Laramie Update
Read Newest Articles at: WY Laramie Page 2
Laramie Smoking Ban Subject of Television Program Tuesday
Oct. 16, 2006
Research conducted by the University of Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center (WYSAC) will be featured in a documentary depicting Wyoming’s first smoking ban ordinance, to be shown Tuesday, Oct. 17, at 9 p.m. on KCWC, Wyoming Public Television.
Produced by WYSAC, the documentary “Lighting Up Debate” will include commentary by Laura Feldman and Mark McNulty, who will discuss the social, economic, and environmental impacts of Laramie’s smoke-free ordinance that was implemented in April 2005.
“The interviews present the results of WYSAC’s follow-up studies and discuss the impact of the smoking ban on community attitudes, on air quality, and the economic impact of the ordinance on bars and restaurants,” says Feldman, Center for Health and Education Studies manager. She says the documentary and follow-up interviews are especially timely as Cheyenne implemented Wyoming’s second smoke-free ordinance in August and Evanston is now considering the option.
For more information, call McNulty at (307) 742-4204. To see the documentary, go to www.uwyo.edu/wysac/HealthEducation/Tobacco/Multimedia.aspx.
KCWC can be seen off-air or via cable in communities throughout Wyoming. Check local listings for specific channel information.
Smoking Ban — A documentary depicting Wyoming’s first smoking ban ordinance will be shown Tuesday, Oct. 17, at 9 p.m. on KCWC, Wyoming Public Television.
Newsletter Reader Report From Laramie
August 1, 2005
The city council meeting where the voting 6 majority idiots out-voted the sane 3 on the ban amendments our local kindling failed to report events at that meeting such as…
Several managers of the private clubs in Laramie did attend that meeting and their pleas fell on the ears of self-serving ego-maniacs (funny what small-town politics can do to a person with an agenda!) The six idiots ignored them…In fact, they probably didn’t even listen, they were too busy thinking about what they were going to say…
A local representative of the American Heart Association, Lorraine Solano Klein, of her own volition, attended the meeting and spoke before council offering her endorsement of the amendments based on the ventilation requirements of a separated smoking area. The six idiots ignored her
In reply, the individuals who took the time to try to make a difference were assaulted with “personal” reasons of a few of the council members like…
Councilor Dave O’Malley: The “that was my platform” thing…yeah…right…it’s your story, tell it how you want. I was there, too. I don’t remember anything ever being said by O’Malley AT ALL about the smoking issue which was raging on at the time of his election…(which I remember because I thought it was peculiar and cowardly.) In fact, O’Malley did not win because of that, or even because people liked him. It was because Bob Bell had more people that disliked him!
Councilor Seth Carson: Some rambling about how he had cancer when he was 10 and 600,000 people gave money for his treatment and recovery. (Although, the cancer was not related to smoking or second-hand smoke.) He could not possibly support amendments to the smoking ban. (600,000 ?!)
I wouldn’t take the Laramie Boomerang too seriously when it comes to unbiased reporting. Angela Brooks appeared to be unbiased at first, but has resorted to spewing the same faulty studies and statistics as the antis at the end of her “stories” for some time now.
The author of the ban is a local attorney named Megan Hayes. She has a great deal of pride in authorship and doesn’t want her masterpiece messed with.
Not too long ago, in the late Spring when a snow storm hit, HRH Hayes became offended at the site of a snowman who was too anatomically correct in the yard across the street from her house. (You have to realize that this is a college town. Not only do we have a 4-year university, we also have a community college and an ever-growing automotive tech school! Stupid stuff happens all of the time!!!) The nation already knows how stupid some people in Laramie can be! (i.e. Matthew Shepard)
Being such a concerned citizen for the welfare of the school children who would soon be walking by (and not having the decency to either go talk to them or just knock it off!) What does she do? She calls the POLICE!!! Now, our police can run around and knock genitalia off of snowmen AND bust smokers! HURRAH FOR US!!!
