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

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

News
May. 26, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

UNOPPOSED CANDIDATES: Judges file to restrict politicking

High Court starts to make rule barring fundraising

By ED VOGEL
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU

CARSON CITY -- The Supreme Court has launched the legal process that will lead to a rule barring judicial candidates from seeking political contributions when they draw no opponents.

Justices filed a petition with the court on Thursday that calls for blocking Supreme Court justice candidates, along with candidates for District Court and most lower court judicial positions from seeking contributions unless they draw challengers.

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: Phelps galpal gets exposure on Web
  • NORM: Robin Gibb in airport standoff
  • DOUG ELFMAN: Comedian says his arrest a joke
  • NORM: Web site shows life of Mazzeo
  • NORM: Knievel will try jump at Mirage
  • NORM: Wynn coveted cathedral's land
  • Las Vegas police use saturation strategy to cool 'hot spots' of crime
  • FATAL MAULING: Trigger for attack possibly food
  • Judge absolves juror who contacted killer
  • Mesquite casino to close temporarily



    • During hearings in the Legislature, Justice Mark Gibbons said the court would pass a rule preventing unopposed judges from seeking contributions if legislators passed the court-backed Assembly Bill 505. Gov. Jim Gibbons signed the bill into law May 18 following unanimous approval in both houses of the Legislature.

    The new law moves up the time in which people can file for judicial seats to the first two weeks of January.

    Under the previous law, judge candidates, like most other office holders, filed their candidacies during the first two weeks of May.

    Because of the May filing period, Mark Gibbons said judges now must begin asking for contributions early in the year on the assumption they will draw opponents. But in last year's election, 60 percent of judicial candidates ran without opposition.

    District Judge Michael Cherry, for example, raised $500,000 in contributions last year, although he did not draw any opposition in his run for the Supreme Court.

    "This bill was promoted by the Supreme Court and the judiciary throughout Nevada as a proactive way of helping to ensure that our judges are fair and impartial," Mark Gibbons said. "As long as judges are publicly elected, judicial candidates will have to raise campaign funds, but AB505 will take much of the campaign money out of judicial elections."

    Because unchallenged judges won't have to solicit contributions, they can spend their days on the bench conducting business, he added.

    The Los Angeles Times ran a series of stories last summer that were critical of Nevada judges for taking campaign contributions from lawyers who had cases before their courts.

    The Legislature also was considering a constitutional amendment to end the current system of electing judges. Supporters believe the amendment also will reduce the need for judges to seek contributions.

    The Assembly voted 30-11 late Friday for an amended version of SJR2. Under the proposal, judges initially would be appointed.

    But to remain in office they would have to stand for re-election at a retention election. Fifty-five percent of voters would have to support their remaining in office, or a new judge would be appointed.

    SJR2 must be approved by both houses of the Legislature again in 2009 and then backed by citizens in 2010.



    Leave Your Comment 2 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:

    Tony S. wrote on May 26, 2007 07:22 PM: bruce, you hit the nail on the head. The RJ will never look into Judge Cherry because the RJ's investigative reporters socialize with him. In fact, so does the LV Sun. Remember when reporter Sam Skolnick actually wrote a fact-based article about Judge Cherry, and Brian Greenspun wrote an editorial upbraiding Mr. Skolnick for writing a less-than-flattering article about Judge Cherry? Back to bruce's perceptive question - - what happened to the half-a-million dollars Justice Cherry raised?


    bruce wrote on May 26, 2007 12:12 PM: Let me get this right -- then District Judge Mike Cherry collected half-a-million bucks in campaign contributions in an unopposed race for Supreme Court, then, as Jusice Cherry, hits the bricks to lobby for the very law changing the filing deadlines for judicial elections which Justice Gibbons demands the Governor pass in exchange for the Supreme Court backing a bill to prevent judicial candidates from doing what Cherry did by prohibiting the collecting of campaign contributions in unopposed judicial elections -- AMAZING! ONLY IN NEVADA!

    Doesn't anybody question Cherry's involvement in seeking such a change in the law (as in he just might be trying to create a "fiction" of filing dates to cover his own backside), let alone ask what the heck he did with the half-million bucks collected for an unopposed run (walk) to the Supreme Court?

    Why is it that the RJ can discover and report every last detail of Elizebeth Halverson's life -- and that of her husband -- but cannot and will not ask such basic questions about the sacred cows on our Supreme Court, who apparent have embarked on a new course of openly lobbying congress and testifying for or against legislation which they may be called to rule upon the constitutionality or application of in the future? And just where does the Supreme Court get off engaging so heavily in the political process as to cut deals with the Governor on pending legislation? The Supreme Court is not supposed to have the kind of political leverage to ever engage in such dealings -- it is supposed to be as far above the politicl frey as possible.

    And all of us just have to sit back and watch it all because now even the courts are so openly consumed with politics and money that we are helpless to do anything about such blatant impropriety, especially when the RJ -- our only "free press" in the state -- gives it all "a pass."