The LV Sun posted an article yesterday entitled "Judge who? The debate over appointment versus election." As you've probably guessed, the article is about Question 1 on November’s ballot, which would amend the constitution to change how Nevada selects judges. And our girl Liz is, of course, the poster child.From the LV Sun:
The ballot measure would create a Judicial Selection Commission. Supreme Court nominees would be chosen by the chief justice; four attorneys appointed by the State Bar’s Board of Governors; and four nonattorneys appointed by the governor.
District Court judges would be appointed by the same panel, plus two attorneys who are residents of the judicial district appointed by the State Bar and two lay residents of the district appointed by the governor.
This unquestionably concentrates a lot of the power in the hands of the governor and the State Bar.
But critics of the current process say it’s a better alternative to what is a broken system.
What do you guys think - this may be a "better alternative," but is it the best alternative?
The truly scary part (to us anyway) is the tiny poll off to the side of the article which, at the time of our reading, was about 50/50 for appointed/elected judges. Yikes.
Here's a typical comment on the article:
The answer isn't to punish the voters who go to the trouble to research the candidates by replacing their right to vote with an appointment system. The answer is to devise a system that makes it easier for voters to perform research on the candidates.As for the District Courts, "Motion denied/granted" would not make for a very insightful read, and we have no idea what "et al" could be. Lunch orders? Hours of operation?
Why aren't court opinions et al available on the internet?
As for the Supremes, we're pretty sure their opinions are made public ... we just wish more people would actually read them.
What is the real problem here and how do we fix it, commenters? Do you think this ballot initiative is the answer?
(LV Sun)
How about amending the Rules of Professional Conduct to allow candidates to actually comment on their opponent's judicial record, biases and foibles in a meaningful way. As to publishing decisions, I believe the average citizen would benefit from a "reversal list" and "over-the-top" list of each judges antics. Finally, while we occasionally get a District Court Judge elected directly to the bench from out of the blue, it seems like we already have an "appoint with later confirmation vote" system in place. I believe about a third, and maybe more, of the current DC bench were appointed, including some who I consider to be good and others who are terrible. Add in those who started off by being appointed to a lower court; were retained there by the voters and allowed to build a name; and later ran for DC as though they had real experience, and the number of judges "appointed then later retained by vote" number goes up substantially. Don't see how bad elected judges or bad appointed judges justifies changing the state constitution.
ReplyDeleteGreat quote from the article:
ReplyDelete“If you wanted to design a system that would tempt everyone to be corrupt, you would design the system we have right now,” said Al Marquis, a Las Vegas real estate and commercial lawyer for 35 years. When asked if he thought the outcomes of cases have been influenced by campaign donations to judges, he said, “I have no doubt about that.”
That is the epitome of telling it like it is. The manner in which money is raised by judicial candidates is at the heart of the problem. The money is raised/donated solely so that the "favor" can be repaid later. Anyone who thinks differently is kidding himself or disgustingly uninformed.
If you create a system that scrutinizes a judge too much, it is going to scare off the people who would make a good judge. A solid 25 year practitioner (who is definitely not putting on the robe for the paycheck) would say screw that job if everything they did was put under a microscope.
ReplyDeleteGood point, 8:53. But the current system so grossly underscrutinizes that we end up with half-wit judges with completely undistinguished legal careers. Stefany Miley.
ReplyDeleteMost of the distinguished 25-year practitioners of whom you write can probably withstand the scrutiny. And the ones who cannot probably should not be judges on our courts anyway.
Unfortunately, this is one of the issues which contributes to Nevada's "podunk" reputation. The vast majority of states have simply evolved to embrace the notion that direct election of judges is wrong and leads to really bad outcomes. We can "whistle past the graveyard" all we want by saying that Nevadans are independent-minded and like to vote for their judges, but this system makes us a laughing stock.
ReplyDeleteCritics of the Missouri plan may argue that it leads to "judiciary by clique", but what's the alternative? Uninformed voters who elect people because they are female, have an hispanic surname, or happen to be related to Joseph Bonaventure, Sr. somehow. You want the best of the legal profession on the bench? Let the legal profession decide who gets there.
