding approved for a new MLB stadium in Las Vegas. The court’s decision was a blow to detractors of the funding who saw a ballot question this year as the most effective route to repeal parts of the bill that allowed the Oakland Athletics to move to Las Vegas. The ruling upheld a lower court decision to strike down the referendum, with one judge dissenting and another concurring in-part and dissenting in-part.
The Schools over Stadiums political action committee, backed by the Nevada State Education Association, is now focusing on getting the question on the 2026 ballot. The PAC has long opposed public funding for the stadium and sees education funding as a greater priority. The debate over stadium financing in Nevada reflects a larger national conversation about whether public funds should be used to finance sports stadiums. While A’s representatives and tourism officials see the funding as an economic engine for Las Vegas, a growing number of stadium economists, educators, and lawmakers argue that the benefits may be minimal compared to the public cost.
The court ruled that the entire 66-page bill must be included in the ballot question in order to provide its full context. However, ballot referendums are limited to 200 words, making it difficult for Schools over Stadiums to explain the complex bill during oral arguments. The court found the 200-word description submitted by the PAC to be misleading and not explaining the practical effects of the specific referendum. Attorney Bradley Schrager, representing two plaintiffs lobbying for public funding, emphasized the importance of properly informing voters about proposals to ensure fair participation in direct democracy.
Despite the setback on the ballot initiative, MLB owners have unanimously approved the A’s move to Las Vegas. This decision has stirred both excitement and controversy, with proponents highlighting the growth potential in Las Vegas’ sports scene and the economic benefits of the new stadium. On the other hand, opponents argue that public funds should be directed towards more pressing needs like education. The ruling of the Nevada Supreme Court has brought attention to the complexities and challenges of using referendums to address controversial issues like public financing for sports stadiums. The decision to uphold the lower court ruling reflects a commitment to ensuring that voters are well-informed about the implications of such proposals before making a decision at the ballot box.
