Bixler Declines to Recognize "Bar Years"

Justice of the peace candidate Amber Lynn Candelaria lost her bid to stay on the June primary election ballot Wednesday after District Court Judge James Bixler held that NRS 4.010 was "convoluted," but not unconstitutional.

Candelaria was represented pro bono by Kolesar & Leatham's Alan Lefebvre and Lewis & Roca's Dan Polsenberg, who plan to take Bixler's decision to the Supremes on appeal. They argued, inter alia, that the language of the statute was vague and the Nevada Legislature should have defined the term "years" ... whatever the hell that means.

The pertinent part of NRS 4.010 reads:

2. A justice of the peace must have a high school diploma or its equivalent as determined by the State Board of Education and:

(a) In a county whose population is 400,000 or more, a justice of the peace in a township whose population is 100,000 or more must be an attorney who is licensed and admitted to practice law in the courts of this State at the time of his or her election or appointment and has been licensed and admitted to practice law in the courts of this State, another state or the District of Columbia for not less than 5 years at any time preceding his or her election or appointment.

Seems like "licensed and admitted to practice law ... for not less than five years" is pretty clear to us.

Candelaria, a Boyd graduate who was admitted to practice in October of 2006, argued that she had five years experience based upon our State Bar's method of calculating bar dues. In her column yesterday, JAM responded to this argument quite nicely:

To rely on a bill from an organization that merely wants to squeeze every last dime of dues out of an attorney is silly.

Amen to that, Sista!

Bixler agreed with JAM, but put it a bit softer, stating “I’m an expert at strained construction, but if I adopted what you said I should be run over.” Bixler also noted that the fact the State Bar charges attorneys for an entire year instead of on a pro-rated basis “doesn’t matter. The day you are admitted is your [attorney] birthday.”

We understand the argument. In fact, we're pretty sure that Candelaria's "bar years" argument was initially posted in the comments of our humble little rag. However, is it really necessary to take this matter to our Supreme Court so that a woman with next to no legal experience can have a chance to become a judge? All meritorious legal arguments aside, isn't that law there to protect us?

Thanks to all who sent this in!

(LVRJ; JAM; Case Detail)