"half-wit judges with completely undistinguished legal careers"
ReplyDeleteJesse Walsh
Valorie Vega
Michael Villani
Nancy Saitta
Michelle Leavitt
Funny how Jesse (and/or Deputy Diamond) always makes the top of these lists.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a consensus that she is both biased and incompetent. But, with our current system she was reelected by a mass of voters who have no idea what a good judge is or does (or isn't of doesn't).
9:06 hit it on the nose.
IMHO an appointment committee would result in a better bench.
I've often considered a viable alternative to the Missouri Plan or the newfandangle "Nevada Plan" is to have a selection committee similar to those proposed and have them select 2-3 "candidates" to be qualified for the position and then be put to a public vote.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that we satisfy the needs of all - thinning the herd to those whom are qualified and competent to serve on the bench as well as affording the voter's their ability to elect the judge.
Regardless of which way we end up going, I can't see that there is an perfect solution, the law is imperfect in its nature, as will the judiciary always be as well.
Who amongst the 10-20 year lawyers would make a good judge?
ReplyDeleteMark Hutchinson
ReplyDeleteUh oh,
ReplyDeleteEveryone's favorite, blue tooth sporting, douchbag is back in the news. (And yes, he's once again posing with that stupid device on his face)
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/24/righthaven-ceos-law-firm-merger/
Certainly an appointment system is not perfect. And any "system" can be beaten by unscrupulous/malicious abusers. The point of the new law is correctly identified by Mr. Marquis: to get rid of the current system that incentivizes quid pro quo decisionmaking.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, Justice O'conner has given her support for the new law (a fact the LV Papers seem to ignore). See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/opinion/23oconnor.html
Apparently, Dickinson Wright sees business potential in the growing "nuisance lawsuit" subspecialty. They should rake in millions of dollars, one $2,500 settlement at a time.
ReplyDelete@9:10
ReplyDeletePlease consider the following in your support of the appointment system:
Jesse Walsh - initially appointed by Mayor Goodman to muni court and parlayed into District Court
Valorie Vega - appointed by Guinn
Michael Villani - appointed by Gibbons
Nancy Saitta - initially appointed by Mayor Jones to muni court and parlayed into District Court
Michelle Leavitt - appointed by Guinn
It seems that there are more than a few poster children for the anti-appointment side. As you can see, one major problem is how to get rid of the bad apples, whether appointed or elected, and the Marquis proposal really does nothing to address that issue.
@10:27
ReplyDeleteI think the Sun was just looking for an excuse to run that photo of Mr. Bluetool again.
Halverson (and a host of other sitting judges) are testament to the deficiencies of judicial elections. Any fool with a law license, a few years “experience” (meaning having held the license for a specified number of years, regardless of whether having any substantive experience) and a few signatures on a petition can run for judge. At least with the appointment process, presumably the applicant will have to submit a lengthy and detailed application, provide references and be subject to an investigation and interview process. While not a perfect system (and I doubt there is any “perfect” system), it is light years beyond the current election process for judges.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, any competent attorney (other than those employed by the public sector) suffers a pay cut as a judge. Many attorneys with successful practices do not want to risk alienating their clients by publicly running for judge. If an attorney runs for judge not only is the time devoted to campaigning and fundraising a significant impact on revenue production, but many clients may think twice about sending new matters to that attorney during the pendency of the campaign. If the attorney ultimately is not elected, he/she has suffered a loss of business. That is a significant disincentive for a practicing attorney to run for judge.
My concern with the proposed Judicial Selection Commission is that other than the Chief Justice as a “tie-breaker” the Governor appoints ½ the Commission. While politics will always play a role, that seems to invite more politicizing of the selection process. That being said, I believe that the proposed system is far better than the current system of electing judges.
Troy Fox is a great judge
ReplyDeleteI'm still confuse.
ReplyDeleteSo, does Steven Gibson breathe through his headset or something? I don't get his brand of humor.
