Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

News
May. 19, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Saitta nets a low tally on judge survey

By ALAN MAIMON
REVIEW-JOURNAL
More Info
Complete results including survey methology, summary of retention scores, questionnaire and more

Lawyers have a clear opinion about the Nevada Supreme Court: One of the justices is not like the others.

Justice Nancy Saitta received by far a lower retention rating than any of her peers in the 2008 Judicial Performance Evaluation survey, winning the approval of only 45 percent of respondents.

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

Most Popular Stories
  • NORM: Penthouse wants piece of the Strip
  • RAMPAGE ENDS IN SUICIDE: Man runs amok in Las Vegas
  • ROBBERY-HOMICIDE CASE: Juror sent flirtatious messages
  • Father mourns his daughter
  • NORM: 'Joe the Plumber' too booked for LV
  • Judge asks court to release son arrested after crash that killed girl
  • NORM: Strip club owners, 'Vinny' part ways
  • Police ask: Are there others?
  • Anger over cuts reaches fever pitch
  • Working beneath Lake Las Vegas



    • The next lowest retention rating belonged to Justice James Hardesty, who scored 26 points higher than Saitta. All the justices but Saitta got retention scores in the 70s and 80s. The average retention score for the seven justices, including Saitta, was 74 percent.

    Chief Justice Mark Gibbons, the only justice running for re-election this year, led the pack with an 86 percent retention score, the same total he got two years ago. Retiring Justice William Maupin was a close second with an 84 percent favorable rating.

    Lawyers were asked to rate justices "more than adequate," "adequate," or "less than adequate" on nine job-related attributes ranging from application of the law to courteousness. For every justice except Saitta, the lawyers' ratings averaged more than 50 percent "more than adequate." But in Saitta's case, the average score was only 32 percent "more than adequate," and 33 percent "less than adequate."

    Saitta, who didn't respond to written questions about her performance evaluation, saw a precipitous decline in her results compared to two years ago, when she was a Clark County district judge.

    In 2006, 70 percent of respondents favored retaining her. Later that year, she won a six-year term to the Supreme Court, ousting then-Chief Justice Nancy Becker in a bitter and expensive race.

    Of more than 300 attorneys who evaluated Saitta, the largest number rated her most deficient in the area of properly applying the law. Five out of seven justices got their lowest marks in this category, while two were criticized most often for having a perceived bias toward parties or attorneys in a case.

    Saitta, the only woman on the state's highest court, was scolded by some attorneys for recent extra-judicial missteps.

    In written comments, several attorneys chastised Saitta for inflating her academic credentials on an election Web site. Saitta listed herself as having been an associate professor in political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas when, in reality, she was a part-time instructor at the university.

    "When her résumé is stripped of falsehoods, there is nothing left but her robe," one lawyer wrote.

    Some lawyers questioned Saitta's legal competence, but none cited specific rulings that bothered them.

    In contrast to their comments about Saitta, lawyers were profuse in their praise of Gibbons.

    One wrote, Gibbons is "always very prepared, thoughtful, smart and on top of both the issues and the record. One of the best Supreme Court justices that we have ever had in this state."

    Gibbons, in an interview, said he was pleased about his positive evaluation.

    "I look at it as a vote of confidence from the people who responded," he said.

    Last year was an active one for the state Supreme Court, especially with respect to the creation of special commissions.

    The court formed panels to examine policies for sealing some civil court records from public view and to study public defender systems in the state. The work of both commissions led to state Supreme Court orders that mandated changes to the status quo.

    The state Supreme Court also amended rules to ban judicial candidates without opposition from collecting campaign contributions. This step was taken after the Legislature moved up the filing period for most judicial candidates to the first two weeks in January.

    Looking ahead, Gibbons said he hoped to continue working to bolster public confidence in the judiciary.

    "We want to make the court more user-friendly and responsive to the public," Gibbons said.

    Contact reporter Alan Maimon at amaimon@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0404.

