Pr-enforcement challenge of criminal statute

[ozmentra@hotmai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[racer72]

Try again but don't use the preview function. It eats posts.

 

[ozmentra@hotmai]

this is in the state of nevada.

1. What are the prudential standing requirement to bring a per-enforcement challenge to a Nevada criminal statute in a Nevada state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where the criminal statute interferes with my Federal First Amendment rights?
2. Is it more effective to simply bring this sort of challenge in a Federal court?

Please consider the following before answering:

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court, one does not have to risk prosecution to challenge a criminal statute. Babbitt v. United Farm Workers National Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979). To hold otherwise would turn respect for the law on its head. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1061 (9th Cir. 2010).

I cannot find any authority from the Nevada Supreme Court that has adopted the rational of United Farm Workers. In fact, I can find nothing on the subject of per-enforcement challenges at all under Nevada law. Is it safe to use United Farm Workers to establish standing in a Nevada State Court in a challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

Would it be more effective to simply make the § 1983 challenge in Federal court? I am concerned with lengthy abstention procedures under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).

I guess questions going to the constitutionality of the Nevada criminal statute antecedent to the Federal First Amendment issue could be certified directly to the Nevada Supreme Court. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 75-76 (1979). Not sure how that works or even if the case would be handled that way.

Thank you for your time in addressing questions #1 and #2.

 

[Zigner]

Did you have a question?