Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS Twitter Twitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

sponsored by
News
Nov. 29, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

NEVADA'S JUDICIAL SYSTEM: Panel holds off on plan for judges

Proposal calls for appointments, retention elections

By CARRI GEER THEVENOT
REVIEW-JOURNAL

Bill Raggio
Reno Republican admits his selection proposal for judges is a "hard sell"

Members of a panel studying Nevada's court system said Wednesday that they need more information before deciding whether to endorse a plan that could change the way judges in the state are chosen.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, who has proposed a so-called merit selection process for judges, conceded that his plan faces an uphill battle.

Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: When live news shots turn bad
  • NORM: Terry Fator, wife ending marriage
  • NORM: Blaze breaks out during magic act
  • NORM: Jackson worked on album at Palms
  • Ex-Ensign aide details wife's affair
  • NORM: Jacksons set up LV memorial area
  • Ensign wrote lover a letter, saying their affair was a 'sin'
  • Coroner says sexual assault suspect killed by police was shot in back
  • LV area residential real estate sales reach record in June
  • Official: Fatal gunshot in back




    • "It's going to be a hard sell," Raggio told members of the Nevada Supreme Court's Article 6 Commission.

    The commission has been directed by Chief Justice Bill Maupin to look at ways of improving the state's judicial system. Members of the panel met via video conference Wednesday in Las Vegas and Carson City.

    Raggio, a longtime Nevada lawyer, spoke in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 2, a proposed constitutional amendment. If approved, the amendment would end Nevada's 143-year tradition of allowing voters to pick judges in contested elections.

    The senator said similar proposals have advanced from the Legislature to the ballot twice before over the years, only to face a sound defeat by voters.

    "I stress this because this is not a new idea altogether," Raggio said.

    He said he thinks the concept has more support now than ever. The State Bar of Nevada and two of the state's daily newspapers -- the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun -- have endorsed the plan, he said.

    Under Raggio's proposal, each judge would be appointed by the governor from a list of three final candidates reviewed by the Commission on Judicial Selection. If dissatisfied with the first three candidates, the governor could request a second list of three candidates.

    After serving their first terms, judges would face "yes" or "no" retention elections. A Commission on Judicial Performance would be appointed and prepare information for voters about the performance of judges seeking to keep their jobs. Those who receive at least 55 percent of votes would remain in office.

    Before the new amendment could appear on the ballot, it would need approval from the 2009 Legislature. Voters then would decide in 2010 whether they want to make the change.

    Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, did not attend Wednesday's meeting but previously has spoken in favor of Raggio's proposal. Buckley, also a lawyer and member of the commission, and Raggio both said a merit selection system would reduce the need for judicial candidates to raise contributions to win elections.

    Raggio said the current system leaves the public with a perception that judges have lost their independence.

    But, he said, "I certainly don't want to leave a message here that we don't have a good judiciary."

    Raggio said the new attitude toward judicial selection was prompted, in part, by a series of stories that appeared last year in the Los Angeles Times. The series, titled "Juice vs. Justice," disclosed what appeared to be widespread conflicts of interest and favoritism by several Las Vegas judges.

    If supporters of merit selection for judges can educate the public about its benefits, Raggio said, he thinks they can succeed in gaining its approval.

    MGM Mirage Senior Vice President Paula Gentile, co-chairwoman of the commission, asked whether Raggio's plan would bar judges from raising money for their retention elections.

    Raggio said it would not, but retention elections require far less money than traditional elections. He also said 15 other states already hold retention elections for judges.

    Gentile said she has not decided on her position. She asked whether supporters of the merit selection system can show that it produces better judges than a system of open elections.

    Reno lawyer Thomas "Spike" Wilson, a member of the commission, said the proposal will need a well-funded campaign to gain approval.

    "I think we're going to have to tell the story of what's wrong with the present system," he said.

    Clark County District Judge David Wall, a member of the commission, said other elected judges like himself will refuse to support a campaign that paints elected judges as inferior to appointed judges.

    Wall also said he "probably never had political clout to get appointed."

    Gentile said appointees can suffer from the negative public perception that they follow the party line of the politician who appointed them. She wondered aloud whether Raggio's proposal would substitute one problematic perception for another, and she urged the commission to decide soon whether it will back the plan.

    Members of the panel said they first wanted to hear from National Judicial College President William Dressel, the commission's co-chairman, who could not attend Wednesday's meeting because of a medical issue. Dressel heads a subcommittee that has been looking at merit selection of judges.

    Gentile said the commission probably would meet again in late January.

