Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS TwitterTwitter 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
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
News
Jul. 04, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Halverson's election lawsuit rejected

Judge, facing judicial discipline, must run for re-election

By ED VOGEL
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
More Info

CARSON CITY -- The Supreme Court rejected Thursday embattled District Judge Elizabeth Halverson's claim that she should not have to face re-election this November, two years after being elected to the bench.

The court voted 7-0 to throw out Halverson's lawsuit in which she claimed she and District Judges James Bixler, Susan Johnson and William Potter should not have been required to file for re-election this fall because their terms shouldn't end until 2012.

Most Popular Stories
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer
  • FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade
  • NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges
  • NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch
  • Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty
  • DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family
  • Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop
  • NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat
  • UNLV sacks football coach Sanford




    • Halverson was elected to a two-year term in 2006.

    The 2005 Legislature created four new judicial seats and set their initial terms at two years, to be followed by six-year terms in subsequent elections. The shorter terms were set so that all district judges would be on the same election cycle.

    In the lawsuit, Halverson, acting as her own lawyer, argued that the law creating these seats was unconstitutional because the state constitution sets district judge terms at six years.

    But the Supreme Court, looking back at a decision made in 1871, said the constitution permits shorter terms when the intent is to have all district judges run on the same election cycle.

    Halverson could not be reached for comment. She has been suspended from the bench with pay since last summer.

    She earns $130,000 a year. Her pay will increase to $160,000 a year if she is re-elected in November.

    The 50-year-old judge will appear before the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission on Aug. 4-8 in response to a complaint accusing her of mistreating her court staff, sleeping through trials and having improper communications with jurors. She could be removed from office.

    In the Thursday decision, the Supeme Court justices took the unusual step to point out in a footnote that Halverson had filed a complaint against them with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the length of her term. Halverson, according to the court, failed to inform the justices of the complaint when she appeared before them June 13 during oral arguments in the case.

    The court was served with the EEOC complaint on June 23.

    "We nevertheless determine that we have a duty to sit and decide this matter," stated the court in the decision written by Justice Jim Hardesty.

    In the decision, the Supreme Court mentioned that when the state constitution was adopted in 1864, terms of judges were set at four years.

    Their decision read like a Nevada history lesson.

    Justices pointed out that the Legislature in 1867 had created a new judge's position in which the term was two years initially, and after that period would be a four-year term.

    That judge, Charles A. Leake, died before the completion of his two-year term and Gov. Henry Blasdel appointed his successor, John Gorin. When Gorin was defeated in the election in 1870, Blasdel refused to vacate the office, claiming the constitution mandated four-year terms.

    But the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that "the framers of the constitution'' intended for the election of district court judges to occur during the same election cycle.

    Quoting directly from the 137-year-old decision, justices stated "it was deemed desirable to have the election of these judges occur at the same time throughout the state to prevent the expiration of one term at one time and another at another time."

    In 1999 and again in 2005, the Legislature created new judgeships in Clark County and set their terms initially at two years, and thereafter at six years.

    The court stated Thursday that the Legislature wanted shorter terms so the new judges would run at the same time in subsequent elections as other district judges.

    Contact Review-Journal Capital Bureau chief Ed Vogel at evogel @reviewjournal.com or 775- 687-3901.

    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 14 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.

    NLV Resident wrote on July 06, 2008 12:47 AM: What I want to know is what her complaint to the EEOC could possibly contain. She is an elected official and she is facing removal according to statute. She is not an employee of the Supreme Court or the District Court, as the Supreme Court ruled when Kathy Hardcastle banned her from the building. So, why did the EEOC even accept her complaint? And why hasn't the Supreme Court scanned and uploaded her complaint on its website? After all, as an elected official, we should be entitled to read her complaint against the Supreme Court.


    Bill wrote on July 04, 2008 07:36 PM: Mrs. Halverson, You are a bad person AND a bad judge. With all the taxpayer money you've wasted/collected, I'd like to file a crime report against you for Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses.


    Gary G wrote on July 04, 2008 12:45 PM: Mrs Halverson. You are not a bad person, you are just not a good judge. Your lack of judgement has put you in this position, not discrimination or a vendetta from others who hate fat people. Please take some time to get healthy and evaluate what you can do to use your intellect. I have watched snips of your arguments on television and you
    are not without talent, you are just not the right person for this very important job.


    Darrin wrote on July 04, 2008 11:35 AM: ...imagine sitting next to her on a plane...


    Mary wrote on July 04, 2008 10:36 AM: Somebody ought to call Sea World. It appears as if one of their killer whales found its way to Las Vegas.


    Darrin wrote on July 04, 2008 09:53 AM: DUMP this EXCESS BAGGAGE!
    Oh, and happy 4th, everybody!


    Nancy wrote on July 04, 2008 09:39 AM: Greg - bless you - sums it up pretty darn well! I mean at what point is enough enough? I still want to know who the braintrust at the RJ was that decided the RJ should endorse her? I think we really really really need to take up a collection and give that person internet access so they can maybe, oh, you know, do a basic search that would have shown the judgment in California, the felony husband, the problems with the county and her home - you know, that kinda thing! Unqualified is unqualified and that doesn't change with size! (Special thanks for the turn me to stone line - I'm still chuckling).


    Greg McFarlane wrote on July 04, 2008 09:07 AM: This cetaceous pantload used the phrase "heavy, but healthy" to describe herself when she ran for office.

    Let's see..can't walk, can't breathe on her own, can't stay awake. If that's healthy, what would her definition of "unhealthy" be?

    This woman spent 9 years (8 years longer than recommended) as a law clerk, a job intended for freshly minted law school graduates. She then complained that she was replaced by someone "younger and prettier", which shows a whole different set of issues that she clearly has. She's so full of self-loathing about what she's become that all but one of the photos of her on her website were taken when she was 8 years old.

    She subjected her underlings to the most demeaning acts imaginable, massaging her feet that I fear might instantly turn me to stone if I ever looked at them. She thinks her own private security doesn't have to obey courtroom laws, she married a 10-time felon (the only man who would possibly pay attention to her), and her filth-laden house got the attention of Animal Control because her dogs were swimming in pool water the color of diet Coke.

    But if you think she's incompetent, clearly it's because you have a problem with fat people. Deep down inside, she's just doing her best. Okay.


    David wrote on July 04, 2008 08:55 AM: By her own interpretation, she should be dismissed on the grounds her position was created against the terms of the constitution. She can't have it both ways. Either get out and relingquish her position or face re-election come November.


    Amazed wrote on July 04, 2008 08:41 AM: It is clear that the mentality of those that have posted is extremely low. I don't see any of you demanding Saitta get of the bench for legislating from the bench.

    All of you focus on Halverson's looks. Do you know how bad Saitta would look if it were not for all the
    Nips and Tucks?


    Read All Comments