Judge Halverson's attempt to constitutionally prevent the citizens of Nevada from voting her out of her judicial seat because she is a national embarassment has failed. The Nevada Supreme Court voted to throw out Halverson's lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of judicial positions being created that last less than six years because "the framers of the constitution'' intended for the election of district court judges to occur during the same election cycle. (the opinion is available here).The Review-Journal reports:
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 . . .On an even potentially odder note, apparently Halverson is willing to try anything to stop the voters from voting to oust her. After appearing at oral argument and realizing the Supreme Court was not enthusiastic about her ruse [whoops, I meant lawsuit] to keep her seat on the bench, Halverson filed a complaint against the Nevada Supreme Court with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the length of her term.
[T]he 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.
According to the Review-Journal:
The Justices noted in a footnote that Halverson failed to inform them 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.
Nice. At this rate, after the election, she'll storm her old courtroom with her hired bodyguards and refuse to leave.
Did LE take a vacation?
ReplyDeleteOne reader's take on the Constitutional term limit question:
ReplyDeleteHere is what the constitution says: If a majority of such voters votes approval of such amendment, the Secretary of State shall publish and resubmit the question of approval or disapproval to a vote of the voters at the next succeeding general election in the same manner as such question was originally submitted.
The phrase "same manner" means according to the same procedure, not in the same form. The 1996 question was submitted according to the same procedure as in 1996. The form was slightly altered to give the people more choices and explanations, but the constitutional requirement does not refer to "the same form", it uses the word "manner", which refers to "the same procedure". If there is any doubt, or the word is vague and ambiguous, then doubt must be decided in favor of the interpretation that favors procedural compliance.
Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition) defines the term: Manner. A way, mode, method of doing anything; or mode of proceeding in any case or situation. Custom and Usage.
Ballentine's Law Dictionary (third edition) also defined the term: Manner. Way of performing or executing; method; custom; habitual practice. People ex rel Ahrens v English 139 Ill 622, 629(1892).
People ex rel Ahrens v English 139 Ill 622, 629 says, "The word 'manner' is usually defined as meaning way of performing or exercising; method; custom; habitual practice, etc.", and the court applied it to the case at hand as meaning, "the usual, ordinary, or necessary details required for the holding of the election".
The term does not mean the same exact "form", and no common sense construction of the term would reach a different conclusion. It refers to custom and usage, the ordinary procedure common to two different instances. If the constitution meant "in the same form" it would have said "in the same form" or the common phrase"in the same manner and form" (Latin: Modo et forma). The phrase "same manner" is much vaguer and refers a method or process, unlike the phrase "same form", and it is no wonder the court in 1996 ruled exactly the way it did.