Laramie council sticks with smoking ban
July 21, 2005
LARAMIE, Wyo. – The City Council on Tuesday rejected a proposal that would have relaxed the city’s smoking ban.
Councilman Joe Hageman’s proposal would have allowed smoking in bars and private clubs, as long as smoking was limited to no more than half of the establishment and each section had its own working ventilation system.
“These exemptions are for the least obtrusive areas where you could have smoking occur,” Hageman said. “They’re separated, they’re ventilated, and they’re where no person under the age of 21 is allowed.”
His proposal failed on a 5-3 vote.
“You can have a drink and drive in this state, but we regulate how much you can drink for public health and safety reasons,” Councilman Dave O’Malley said. “I believe we can regulate smoking from the same sense.”
Those voting for a change in the ordinance were Hageman, Jeanne Armintrout and Bryan Schuster.
“This has cost Laramie money, no matter what people say,” Schuster said.
In November, voters narrowly approved an ordinance that bans smoking in all indoor public places, including restaurants and bars. A group of voters challenged the ordinance in court, saying it should be thrown out because of Election Day irregularities, but a judge dismissed that lawsuit in May.
Hageman, a smoker, planned to introduce his revised ordinance earlier this month, but he withdrew it for revisions. The original version would have exempted truck stops under the same rules as bars and private clubs, but he said there was little interest from truck stops in the exemption.
The original also would have allowed a short-term exemption for businesses that could show a drop in revenue since the smoking ban took effect. But the limited term of the exemption made it impractical, he said.
“It didn’t make a lot of sense to have a hardship exemption,” Hageman said. “You would have to spend enough money to separate and ventilate an area, only to lose that market niche at the end of two years.”
Jade Miller, owner of Reed’s Package Liquors, said he supported Hageman’s revised ordinance, saying his and some other businesses have suffered under the current smoking ban.
“We had experienced 20 straight months of growth (before the ban),” Miller said. “We’re down to breaking even now. It has definitely taken its toll.”
Hageman’s ordinance also would have allowed smoking in health care facilities that are treating terminally or mentally ill patients.
Councilors will battle over smoking ban
BY ANGELA BROOKS
Boomerang Staff Writer
Boomerang Staff Writer
Groups on both sides of the great smoking debate are blowing the dust off their gloves for what promises to be a battle royale over a proposal to allow smoking in bars and private clubs.
In one corner is Councilman Joe Hageman, who is introducing the controversial ordinance Tuesday. He will face off against smoke-free advocates and councilors who support keeping the smoking ban how it is.
“I’m hopeful it will pass,” Hageman said Monday. “I’m not going to say it’s an absolute certainty.”
Under the proposal, bars and private clubs could allow smoking in half of their space as long as that space was physically separated from nonsmoking areas and had its own working ventilation system.
The ordinance also would exempt health care facilities that are treating terminally or mentally ill patients.
Some councilors hope the proposal goes up in flames.
“We had a referendum on this,” Councilman Klaus Hanson said. “The public has spoken. Now we’re supposed to tell the public they did it wrong and we’re going to do what is right? It kind of looks self-righteous.”
Councilman Dave O’Malley said he also plans to oppose the proposal, which places the health of workers and customers in jeopardy.
“It breaks down the original intent of the smoke-free ordinance, and I just can’t support that,” O’Malley said.
Hageman claims he is simply doing what should have been done a long time ago. Had councilors introduced the proposal when the smoke-free ordinance first surfaced, it might have passed, he said.
“Things were so divisive that nobody proposed anything that was middle ground,” said Hageman, who opposes the smoking ban and was not on council when it was adopted last year. He also is a smoker.
The measure will need at least five votes to pass.
Hageman had planned to introduce the proposal two weeks ago, but withdrew it to make changes. Since then, he has removed exemptions for truck stops as well as businesses that could show their revenues have fallen since the ban went into effect in April.
Most businesses were not interested in the hardship exemption because it would only apply for up to two years. After that period, smokers would have to once again put out their cigarettes.
