According to a July 2 unpublished opinion by Judge Flanagan of the Washoe County (NV)
district court,
Carrigan v. Commission on Ethics of the State of Nevada
(attached; see below), a
city council member has a first amendment free speech right to vote
where
there is not "an actual, existing conflict of interest." (p. 13)
Due process also comes into play in the opinion: "In the
absence of an actual, existing conflict of interest, this Court finds
it at odds with the aims of due process to deprive the citizens of the
Fourth Ward of their representative voice on issues pertaining to the
Project, effectively silencing their vote at the ballot box..." (p. 13)
The opinion's conclusion only mentions the first amendment, not due
process, but the court does call the state ethics commission's
unanimous opinion "based on an improper purpose" and "arbitrary and
capricious" due to its violation of the council member's first
amendment rights.
I think it is important to consider the court's arguments in this case, particularly the extent to which conflict of interest
laws deprive constituents of their voices. It's also important to
understand the limits of the opinion, both in terms of the odd Nevada
conflict language and the facts of the case.