    MEMBERS OF THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT
    NAME AGE NEXT
    ON BALLOT    		 RETENTION
    SCORE
    Michael Cherry 63 2012 78
    Michael Douglas 60 2012 77
    Mark Gibbons 57 2008 86
    Jim Hardesty 59 2010 71
    A. William Maupin 61 Retiring 84
    Ron Parraguirre 48 2010 80
    Nancy M. Saitta 57 2012 45


    Leave Your Comment 24 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:

    chw wrote on June 30, 2008 09:25 AM: Nancy Saitta is a perfect example of the Crooked Nevada Legal System... The recent convictions of Local Politicians is the tip of he iceberg!! just ask Buffalo Jim Barrier?? Oh thats right, we cant ask him any longer... Nevada is a cesspool! With Nancy Saitta floating on top.


    anonymous wrote on May 20, 2008 08:30 AM: The truth is, Judge Saitta was rated adequate by 67% of those polled!

    Nancy L Downey should be sued for Defamation of character, her research, and methods for this poll are a JOKE!


    Dave wrote on May 19, 2008 09:53 PM: Nancy Saitta is the biggest joke in Nevada Supreme Court history. She must go.


    Dan wrote on May 19, 2008 02:00 PM: While in the eight district Saitta was the most over turned judge during a study period by the University of Illinois Ubana. She was the worst in district court why would anyone think anything would change by promoting her to the Supreme Court?

    Wasn't Rory Reid urging Saitta to run for congress last go around? Didn't a Reid back Dario Herrera for a Congressional run a while back (before prison)?

    Makes you wonder if the outcome will be the same. HMMMM


    slm wrote on May 19, 2008 01:46 PM: MediaWatcher...I couldn't agree with you more!!! Waited a whole year to get into a Nevada court only for the Judge to have to recuse himself for a conflict of interest. Judge claimed who couldn't remember what committee he served on.


    howard kim wrote on May 19, 2008 01:44 PM: Since the Nevada Supreme Court is a collective brain that delibrates as one unified body (in most cases unless someone openly write a dissent), how do these attorneys know which justice(s) misapplied the law by reading an order or opinion?

    Hmmm...

    It would be interesting to find out how many of the 300 attorneys had their cases before the Court during the last year.


    One juiced up judge wrote on May 19, 2008 12:56 PM: Nancy Saitta


    Many Litigants wrote on May 19, 2008 12:45 PM: MediaWatcher, We all have the same Nancy Saitta experience.

    Nancy would make an excellent cell mate for Erin Kenny. She even makes Erin look good.


    MediaWatcher wrote on May 19, 2008 12:00 PM: Gee, the Media vendetta on Saitta was only a couple of articles. Imagine what Halverson's scores will be like especially when these "lawyers" will vote what they read and not what they experience. Maybe the RJ should ask actual people in the court such as litigants and jurors and not those who either have not been in the courtroom or who have a a vested interest in the outcome. Otherwise, we are reading nothing more than a rumor contest.


    Low is a kind way of describing Nancy Saitta wrote on May 19, 2008 11:34 AM: One needs to look no further than the case of Anya Duke. Google Anya Duke and read for yourself. There are to many cases that Saitta has ruled on that follow the same format.

    Saitta dismissed this case on a NEVADA LAW THAT DOES NOT EVEN EXIST.

    In Saitta's own documented words she has said ,"There are always in law, um,
    When I was a young attorney my senior attorney told me it doesn't matter what happens in law, there's always another way to get where you need to get, and whether it's the appellate process or some other.....there are other ways".

    Legislating from the bench and improperly applying the law is a specialty of Nancy Saitta.

    Ruling with no subject matter jurisdiction is another Saitta tactic.

    In another case Saitta did everything within her power to make it impossible to get to the Supreme Court. Now she sits on it?

    Nancy Saitta has no problem violating your civil rights including due process. And doesn't even flinch when she is doing her dirty work. Nancy Saitta's rulings should be looked at by an independent party.

    Many can verify that stepping into Saitta's court room is like entering the twilight zone. Her actions are so deliberate and blatant that you stand dumbfounded.

    Nancy Saitta's reign of terror needs to come to an end. Nancy Saitta needs to be held accountable for her actions and the harm she has inflicted on others.

    Justice delayed is justice denied.




    Read All Comments