“It didn’t make a lot of sense to have a hardship exemption,” Hageman said. “You would have to spend enough money to separate and ventilate an area, only to lose that market-niche at the end of two years.”
Truck stop managers were not satisfied with their own proposed exclusion, which would have allowed smoking indefinitely at truck stops that met certain requirements.
“I couldn’t find that there was enough support amongst the truck stop managers to even get them to walk up in front of the council and say they needed it,” Hageman said. “So I took that exemption out.”
Advocates of the ban have contended it protects customers and employees from second-hand smoke, which is the third leading cause of preventable death in Wyoming.
The proposal addresses those concerns to some extent, Hageman said.
“These exemptions are for the least obtrusive areas where you could have smoking occur,” he said. “They’re separated, they’re ventilated, and they’re where no person under the age of 21 is allowed.”
Even so, Hageman admitted the proposal wouldn’t protect all employees from second-hand smoke.
“Yes, there might be one one-hundredth of the working population that might be exposed to second-hand smoke,” Hageman said. “Forty percent of them could already be smokers — maybe even higher.”
Jade Miller, owner of Reed’s Package Liquors, said he is ready to follow the requirements of the proposal. Profits have declined at the bar since the ban took effect, he said.
“We had experienced 20 straight months of growth (before the ban),” Miller said. “We’re down to breaking even now. It has definitely taken its toll.”
The bar already has a ventilation system, but would need a separate room for smokers. The improvements would require big bucks, but Miller said that’s a price he’s willing to pay.
“I personally think anything we can do to take some of the stress off people is a great idea,” Miller said. “This ban is killing some places in town.”
The current smoke-free ordinance allows people to light up in private residences, hotels and motels, outdoor places of employment, private offices, outdoor patios and business vehicles.
Hanson said a great deal of time was spent fine-tuning the smoking ban into what it is today. He frowned upon changing it now that the people have spoken.
“I think what came out of it was a pretty good ordinance that hasn’t been challenged in court,” Hanson said. “I don’t think it is very challengeable, especially after a referendum.”
O’Malley said he believes he was elected because he supports the ban. Nevertheless, he has taken some heat for refusing to back down on his stance.
“I’ve had some people say that I’m closed-minded,” O’Malley said. “Well, if disagreeing with them makes me closed-minded, I guess I am.”
Hageman also has critics. He is fighting a legal grievance filed with the Wyoming State Bar by a Laramie citizen who claims he has a conflict of interest and shouldn’t vote on the proposal. Hageman denies the claims.
The complaint alleges that Hageman, as an attorney, has represented clients who have an interest in the smoking ban. After talking with the city attorney, Hageman said he plans to vote on the proposal.
“If I was advised by the city attorney that I had a conflict of interest, I would not vote,” Hageman said.
To view the latest ordinance, visit www.cityoflaramie.com.
Laramie considering relaxing smoking ban for some businesses
July 6, 2005
LARAMIE — A city councilman wants to amend the city’s smoking ban to allow smoking in certain businesses, including those that have seen business drop off since the ban went into place.
Councilman Joe Hageman had planned to introduce the ordinance Tuesday, but withdrew it to make some changes. He said he would bring it back up for the July 19 meeting.
Under the proposal, bars, truck stops and private clubs could allow smoking in half of their space as long as that space was physically separated from nonsmoking areas and had its own working ventilation system. Hageman also would allow exemptions for business that could show their revenue had fallen since the ban went into effect in April.
“Perhaps they’ll be able to avoid foreclosure,” Hageman said. “I think our current ordinance was based on speculation, such as whether there would be any business detriment.”
Councilman Joe Shumway said he was skeptical that ventilation systems would eliminate the health risks from secondhand smoke, and said it was unfair to apply the ordinance to some businesses and not others.
