Judge Teuton Taken Off The Bench By The Supreme Court (& Judge Lueck's Petitioning)

The Nevada Supreme Court issued the following Advance Opinion for Lueck v. Teuton, 125 Nev. 52 (2009) on November 12, 2009. In my opinion, former family court Judge Robert Lueck appears to really want back on the bench. Teuton has gotta be 'pissed' at Leuck. I don't think I've ever seen a former-Judge go after the seat of a sitting judge, when he is not running for that seat and has no chance at getting on that seat. The only answer then is a strange version of 'justice' OR Lueck has it out for Teuton. Which is it?

The Nevada Constitution provides that when a judicial appointment occurs to fill a vacancy, that appointment is only valid until "the first Monday of January following the next general election." As alleged in the Petition filed by Judge Lueck, Judge Teuton's position in the District Court expired January 5, 2009. Given that Gov. Gibbons felt like the appointment could be extended, Judge Teuton's seat was NOT placed on the ballot in the general election in Nov. 2008. Boy were they Wrong! Now Teuton is out off the bench.

Under questionable motivation, Judge Lueck, who was unseated in the 2004 election and who has been trying to get appointed or elected ever since (even suing the LV Review Journal for libel, though he did not seek appointment in February 2009), challenged the Governor's extension of the judicial seat. The Nevada Supreme Court told Leuck to 'take off hoser' because you don't have any standing to make this claim as a private citizen. Seemingly, they thought it was odd too, even if Lueck was right. So, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue as the supervisors of the judicial branch...good choice. (See other Lueck shinanigans).

Gov. Gibbons, and Judge Teuton, argued that the term expired after the 2010 general election, not the 2008 general election, because the seat could not be filled very easily with the election filing deadlines (though it was possible). If that were the case, why would Teuton need an extension? The Governor seems to have put forth his best argument, which was pretty damn weak. However, the Court found differently and took the opportunity to better define the Constitution's referenced term, "next general election". The Court held that the "next general election" means "the election most immediately following the appointment." As a result, the Court held that the term expired January 1, 2009. Leuck was right, though wrong on the exact date, and we have another judicial vacancy in Clark County.

The Court made a specific holding that all of Teuton's judicial rulings and orders were valid, though made after January 1, 2008. They were in a bit of a legal quandry there. That part of the ruling is wrong, in my opinion, but any finding otherwise would be an utter and complete disaster.

Justice Cherry wrote the following, "In view of the apparent intent behind the Nevada Constitution's 'next general election' language to allow Nevada citizens to elect a new district judge as soon as possible after an office becomes vacant and to correspondingly limit the Governor's appointment powers, we conclude that judicial vacancy appointments expire on the first Monday in January after the first general election following that appointment, without exception."

Gov. Gibbons is to be informed of the vacancy & Teuton is to be removed, which may mean that Gov. Gibbons appoints Teuton again, or not, who knows. My intuition tells me that Teuton is done. The Governor will likely not appoint him again. Why? The Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection (NCJS), that I've talked about on here before, must submit three (3) names for the Governor to choose from in his appointments. The NCJS is supposed to be an impartial group. However, if they submit Judge Teuton's name again, their judgment may be called into question. It certainly would if they were to submit Judge Teuton & Judge Lueck, both. Though, I'd find the choices quite interesting.

No matter, the point is that we have the Nevada Constitutional Amendment on the Ballot for 2010, amending the Constitution to do away with judicial elections (see HERE & HERE). It seems that every chance we get, we should be discussing this issue. I don't think it is any secret that every judge currently on the bench wants judicial appointment with a retention vote. However, many attorneys that want to be future judges desire to keep elections in place. The question remains, which is better, judicial appointment or judicial elections?

One thing is for sure, if it were not for judicial elections, Judge Leuck would not have made the petition to the Supreme Court, that spawned their investigation, that found that the judicial appointment process had broken down and that found that the Governor did not 'obey the rules'. Do you still think that appointment will so easily get rid of corruption? Well, it won't. I don't think there was anything 'fishy' going on here It was more likely that this was just another situation where Gibbons didn't want egg on his face. However, this should ring true to all of us that the potential for abuse in the judicial appointment process is just as real as with the abuses resulting from election, maybe more.

The main problem with judicial appointment is that if a judge is not very good, you can't get them off the bench so easy. With elections, get together some people, some money and educate the public. The error in Nevada's judicial election process is the failure to have a subjective evaluation system in place to inform the public about what is going on with the judges. Take, for instance, Judge Leuck. There were many people in this county that thought he was horrible. As a result, they campaigned against him in the election in 2004 and he was removed from the bench. He has been trying to get appointed and elected, ever since. Neither has worked. Doesn't that mean that the election process works?

For every 'Halverson', there are many more positive results where the public gets rid of unapproving judges and seats great judges: 'Leuck', 'Bell', 'Gonzalez'. For suggested solutions to the current judicial selection system, not a Constitutional Amendment, see the following posts on this topic & feel free to comment and enter the debate:

• Are Judicial Elections Still Good For Nevada? Doesn't Recusal Solve Everything? I've Solved The Problem...
• The Issue: Should We Still Elect Judges OR Amend The Nevada Constitution?
• Judicial Appointment Debate Rages On In Indiana & Pennsylvania, Not Just Nevada
• Commentary On Retired Chief Justice Rose's Reasoning For Judicial Appointment
• The Solution To The Debate Over Nevada's Judicial Appointments v. Judicial Elections
• Nevada Needs Strict Judicial Canons, Increased Judicial Evaluations, Not Judicial Appointment By The Governor
• Should a Judge Recuse When An Attorney Has Contributed To Judge's Campaign? (The Opinion)
• Nevada Judicial Appointment: What Would It REALLY Look Like?
• Judicial Evaluations May Be On The Way in Nevada...FINALLY...maybe!
  

.