LAS VEGAS (CN) - The attorneys, arguing Thursday over a candidate's eligibility for mayor of the city of North Las Vegas, kept quibbling over math.

And sentence structure.

The argument hinged on a portion of the Nevada Constitution that restricts people from holding public office over 12 years. Scott Black, a candidate for mayor, has served on the City Council since 2017. If elected this year, he'd exceed 12 years in office.

That led city resident Karin Rodriguez to sue, arguing Black wasn't eligible to be a candidate. She wanted the judge to stop the city and Clark County from placing his name on the ballot.

Clark County District Judge Jacqueline Bluth ruled against Rodriguez from the bench, focusing on the wording that all parties agreed was poorly written.

"No person may be elected to any state office or local governing body who has served in that office, or at the expiration of his current term if he is so serving will have served, 12 years or more ..." the constitution states.

Bluth pointed to the word "current" in her decision. Black will not have served over 12 years when his council term ends, meaning he's eligible to run for mayor.

"I don't think this is an easy one," the judge said, adding: "It was just poorly written."

Representing Rodriguez, attorney Bradley Schrager said his client wanted clarity not just in Black's case but for all candidates across the state.

Schrager also lamented the wording of the specific portion of the state constitution, which he said was added by a citizen ballot measure.

"Here, we've blended elections with years of service that has given rise to this confusion," he added.

If the language was ambiguous, Schrager argued it required a judge's analysis. A finding of ambiguity also would favor his client.

Schrager posited that under his opponent's reading of the constitution, someone could serve up to 16 years.

"This is both incredibly complex and incredibly simple," he added.

Representing the city, attorney Piers Tueller pointed to the "12 years or more" phrase in the constitution. Additionally, once Black's current term ends, he'll have served only nine years.

"That's it. That's the end," Tueller said. "It's not a legal question. It's a math problem."

Also representing the city, attorney Steven Silva said the lawyers were arguing myriad legal issues in tandem when, in fact, the judge faced three separate motions: for partial summary judgment, to grant a writ and for dismissal.

Silva tried to narrow the judge's view, saying she should examine whether the city properly placed Black's name on the ballot because he's eligible. That was her first question, he said.

Silva also pointed to what he called the plain language of the constitution. If the judge agreed with his interpretation - which she ultimately did - then Silva said she didn't need to examine the summary judgment issue, as it'd be moot, as would the question of issuing a writ.

Adding to the tangle of arguments, attorney Lisa Logsdon - representing the county registrar of voters - said ballots are in the mail with Black's name on them.

"The ship has sailed," she added.

Taking the chance to rebut, Schrager said that while primary ballots are in circulation, the judge could stop Black's name from appearing on the November general election ballot.

Ultimately, the judge ruled against Rodriguez. She also said the decision focused on Black's eligibility, not whether it applies statewide, as that's how the complaint was drafted.

Schrager indicated he might appeal, leading Bluth to surmise the state Supreme Court might remand the issue to her for a decision.

"So, make them make me," she added.

Source: Courthouse News Service