“If we give relief to one or two businesses, and that turns around and affects all of the other businesses that are complying, then we’re allowing certain businesses to take advantage,” Shumway said.
http://www.billingsgazette.com/
Judge will hold hearing on smoking ban challenge
Associated Press
April 20, 2005
April 20, 2005
LARAMIE – A state district judge will hold another hearing over whether the city properly handled an election in which a ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and other businesses was upheld.
On Sept. 7, the City Council approved the ban, but opponents successfully petitioned to put the measure on the Nov. 2 ballot. Voters then endorsed the ordinance by 366 votes of about 12,000 cast.
Opponents sued, saying ballot boxes were left unsealed and were opened during the election, and that some ballots didn’t include proper instructions.
Both the city and opponents of the ban are asking District Judge Jeffrey A. Donnell to decide in their favor, based on the law and facts in the case.
“We believe that there are sufficient grounds for the court to annul the election based on law,” said Janet Tyler, attorney for the group of residents who are suing the city.
City Attorney Peggy Trent said research has shown “the case should be dismissed based on the law.”
Donnell will hold the hearing May 5. Afterward, he will have the option to rule in either side’s favor, meaning he could throw out the election or uphold it. He could also determine that enough facts remain in dispute to send the case to trial May 18.
Tyler contends that following election law is essential to the democratic process, and because of inconsistencies with the process, the election is invalid.
“The ends can never justify the means if the means are wrong,” she said.
Trent counters that, while mistakes may have been made, the overall veracity of the election is not in question, and the intent of the voters is overwhelmingly clear.
“We can account for every ballot that was printed, and every ballot that was at every polling station. The city can account for every vote,” she said.
Bars pan smoking ban
April 7, 2005
By BILL LUCKETT
Star-Tribune staff writer
By BILL LUCKETT
Star-Tribune staff writer
LARAMIE — Wednesday afternoon was like pretty much any other weekday afternoon at the Buckhorn Bar here, with one glaring exception.
Five men sat at the bar, while a few others occupied tables — some drinking beer, some drinking coffee. On any other day since the bar opened decades ago, some would also no doubt have been smoking cigarettes.
But Wednesday was the first day of Laramie’s ban on smoking indoors in public places, the first such restriction for a Wyoming city. The ban reached even into the least healthy environments people might expect to encounter — the bars.
“An old West bar like the Buckhorn and the Cowboy, people have been smoking here for years,” said Buckhorn customer Barry Dale. “It just doesn’t seem right to inhibit business owners, private clubs.”
At four downtown bars in the Gem City, owners, employees and many Wednesday afternoon customers spoke out against the smoking ban and recounted the scenes that took place the minute it went into effect, at midnight the previous evening.
The most colorful story involved a Buckhorn customer, a man who wanted to go down in history as the first person arrested for violating the ban.
The man defiantly lit a cigarette, and someone called police, according to bartender Joe Besneatte.
But when police arrived, “they wouldn’t take him to jail,” Besneatte said.
Instead, the man received a warning, said Laramie Police Commander Dale Stalder.
Stalder said the incident at the Buckhorn is the only smoking-related call police had fielded in the first 15 hours the ban was in effect.
Police will respond to any report of smoking ban violations, he said, but based on the experiences in other towns that have banned lighting up in public, police anticipate a compliance rate close to 100 percent.
“We don’t actually expect many problems from it, but time will tell,” he said.
Tuesday night was less eventful at Third Street Bar and Grill, reported bartender Dennis Small.
“Everybody was kind of getting in the last smoke, but when midnight hit, everybody sort of resigned to (the fact that) that was the law,” he said. “Nobody left because of it.”
Small’s establishment is relatively neutral on the issue of the smoking ban.
“We’re doing everything we’re supposed to do to comply with the law,” he said. “Obviously, there are bars in town that are taking a very hard exception to this law.”
Chief among the latter group is Reed’s Liquors, whose owners, Lisa and Jade Miller, put up a sign listing the names of the three City Council members who voted for the smoking ban and who still hold office.
“This was a way to let everybody know it wasn’t our fault,” Lisa Miller said.