    The commission heard a report Wednesday from Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, a nonpartisan group that seeks to keep the nation's courts fair and impartial.

    According to statistics presented by Brandenburg, 76 percent of voters believe that campaign contributions "have at least some influence on judges' decisions," and 26 percent of state judges agree.

    Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0264.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 22 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    UNBELIEVABLE wrote on December 04, 2007 10:48 AM: And a week later, I am FREE to post it.


    UNBELIEVABLE wrote on December 04, 2007 10:46 AM: What do we have here?

    "...The senator said similar proposals have advanced from the Legislature to the ballot twice before..."

    Here we have the LEGISLATURE.

    "...the concept has more support now than ever. The State Bar of Nevada and ...the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun -- have endorsed the plan, he said.

    Here we have the BAR and the NEWSPAPERS.

    "...each judge would be appointed by the GOVERNOR..."

    NOT!

    "...The series, titled "Juice vs. Justice," disclosed what APPEARED to be widespread conflicts of interest and favoritism by several Las Vegas judges..."

    APPEARANCES? THESE ARE DOCUMENTED FACTS!!!

    "...Those who receive at least 55 percent of votes would remain in office.."

    Is this on a 100% SCALE??? If so, 55% is an "F" on most report cards...except in VEGAS of COURSE.

    "...Gentile said she has not decided on her position. She asked whether supporters of the merit selection system can show that it produces better judges than a system of open elections..."

    The answer is NO!

    "...Paula Gentile, co-chairwoman of the commission, asked whether Raggio's plan would bar judges from raising money ... Raggio said it would not..."

    ENOUGH SAID???


    UNBELIEVABLE wrote on December 04, 2007 10:44 AM: They NEVER released my comment!!!


    I dunno wrote on November 29, 2007 08:33 PM: The PD/DA situation is in violation of constitutional law. They need to go back to when they first became exposed and review every case and correct constitutional errors in those cases in addition to revampimg and eliminating the conflicts of constitutional interests and indigent rights.

    But noooo... they would rather wait for the feds to take away their rights among other things.

    When the public defender is in trouble..the district attorney represents them. When the district attorney is in trouble, they retain an attorney. The tail's wagging the dog at the expense of taxpayers and indigents.

    Surely Just Us Cherry will solve the problem before the feds do..ya think?


    Mamamia wrote on November 29, 2007 08:32 PM: Listen up people of Nevada! Lets find out who the 26 percent of the judges who agree the system is "flawed" and elect them for their lifetimes. They're probably the ONLY honest judges in the entire state.


    SJR2 Sux wrote on November 29, 2007 04:51 PM: I don't think we should change one system for another system that includes the same "problems". I'm not going to give up my vote so that the good ol' boys club can appoint their friends to judicial positions. At least now I can look at the candidates and vote them up and down.

    Further, if anyone is worried about "juice and justice," the Nevada Supreme Court has already implemented rules on campaign contributions that limit the money given to judicial campaigns. The juice will still be there under SJR 2 and it will probably be even more prevalent because the Governor will likely select those individuals that have given to their campaign.

    This commission should really spend time looking to fix the PD/DA situation in this State rather than worry about how to get more of their cronies into better, more powerful positions.


    p wrote on November 29, 2007 04:48 PM: try #2


    pointtaken wrote on November 29, 2007 04:47 PM: Its the crooked man in the crooked house -tear it all down and start over


    nevada wrote on November 29, 2007 01:01 PM: Although Tuan Samahon is extremely brilliant.

    The deceased Craig Walton addressing ethics or lack thereof within the system would be more appropriate.

    (google him or serach the RJ for articles referencing Craig Walton)

    This isnt rocket science folks ... there is a propincity for corruption within the present system all the way to the supreme court which has to be eliminated.

    (Thus why the feds are investigating an number of public corruption related matters.)

    The existing regime with the conflicts of interests for the benefit of special interests needs to be driven out (in some cases prosecuted)

    New policies and procedures for judicial selection approved by voters and written in to Nevada law are essential to the process for replacing the old pretty much like routing out the Saddam regime in Iraq.

    Nevada is like a third world nation that wants to play in the big world but doesnt have the credentials.


    discosis wrote on November 29, 2007 11:38 AM: I am baffled that the RJ continues to ignore UNLV Law professor Tuan Samahon's insights on the issue. Professor Samahon has published, researched, and lectured on the issue of judicial selection in Nevada, yet the RJ never seeks to include his authoritative perspective in these stories. Another lost opportunity.


    Read All Comments