Comments (22) | Add a comment
Former U.S. Supreme Court justice backs appointing judges
-
JEFF SCHIED/LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor advocates for the merit selection of judges Tuesday in Las Vegas. » Buy this photo
Tools
Former Supreme Court Justice O'Connor discusses Question 1
Former Supreme Court Justice O'Connor discusses Question 1 (full version)
RELATED COLUMN
JOHN L. SMITH: Sandra Day O'Connor makes case for appointing judges
-
Ruth McGregor, retired chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, discusses her support of appointing new Nevada judges instead of electing them. JEFF SCHIED/LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL » Buy this photo
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Updated: Sep. 22, 2010 | 9:04 a.m.
Count retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor among those rallying to change voters' opinions on how judges take the bench in Nevada.
In Las Vegas on Tuesday to discuss a November ballot question that would give Nevada's governor the power to make initial judicial appointments, O'Connor compared Question 1 to what happened in her home state of Arizona 35 years ago.
"We had to convince voters," she said in front of scores of attorneys at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "They were not giving up their right to elect judges, so we had a lot of persuading to do."
O'Connor, who spoke to both the Review-Journal editorial board and members of the State Bar of Nevada, said the results have been "wonderful" since Arizona approved merit selection.
O'Connor, 80, did not ride into the sunset when she retired from the Supreme Court five years ago, 25 years after President Ronald Reagan appointed her as the first woman justice. Instead, she has traveled around the country advocating judicial reform. She hopes to see Nevada abolish contested judicial elections and adopt a merit selection system that would delay, not deny, voter input.
She and other prominent attorneys and business leaders in Nevada and across the country believe contested elections that require candidates and incumbents to do fundraising taint the judicial process.
Asked why judges should be vetted when other elected officials, such as U.S. senators, aren't, former Nevada Supreme Court Justice William Maupin said judges are the "last great barrier" between the power of the government and the citizenry.
Ruth McGregor, the recently retired chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, noted two of the three branches of government -- the legislative and the executive -- are representative forms of government that react to the people. But the judiciary is responsible to the Constitution and not to public opinion, she said.
Nevada is the only Southwestern state that still elects its judges, and efforts to move to a merit system have failed twice before. O'Connor hopes this third time is the charm.
She is joined in that desire by Maupin and two people who are at odds most of the time: Sen. Bill Raggio, R-Reno, and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas. The Las Vegas and Reno chambers of commerce and the Nevada State AFL-CIO also support Question 1.
They've all united as members of Nevadans for Qualified Judges, a group that will spend the six weeks leading up to Election Day trying to, as O'Connor put it, do a lot of persuading. The primary concern for Nevadans for Qualified Judges is one of impartiality: How can a judge be expected to remain objective and professional when parties who appear in their court are also large campaign contributors?
Maupin, chairman of the group, said he believes voters fundamentally misunderstand the process behind Question 1. He said the key provision of the "cultural change" is the retention election, which would give voters the right to give candidates an up or down vote two years after they are appointed.
The governor, who will be given three candidates to choose from by a commission that will thoroughly vet candidates, will make the appointment. Judicial appointees will be face a retention election after two years. Judges now face election every six years. The meetings in which recommendations are discussed will be open to the public.
Additionally, voters will be provided with the judge's performance evaluation roughly six weeks prior to the election, in which they must garner 55 percent of the vote to stay on the bench. Two-thirds of the states have some form of merit selection.
Cam Ferenbach, president of the State Bar of Nevada, said the complaint he most often hears is that the public is denied the vote. The retention election simply changes when the vote is made, he said.
Ferenbach also said Question 1 only impacts District Court and Supreme Court races. Justices of the peace and municipal judges still would be directly elected.
Clearly, voters are capable of electing people who become great judges, Maupin said. But they also can pick horribly unqualified candidates. Merit selection isn't foolproof, he said, but statistics from other states where it exists strongly suggest judges who ascend to the bench in this manner are more likely to perform better than their elected counterparts.
Put another way, Ferenbach mentioned former Clark County District Judge Elizabeth Halverson, who was removed from the bench following a series of high-profile scandals. She was elected because she was a good politician, he said, with eye-catching campaign signs, a good website and lots of donations.
"Which of those things makes you a good judge?" asked Ferenbach.
Contact Doug McMurdo at dmcmurdo@reviewjournal.com or 702-224-5512 or read more courts coverage at lvlegalnews.com.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal 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 use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
welcome to:（ http://www. be t t erwholesaler.us）
handbag $33
AF tank woman $17
who do all these has- beens think they are anyway? coming in here and telling us we're too stupid to elect judges, we're fixing to elect a racist governor, how did we ever do anything without them? i would like to see a wheelchair race between sandra o'connor and delores huerta to mexico, there's a country that could use a LIBERAL dose of their mothering.NO REIDS IN NOVEMBER! and NO TO MERIT SELECTION OF JUDGES!
WHO CARES WHAT THIS SENILE OLD BROAD SUPPORTS? ELECTIONS WORK JUST FINE, AND CUT OFF THE FRATERNITY OF JUDGES AND LAWYERS AT THE KNEES! IT'S CORRUPT ENOUGH ALREADY!
Report: Soros spent millions to 'undermine' judiciary
Campaign sought 'commissions' that avoided public input on candidates for judgeships.
REID this - - -
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=201409
The marxist billionaire George Soros has been spending Millions to support this concept in EVERY STATE In America.
PEOPLE - that should be ALL that you need to know Do NOT allow this to prevail. It's more of "the Elite" know best and will allow "legislation" from the bench. No Way! No How!
Horsefeathers...no need to spend a ton of money on an election.
Just start printing ALL the complaints on file at the Judical Commission. Voters would love to see how many times a judge has been caught for the conflict of interest. Make their records public, that's enough. No more sealing of records!
Given this statement: "The primary concern for Nevadans for Qualified Judges is one of impartiality: How can a judge be expected to remain objective and professional when parties who appear in their court are also large campaign contributors?"
My question is, whose contributing to the campaigns of those who are going to appoint those who go on the commission? There will ALWAYS be money involved, so if that's the main argument in favor, leave the system as is and let the people decide.
I believe we are better off with judges being elected. I don't want judges being appointed by some political hack from either side of the political spectrum. What is needed is a better way to evaluate and, if necessary, reject those who don't measure up.
Deepthaughts, your comment is a little on the ignorant side. "those panels are usually run by democrats", Dude you got to be kidding. THat is completely false with absolutely no fact. To even think something like that and honestly believe shows your closed mind. It would be very simple to have a bipartisan panel, although maybe that isnt a good idea any way.
HOMER: i believe deepthoughts is against the merit selection of judges.