She said she and other opponents of the ban hope to get new council members elected and also to urge the council to either overturn the ban or consider exceptions to it for places such as bars, private clubs and truck stops.
Meanwhile, Miller fears a “huge loss in revenue,” as evidenced by the fact that her bar saw only three customers by mid-afternoon Wednesday when she said 10 or 12 would have stopped in on a normal day.
Some supporters
Other places will probably not experience such severe effects, such as those that had already voluntarily banned smoking.
Fourteen months ago, Elmer Lovejoy’s Bar and Grill banned smoking between 11 a.m. and 10 a.m., so it wasn’t hard for the pub to adjust to the new law, Manager Kara Hardy said.
“We’ve gotten used to it now, I guess,” she said. “We don’t really care one way or the other.”
Hardy said the restaurant customers appreciate being able to eat in a smoke-free environment.
“The bar patrons aren’t going to like it, but what are you going to do? It’s not like we’re the only bar in town that has to do this,” she said.
Cameron Guenther, a bartender at Lovejoy’s, does not smoke and will enjoy being spared the task of keeping customers’ ashtrays clean during his shift. Still, he is not a fan of the ban.
“Even the nonsmokers that I’ve talked to, pretty much everyone that works here is against it,” he said.
He added that bar workers will now have to spend time sweeping cigarette butts off the sidewalk in front of the business.
Most, but not all, of Wednesday afternoon downtown Laramie bar customers opposed the ban.
At Third Street, Paul Marinari said he appreciated being spared other people’s second-hand smoke for health reasons. Although that might sound strange coming from someone who drinks beer, Marinari said there’s a difference between drinking and smoking.
“I’m not pouring any beer down anyone else’s throat, so it’s a little different when it comes to second-hand smoke,” he said.
Next to him at the bar, Stan Odlum argued against the ban, mainly because of the philosophy that it should be up to the local business owners, not their government, what behaviors they will or won’t allow in their establishments.
The logistics of enforcing the ban might make it more trouble than it’s worth, Odlum said.
“It’s one thing to have a law, and it’s another thing to enforce it,” he said. “The last thing (police) want to do is roust people out of bars for smoking.”
While Odlum and Marinari discussed the ban, a couple presumably from out of town entered the bar but exited immediately upon hearing about the smoking ban.
“You can’t smoke in this town? Well, we’ll go to another town,” the woman said.
At the Buckhorn, patrons and employees were nearly unanimous in their opposition to the ban, except for customer Mark Davidson.
“You’re going to be able to smell the girls’ perfume instead of smelling cigarette smoke,” he said with a smile.
But bartender Bea Silvrants, who at 83 claims the title of Laramie’s oldest bartender, worried that the ban will hurt business. She places little stock in the argument that she needs protection from second-hand smoke.
“I’ve been here 37 years, and I’m not affected,” she said. “That should tell you something, don’t you think?”
Billy Broderick spoke at length against the ban.
“I think that once we start losing our personal freedoms, America’s ideal is lost,” he said. “I just think that it’s a travesty that they have to take outside money to try to change a community that can govern itself and has done a pretty god job governing itself up to this point.”
Capital bureau reporter Bill Luckett can be reached at (307) 632-1244 or at bill.luckett@casperstartribune.net.
http://www.casperstartribune.net/
http://www.casperstartribune.net/
Councilor wants to change ordinance
4/6/2005
BY ANGELA BROOKS
Boomerang Staff Writer
BY ANGELA BROOKS
Boomerang Staff Writer
As an ordinary citizen, Joe Hageman wanted to see the city’s smoking ban go up in flames. Now that he’s a member of the Laramie City Council, Hageman’s feelings are just as strong as ever.
“I think this is an unfortunate moment for the city,” Hageman said from his law office Tuesday. “I believe there are places that ought to be able to allow smoking if they want to.”
This time, Hageman can do something about it.
Hageman hopes to introduce an amendment that would change certain language in the smoke-free ordinance, giving more discretion to bars, truck stops and private clubs and offices.