The ticket wacker will wack all of the defendants off - wack wack wack. Wack in the morning, wack at night, wack in the evening, everything is all right
ReplyDeleteI am still convinced that Gibson is hiding something behind that bluetooth.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if those that would have judges seated through appointed are also those that complain about the ineffectual nature of those appointed to the disciplinary boards. In the end would the pool of potential appointees get better if we change the system? I for one am not going to vote to change something just to change it. The outcome has to demonstrably better and I don't see that here.
ReplyDeleteFinally, who gives a rats ass if we are, allegedly, a laughing stock amongst are peers from out of state. I doubt they spend time thinking about us so we should do the same when it comes to them.
The ticket wacker gives a rats ass! His wackability rating is high on the totem pole.
ReplyDeleteHow will this systematic change affect my current Bribe-accounts payable? Also, there needs to be a designated time during the day for wacking so that we can all wack simultaneously, instead of the usual intermittent wackings day-to-day. "Why? I'll tell you why. Beacaue it don't make sense."
ReplyDeleteThe appointment system is just as political as the current system with less transparency. Instead of campaigning to the entire community, candidates will have to kiss the asses of the committee and governor in order to "win" an appointment. Furthermore, instead of voters picking candidates because they are a woman, minority etc... the appointment process will involve a small group of people doing the same thing.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible the quality of judges will go up but that argument assumes that the people in the position of selecting candidates would know what quality looked like....or even cared.
Thread hiwacked.
ReplyDeletew-w-w-wack breaker!
Halvorsen is the new wack-judge?
Wacking is blind, unbiased, and perpetual truth.
@9:06,
ReplyDeleteYep, because nothing says "backwoods hickville" like a bunch of good ol' boys picking other good ol' boys to be the judges.
My two cents: the system is not broken, so don't fix it. NY judges are appointed, and now the bench is full of complete morons who rose through the Democratic Party machine - esp lots of dumb broads and blacks.
ReplyDeleteAs a general rule, if it's done in NY, don't do it here. That goes for taxes, too.
I have been in a state which appoints the judges. Talk about political, you have no chance unless you have juice.
ReplyDeleteI would agree to a plan if (1) candidates were given tests to measure their level of legal knowledge; (2) the selection committee was made up of citizens only, and (3) each judge would run for a retention and must get 60%.
I believe this would really cull the herd and yet we could get some really good judges, more than what we have now, although we must admit we do have some really good judges, but this number could be improved.
An appointment system sounds like a power grab by those filthy Boyd grads. Screw them and their mental midgetry.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem with Democracy. Once you have afforded the populace the right to vote on judges, how are you ever going to take it away from them, no matter how meritorious the proposal?
ReplyDeleteThe ballot question is doomed to failure.
Comedienne Kathleen Madigan even does a bit on this topic:
"Why do I get to vote on judges? The only one I know is Judge Judy, and her name is never on the ballot."
I have one -- and only one -- principle guiding me in the voting booth:
ReplyDeleteWWHD?
What would Halverson do?
I have one principle guiding me too.
ReplyDeleteWWTFD
What would Troy Fox do?
2:53 PM: WWHD? Probably have Solo and the wookie put to death and then try to eat a frying pan.
ReplyDeleteTroy Fox would wack them with his thick sweaty wand.
ReplyDeleteA question which I often pose to myself when faced with a choice and one which has brought much enjoyment and some interesting opportunities my way, is WWCSD? In other words, What Would Charlie Sheen Do?
ReplyDeleteThe next time you find yourself on the horns of a dilmena or at a fork in the road, ask yourself WWCSD and see what sort of adventure you embark upon. Make sure to pack plenty of condoms or other birth control, two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers . . . and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.
@3:26
ReplyDeleteSo all the transients carrying backpacks downtown are covered for life's little ups and downs?
WWTFD?
ReplyDeleteAs a Boyd grad, recognize that an appointment system is a perfect power grab and illicit Hutchinson and Steffen to create billboards featuring himself wearing a Bluetooth headset.
As a Boyd grad, sir, you are too stupid to realize your potential for evil. God help us if they ever genetically engineer an intelligent Boyd grad. It would mean Armageddon.
ReplyDelete@3:26 Thanks for the Fear and Loathing Hunter S. Thompson reference. I think I was somewhere in the desert near Barstow when the drugs first began to take effect. I'm thinking @4:15 is a couple of generations too young.
