LARAMIE - With six days to go until this city's smoking control ordinance is scheduled to go into effect, it remained in doubt Thursday how soon smokers will be banned from lighting up in enclosed public places.

Following a hearing in 2nd District Court, Judge Jeffrey Donnell said he would issue a written decision on a motion to set aside the ordinance's effective date of April 6. Donnell also took under advisement a motion by supporters of the ordinance wishing to intervene in a lawsuit challenging it.

Donnell did not indicate when he would file his decisions.

The ordinance was approved by the City Council last year on a 6-3 vote. On Nov. 2, city voters rejected a referendum designed to repeal it.

Eight voters challenging the outcome of the election contend that it was marred by irregularities at polling places. The city maintains that although errors might have occurred, they did not affect the outcome.

Donnell has set a non-jury trial in the case for May 18-20.

A committee created to draft rules governing enforcement of the ordinance has not yet filed its report with the Albany County treasurer's office. After it is filed, there will be a 45-day period for public comment before it goes into effect.

City Attorney Peggy Trent told Donnell it's possible citations could be issued before the trial. After the hearings, Trent told reporters that enforcement during that period would probably be left to the discretion of police officers.

A business violating the ordinance could be fined $100 for the first violation, $200 for the second and $5,000 for each violation after that. The business could also lose its licenses. Individual violators would be subject to fines of up to $50.

The ordinance would prohibit smoking in enclosed areas of all public places and workplaces, including bars and restaurants.

Janet Tyler, attorney for the opponents of the ordinance, said allowing it to go into effect next week would "make it more difficult to undo what was done."

Donnell told the lawyers that the ordinance would be in effect regardless of whether the election is ruled invalid. That's because the election was merely a referendum to repeal the ordinance; the smoking ban was put on the books by City Council action and did not need approval of citizens.

Invalidation of the election would likely result in another election on the referendum. If a majority of voters in a second election voted to repeal the ordinance, then it would be stricken from the books.

Fearing the city might settle the lawsuit or otherwise not represent their interests, supporters of the ordinance recently filed a motion to join the case on the city's side. Donnell heard arguments on that motion as well Thursday.

Arguing against allowing the would-be intervenors into the case, Tyler said, "I did not think the purpose of the election was that it should end up with voters fighting voters."

Donnell told the projected intervenors and their lawyer, "I am not sure I understand why you are involved in this litigation," because their legal interests were not affected by it.

Attorney Megan Hayes, representing the eight supporters of the ordinance, said they were eligible to intervene because they have "a heightened interest in the subject matter."

"Everybody is interested," the judge responded.

Trent said the city welcomed the planned intervention.

Star-Tribune correspondent W. Dale Nelson can be reached at wdnelson@casperstartribune.net.