Home Subscribe 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

Opinion
May. 07, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: 'Let's call the whole thing off'

Two years ago, Elizabeth Halverson ran for one of four newly created local district judgeships, knowing full well the seats had been created with the proviso that their first occupants would hold them for only two years before facing re-election.

The common wisdom was that the unusually brief initial term wouldn't matter much -- incumbents usually enjoy a vast advantage when it comes to fund-raising. Add the fact that they can pose for campaign ads wearing black robes, and refer to themselves as "Judge So-and-So" -- a privilege their challengers are denied -- and the re-election campaigns were seen as no big deal, virtual rubber-stamps.

After all, how much trouble can a new judge get into in a mere two years? Judge Halverson's picture may someday appear in legal dictionaries next to that question.

In a highly unusual move, the Judicial Discipline Commission suspended Judge Halverson from her duties, with pay, last July. The commission is scheduled to conduct a hearing next month into allegations that she slept during trials, mistreated staff members, and had improper communication with jurors.

Most Popular Stories
  • EDITORIAL: Ignoring the court
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'You've a gun on your T-shirt'
  • LETTERS: An incredible imbalance in salaries
  • ERIN NEFF: Gibbons and the sweetheart deal
  • LETTERS: Blame the doctor, not the messenger
  • LETTERS: No free lunch with green solutions
  • EDITORIAL: The death of common sense
  • FROM OUR READERS: Is it too late to make a deal?
  • LETTERS: Give up your car and ride a bike
  • EDITORIAL: It's satire, ladies and gentlemen



    • The commission could remove her from office. Even if it does not, Judge Halverson has drawn substantial opposition to her re-election bid, and is considered a long-shot to retain her seat.

    So Judge Halverson, acting as her own attorney, filed a lawsuit last week, asking the state Supreme Court to simply cancel this fall's election for her seat, allowing her to continue in office through 2012 without facing voters for another four years.

    The Legislature, maneuvering to equalize judicial pay under rules that forbid pay raises taking effect until a judge has returned to face the voters, violated the state constitution when it created the two-year terms, Judge Halverson argues. The state constitution says judicial terms should be six years, and her current term should thus not expire until 2012, she argues.

    It's a clever argument, more likely to please fans of legal fine print than voters, the need for whose approval Ms. Halverson now appears to dismiss as little more than an unnecessary inconvenience.

    Judge Halverson knew the term of office when she ran for it. Her challenge is tardy at best, and appears self-serving to say the least.

    Fearful that she may not fare well with voters in the fall, she asks the court to spare her the trouble.

    Of course, the means to spare herself the trouble of a fall campaign are already within her reach. Given that her first attempt to woo next fall's voters is to tell them their votes shouldn't matter, one has to wonder if she'll really risk facing them, at all.



    Leave Your Comment 19 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:

    Sad Summerlin wrote on May 08, 2008 08:53 PM: thetruth--- hope you still come back to read this...

    I agree with you that all your theories are possible. Most theories are based on the probable. I choose to believe in the more tangible, but that doesn't preclude me from enjoying a theory or two.

    Of course, Halverson is not the only judge to fall asleep on the bench and I would not make it her worst offense. However, any that do should be reprimanded regardless of seniority.

    I also have no problem with Halverson blowing the whistle or even investigating all the judges... perhaps we do need an independent 3rd party to come in and perform a detailed investigation...

    What I object to is someone trying to circumvent the law to prevent me from having the opportunity to make a choice at the ballot box... that's the crux of this article and the crux of my argument.

    Let's let Halverson present the case to the public and elect her on merit, not on a lawsuit. In the end, the power should rest with the people and not the judges... isn't that what we all want?


    beebeeround wrote on May 08, 2008 11:56 AM: MediaWatcher...

    Seems like you and I are the only one who get's it.

    This idea that Halverson knew it was a 2 year term has nothing to do with anything..

    That does not address WHY JUDGES who should be following the LAW are NOT.

    Why is it ok for judges to be above the law? They had NO RIGHT to approve these pay increases. They did not follow the constituion.

    WHy is Halverson wrong becasue she is blowing the whistle on them. She herself will lose the 30K increase.

    I think it is clear who has the integrity here. NOT Justice Cherry, Maupin and Siatta who approved these unconstituonal raises. Should they have not known the constituion and KNOWN it was illegal??? Why is this article focused on Halverson and not the fact that these judges are bilking an alrady Tax's buget by going in the back door to get more money in their pockets.

    This is what they want.. they want smokescreens and mirrors so they can do with they want without regard for what is truly the law. WHY?

    WHY are we not questioning them???


    thetruth wrote on May 08, 2008 11:47 AM: Re: SAD

    **I think this questions should be..do you support Judges who try to get raises without following the consitition and bypassing the People who have the right by the consitution to vote on these things.

    This is not about Halverson being ignorant or not... This is about why it is the Judges went this route to gain

    if you start believing that the commission lied about the facts against her, etc...

    Can you ensure they have not? Ileen Spoor was a disgruntled employee who has angry because she had to work overtime. An employee who was terminated. An employee who was fixing tickets for friends and family so they had reduced costs to THEIR tickets.

    The commission had two sets of people who worked for Halverson the SAME amount of time. Why did the commission choose to believe the one group who said they were mistreated rather than the group that said they were treated well and would work for Judge Halverson again.

    How did the commission decide who was telling the truth???

    "You would have all of us believe this big conspiracy theory plus position."

    Can YOU really rule out it is not a conspiracy? There is a core group of crooked Judges that do not like a Judge they cannot control.. You really believe they would not work together to get her removed?