The amendment would allow those businesses to set their own smoking rules in certain circumstances.
“A small capacity bar that cannot be segregated should be allowed to have smoking,” Hageman said. “If it’s a big place, perhaps it could have both.”
Hageman said he asked the city attorney’s office to look into whether councilors could amend an ordinance that was subject to a referendum vote. He said he believed it was possible.
“At this juncture, I see no reason not to give this a try,” Hageman said. “I think the council members, in retrospect, may see they really didn’t intend to go as far as this ordinance goes.”
Only four members of the original council that considered the ordinance last year are still in office. Councilors Jodi Guerin, Wendy Perkins and Klaus Hanson voted for the ban. Bryan Shuster voted against it.
In order to get the amendment on the floor for a vote, Hageman would need the support of at least one councilor. As of Tuesday, at least one person was standing behind Hageman.
“I would support the amendment,” Councilwoman Jeanne Armintrout said.
Armintrout said she agreed businesses should have the freedom to set their own smoking policies.
However, Armintrout said she doesn’t expect to see an amendment any time soon.
“Until we get through with the lawsuit, I can’t see that even coming up on the agenda,” Armintrout said.
In a non-jury trial set for May 18-20, a district court judge will determine whether the Nov. 2 election on the smoking ban was valid.
Hageman said he would like to propose the changes “regardless of what the outcome is.” He said the amendment could prevent future litigation against the city.
“I think the private clubs will band together and take us to court,” Hageman said.
As a form of defense, private clubs could argue police shouldn’t use excessive force in a business that isn’t truly open to the public, Hageman said.
“Why are we telling the people at the VFW, who are veterans of foreign wars, to put out their cigarettes? They went overseas to protect our freedoms,” Hageman said.
Councilman Dave O’Malley said he wouldn’t support the amendment.
“On the smoking issue, it’s always been all or nothing for me,” O’Malley said. “If you were to exempt private clubs, you would potentially be affecting other places that serve alcohol.”
http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/archivemore.asp?StoryID=103118
http://www.laramieboomerang.com/news/archivemore.asp?StoryID=103118
Plaintiffs oppose allowing coalition to intervene
3-29-05
BY ANGELA BROOKS
Boomerang Staff Writer
BY ANGELA BROOKS
Boomerang Staff Writer
The coalition members who spearheaded a smoking ban ordinance were described as “crusaders” who have significant outside interests in a report filed Friday by the six voters contesting the election.
The Laramie Clean Indoor Air Coalition should not be allowed to join the lawsuit pending against the city because its motion was untimely and based upon illegitimate arguments, said Janet Tyler, the attorney for the plaintiffs.
“The reason for the intervention is to somehow uphold the special election regardless of whether or not the process is flawed,” Tyler said in a written statement to the court. “This is the position of a crusader or lobbyist, not of concerned citizens with no agenda to push.”
The lawsuit against the city claims that errors might have affected the outcome of the special election Nov. 2. Out of concern that the city might settle the suit, the coalition filed a motion to join the city in its defense.
The motion names as proposed defendants, the coalition and nine voters who say they noticed no irregularities while at the polls. Their attorney, Megan Hayes, said the plaintiffs have missed the point.
“They say we want to see the election upheld whether it’s flawed or not — but it’s certainly not how we’ve presented our position,” Hayes said. “We made it abundantly clear that we don’t want the election to be nullified for reasons that had no affect on the outcome.”
In its motion, the coalition said it had raised “significant funds from individuals in Laramie,” and as a result has a direct interest in the outcome of the trial. However, Tyler said, 90 percent of the contributions made to the group came from entities outside the city.
“The total Laramie commitment to the effort was less than 8 percent, not what one would suspect ‘substantial’ would normally mean,” Tyler said.
Hayes said, “I’m not sure what that has to do with the motion to intervene.”
