The Issue: Should We Still Elect Judges OR Amend The Nevada Constitution?

Given the information I've provided in the last few posts, there is sufficient resources for you all to 'sound off' on whether we should maintain the current hybrid system of electing judges (which includes election, unless there is an opening, in which case, the governor appoints).

I've been pushing my solution (here & here & here) to the problems associated with the judiciary for some time now. This even includes commentary regarding our 'unaccountable' discovery commissioner that has way too much power and no accountability. I've even debated Nevada Supreme Court Justice Rose on the matter, well at least a response debate. With the US Supreme Court decision in CAPERTON ET AL. v. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO., INC., ET AL., the debate in Nevada has reached a new boiling point.

In response, the Nevada Legislature has opted to pursue an amendment to the Nevada Constitution. The Legislature should be working with judicial regulation and responding to increase accountability to a stricter set of judicial canons, as I've blawged about before. Instead, we coddle our judiciary. The Amendment to the Constitution will only centralize judicial power to the Governor. We will not get the desired effect from this Amendment.

Up for consideration at the next election is this bill that would amend the Nevada Constitution, which I've commented about a lot (here & here). This amendment essentially will give Nevada a system that has the following elements:

• The bill provides for appointment of judges with a retention vote.


• The bill also provides for a thorough evaluation of each judges' performance.


• Each judge, after appointed, must appear on the ballot within 12 months of being appointed in what will be called a retention election.


• In order to retain their position (without a challenger) the judge will need to garner at least 55 percent of the vote in favor or retention.


• The evaluation process has not been set in stone, just yet. Though, it will be mandatory that each judge is evaluated at certain intervals so that the public can have information for the retention election. Our current system of evaluation is sporadic and not rigid enough to be reliable. The CCBA/RJ Judging the Judges is Clark County's only effort to try to hold the judiciary accountable, by rating the judges. Washoe County has a similar effort. There is nothing definite or scientific.

I have not been shy in telling the legislature that they have it wrong. They have refused to address the judicial cannons, that are the source of the problem. I know, the legislature can't. However, the groups of government can, Nevada is still small enough to coordinate such an effort. We should be starting with the judicial cannons, not with our Constitution. Our judicial system needs change, not just our judicial election system. So, once again, I suggest the following to address the judicial appointment v. judicial election debate:

1. Stiffen Judicial Cannons to restrict appearances by attorneys, parties & judicial candidate opponents when they contribute to the campaigns of judges in any significant manner or when they challenge the seated judge;

2. Provide Judicial Evaluations of ALL Nevada judges on a yearly basis (or every other year ensuring an evaluation is completed in the year of any election);

3. Once a judge is elected or appointed to fill a vacancy, have a retention election after the first 2 years of their seating, with a mandatory 55% approval, or be dismissed. If the judge runs unopposed in any future elections, institute a mandatory retention election whereby the judge must again receive a 55% approval or be dismissed.

Take a look at the ratings of the judges linked in this article, compare it to contributions listed below in yesterday's blawg and if you have the time, look to see who is contributing (it is a lot of the same people). Then, read the proposed law to be voted on next year, amending the Nevada Constitution and post any opinions you have about our current judicial system, no matter the subject.

Should we keep elections intact, as set up?

Should we evaluate judges' performance?

Should we have stricter enforcement of campaign contributions and judicial canons?

Should we still allow attorneys & parties that contribute to appear in front of that judge?

Should we still force challengers to a judge to appear before that judge?

Should we scrap the whole system and appoint judges with a retention election, where there is not a challenger?

What do you think?

.