Judicial terms of office typically run six years.

Gibbons set oral argument on the matter for July 1.

In the petition, Halverson, acting as her own lawyer, argues that the 2005 state law creating her new court seat and setting the length of the initial term at two years is unconstitutional. She is arguing that under the state constitution, the length of judicial terms is six years and her term does not expire until 2012.

Halverson has not responded to requests for comment on the petition.

A decision in favor of Halverson, who is running for re-election despite her suspension with pay imposed by the Judicial Discipline Commission, also could affect four other new judgeships created by the Legislature.

In the petition, Halverson states that judicial candidates were not made aware that the terms were for two years until the filing period began on May 1, 2006.

Legislators created two-year terms for new judge seats as a way to eventually ensure all judges receive pay increases at the same time.

Under the state constitution, pay increases may not be granted to judges and other public officials during their terms of office. The officials must be re-elected before they can receive pay increases.

That means some newly elected judges have received higher pay than their colleagues who have been on the bench longer. In creating new seats, legislators are trying to set up a system where all judges are elected at the same time.

District judges elected in November of this year will receive pay of $160,000 a year beginning in January, up $30,000.

Halverson is facing a June hearing by the Judicial Discipline Commission over allegations about her court conduct, and she could be removed from office regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in her case.

The commission will consider allegations that she slept during trials, mistreated staff members and held illegal communications with jurors.

Halverson has denied the allegations.

Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900.