Additionally, Tyler said the coalition waited nearly four months to file its motion, timing it just two months prior to the trial. The motion should be thrown out because it isn’t timely, she said.
Allowing a third party to join could increases costs, Tyler added.
“The introduction of 10 defendants will only increase the fees and costs to both existing parties,” Tyler said. “Perhaps, this is the real reason the applicants seek to intervene.”
The coalition filed its motion on March 7, shortly after the Laramie City Council approved spending $14,420 to defend the case. That’s why the group filed the motion when it did, Hayes said.
“It made my clients realize the city was making considerations of a financial nature that might affect their willingness to pursue litigation,” Hayes said.
Because it’s registered as a political action committee, Tyler said the group cannot legally join the suit. The nine voters could act as witnesses but not as parties, she added.
Hayes disagreed, saying statutes don’t ban the group from participating in lawsuits.
Last week, City Attorney Peggy Trent said the group should be allowed to join the city’s defense because both parties are equally concerned about how alleged irregularities might have impacted the election.
In her response, Tyler said that cannot be the sole reason for an intervention. Trent said Monday that she disagreed with Tyler.
“In my opinion, that is not a correct interpretation,” Trent said.
Trent and Tyler also disagreed over whether any party other than the city attorney has the right to defend the lawsuit. Trent said state law doesn’t preclude other groups from joining.
Albany County District Court Judge Jeffrey Donnell is expected to hold a hearing or issue a written opinion on the motion, possibly as soon as this week.
Judge Upholds Most of the Lawsuit Against Laramie Smoking Ban
January 27, 2005
A judge in Laramie has upheld most of a lawsuit challenging the city’s smoking ban.
A judge in Laramie has upheld most of a lawsuit challenging the city’s smoking ban.
Judge Jeffrey Donnell’s decision threw out two parts of the lawsuit. One said the ballot did not accurately describe what the ordinance would do; the other claimed that not enough ballots were printed.
But Judge Donnell left intact much of the suit, which claims that voter instructions were flawed, and that ballots were mishandled.
Even a small change in the balloting might have changed the outcome of the election. Voters in Laramie approved the smoking ban by just 366 votes out of about 12,000 votes cast.
Laramie City Attorney Peggy Trent says she’s pleased with the judge’s ruling, because it puts the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to show that the process was flawed.
Plaintiff’s attorney Janet Tyler also says she supports the judge’s decision, because it allows the case to go forward.
http://www.kgwn.tv/
http://www.kgwn.tv/
WY: Laramie. Opponents of smoking ban complain about vote. The Nov. 2 vote by which an ordinance making Laramie a smoke-free city was approved should be annulled because the election was held too hastily and marred by irregularities, six voters told Second District Court.
WY: Laramie. Receipts are in. The totals include cash, in-kind and anonymous contributions.
WY: Absentee voters weigh in on smoking ban.
WY: Laramie smoking ban heads for vote.
WY: Laramie smoking ban appears headed for ballot.
WY: Laramie approves smoking ban. Fight starts to repeal smoking ban.
WY: Laramie. The City Council voted to make Laramie the first smoke-free city in Wyoming, but a referendum drive is under way, there is talk of a lawsuit, and opponents of the smoking ban say it will be an issue in the re-election campaigns of council members who supported it.
WY: Laramie. Public weighs in on smoking amendments. “You want to make me into a policeman and send me out on that street and tell people what do, without a badge or gun,” said Steve Grabowski, owner of Optical Fashions.
WY: Wyoming legislators drafting plans for statewide smoking ban.
WY: Laramie’s tough smoking ban passes first test. Smoking ban clears hurdle. The measure needs two more rounds of approval to go into effect.
WY: The Laramie City Council on Tuesday will get its first glimpse of an ordinance that, if passed, would make Laramie the first smoke-free community in Wyoming. A plan to eliminate smoking in all Laramie workplaces ignited an emotional debate Tuesday over public health and individual rights.
WY: CHEYENNE. Wyoming could be the next state in line to ban smoking in restaurants.