    You seem like an itelligent person.. You can't believe that could not be possible.

    Do you really believe Halverson did anything different from any other judge? No other judge has EVER dozed on the bench for a moment?

    No other new judge make a mistake or misinterpert a law?

    Please... wake up. there are 2 sets of rules here.. one for judges that are liked.. another for Halverson. No doubt about it.


    To John F wrote on May 08, 2008 08:13 AM: Watch the Gage trial. You will see the missing link. The court orders are GOLD


    Sad Summerlin wrote on May 07, 2008 08:12 PM: thetruth - personal attacks aside, your words:

    "Halverson may have known the term was for 2 years.. but what if she did not know that the constituion said it should have been 6 ?? DUH..."

    So you are arguing that we should support this judge, who is supposed to interpret the rules and laws of our State.... but didn't read the State constitution or know that her term was supposed to be 6 and was being elected to fill only 2? You really think she was ignorant to the fact?

    If she was that ignorant, what other laws or "rules" was she ignorant to as she sat on her bench? I doubt you want to use ignorance as a defense in this argument, since our judges are expected to be on top of the law, not ignorant of the law.

    As to the other arguments... you throw the whole process into chaos if you start believing that the commission lied about the facts against her, brought forth witnesses that lied against her, and brought forth staff members that lied against her as well.

    You would have all of us believe this big conspiracy theory plus defend her on ignorance of the law, than to even think there might be have been a mistake in electing this judge to this position. So let's give the public the opportunity to elect again and perhaps right the wrong, or shall we continue to let this "ignorant" (your argument) judge sit in her chair.

    I am happy to entertain any facts and arguments as to why someone would want to "set up" this judge...

    "Sad" because people here can't debate without personal attacks. If we could have civil debate, I would be "Happy".


    douglas wrote on May 07, 2008 07:47 PM: either the judge was capable, sufficiently learned, and actually performed the assigned tasks commensurate with other judges... or she didn't.

    inefficient, lazy, dishonest, inept, asleep gubmit employees at any level do not deserve taxprayer paid wages.


    thetruth wrote on May 07, 2008 06:34 PM: RE: Sad Summerlin..

    Perfect name for you.. "SAD".

    Halverson may have known the term was for 2 years.. but what if she did not know that the constituion said it should have been 6 ?? DUH...

    She slept during trials? Really, 100% true? Who says? The Baliff?? LOL.. Ileen Ticket Fixer SPoor?? WHO??
    Have any other Judges ever fallen asleep? Are they still on the bench??

    Mistreated Staff(True)... Says who?
    The Baliff? Ileen Ticket Fixer Spoor?

    The inherited staff SAID they were mistreated. They were there for 3-4 months..

    The replacement staff was there 3-4 months.. Everyone of them said they were treated respectfully and well...

    Sounds to me like the old staff did not want to work. LOL.. you get used to 6 hour days and doing what you want, when someone comes in and expects you to work..it's no fun.

    Why should judges sneak in raises when the public should vote on them?

    Wake up. Halverson is not the problem..


    Sad Summerlin wrote on May 07, 2008 05:47 PM: Media -

    Thanks for the detail. It provides an interesting perspective on what is going on around the rest of the "judges", but does this really answer what is truly going on with Halverson?

    True or False:

    Before she ran for her seat, she knew that her seat was only for two years (TRUE)
    She slept during trials or did not pay 100% attention (TRUE)
    Mistreated staff (TRUE)

    How are those three items part of a grand conspiracy against this obviously targeted (sarcasm) victim of the political machine?

    Once again, if I take a job with a fixed term - I can't complain when the term ends and so does the job

    If I fall asleep at the job, I get suspended or terminated.

    If I abuse staff members, I get suspended or terminated...

    Once again... clear case of someone believing they need special treatment because they are an elected official...

    Way to go truth-biased RJ....


    RED ROOM wrote on May 07, 2008 02:33 PM: Helen Weils-

    Stop oinking. Just because you are old, stupid, ugly and a Repug doesn't mean that you have to keep oinking on these pages. Oink by yourself at home and leave the rest of us out of you sty....


    MediaWatcher wrote on May 07, 2008 02:27 PM: Your hatred of Halverson borders on the obsessive. The RJ editors need to seek professional help now. How else can one explain that the "Constitutionalists" at the RJ are ignoring the central issue of the Independent American Party and Halverson lawsuits that state that there is NO legal authority to change the Constitutional term of office and that it is being done to GOUGE the taxpayers of their MONEy. Look it up! The people of this state passed a constitutional amendment in 1968 (Article 6, Sec. 15) to stop the judges from raising their salaries. Judges don't like this so they have been manipulating terms and giving themselves "library commission" raises. It will cost over $480,000 for the seats that Halverson & Collegues occupy, and another $750,000 for the ones at Family Court that they want to raise in 2 years.

    Here is the kicker. The IAP filed suit in January- with press releases that were ignore. The government has written that IAP has no "standing" -"right to sue" as we are only taxpayers and that basically only one of the judges that would be getting the extra funds and manipulated terms could sue.

    Clearly, the judges that are getting extra money would not sue. Only Halverson had the courage to stand up and say this process of manipulating the Constitution is wrong. So she may be a lot of things, but Halverson is honest and a Constitutionalist.

    And as for the RJ - "she knew she had a 2 year term", what does that have to do with trying to get the greedy judges to comply with the constitution? Newspapers sue regularly to get information that the government doesn't want them to have. So nosuits for them as they knew?


    Read All Comments