ReplyDeleteIf it passes, I'm starting an anti-retention PAC. Judge passes you off, donate to me and I'll run the ads and get them removed from the bench. Can you see the Angle-Reid'esque ads now? I can liken Miley to Halverson to Del Vecchio and get them booted.
ReplyDeleteJust write the donation checks. I'll be the Adam Stokes of judicial campaigns.
I would vote for brett favre. The silver fox ranks higher on the scrotum pole than leavitt, miley, troy fox or bluetool gibson. Plus, he doesn't have pointy elbows or a sharp collar bone!
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't the candidates vetted by our bar associations? Where is the State Bar of Nevada? More importantly for us locally, where is the Clark County Bar Association? Why isn't the public hearing from the CCBA when a incompetent comes along and runs for office? Why can't the CCBA come up with a criteria for their recommendation? Wait! The CCBA is us!
ReplyDeleteCock! Balls! Ass!
ReplyDelete9:10 wrote: "Where is the state bar?
ReplyDeleteYou idiot. The state bar board of governors is the last group of 'tards I want having a say in our judicial selection process. Remember that mental giant Bambi Candelaria who filed for judge, but didn't know how to count to 5years, as required by the statute? She's one of your illustrious board of governors.
as someone who has been in front of all the listed "questionable" judges I agree that they are not great. I don't really have anything negative to say about villani but is the election process better? Bell? Holland johnson? It's a crapshoot. At least the committee has some vetting criteria.
ReplyDeleteYour a boob. The only thing you've been infront of is my shaft.
ReplyDeletethe real problem is that a few lawyers have amassed huge monies to elect judges they want not independant competent judges; as Bob Vannah said to paraphrase his words on tape "we control the judges" the election of judges in this state has become a derious issue that threatens the integrity of the entire system how can you possibly expect the public to understand the qualities necessary in a good civil judge and those of a good criminal judge it would appear at the present money and the largest signs wins
ReplyDeleteWasn't miley elected by eglet the finest chef from the strip catered her campaign party at his firm and didn't he and his partnersand "friends" donate over 100,000 to her campaign how else could she get elected/ ' and then there is judge jessie walsh 75,000 to her and a half billion dollar judgment not a bad return on your investment and now we have the group of "magnificent 11" all supported by that famous firm ..including the state bar Bar counsel well lets hope they are "magnificent!yikes!!
ReplyDeleteYAWN....no, really. YYAAWWNN!
ReplyDeleteQ: Where is the State Bar of Nevada?
ReplyDeleteA: 600 E. Charleston.
I practiced in CA for years before taking the NV bar and practicing here. CA has mostly appointed judges - very few seats are filled in contested elections. CA has good judges and bad judges, but less appearance of corruption (not that there isn't corruption, it's just less pervasive and better hidden). The CA State Bar as a Judicial Nominee Commission (the JENNE Commisson) that by statute has to evaluate every single nominee. The governor can still appoint a "not-qualified" nominee if he/she wants, but it's more difficult.
ReplyDeleteSo, are CA judges better? Some are and some aren't. Across the board, they have a lower percentage of really bad ones.
The other problem in both states is that the good 20-25 year private practice lawyer (a) may not be able to afford the pay cut to become a judge; and (b) except for the "prestige" may not want the job anyway - work in a courthouse with questionable infrastructure, have to listen to pro per's and half witted lawyers, and mostly just process the passage of pigs through the court snake. It's not my dream job.
I feel like the answer to this question is simple: don't vote if you have no idea who or what you are voting for. People drive around town and see a pretty billboard with nice colors and cast their vote and complain about it later. It's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteYou're ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteWhere can I get a framed picture of ex-Judge Halverson? She is kind of hot with that waddle on her neck...yum!!!
ReplyDelete@4:35
ReplyDeletePro-tip: Check her Backpage ad...
8:46 yawn" dude you are a real winner a casual approach to corruption is either moronic,stupid dumb or maybe you just admire it becsuse you "are it. Either way heres a yawn back to you a shining light of our legal system
ReplyDeleteEverytime the R-J publishes on this subject, they use Halverson as the poster child for appointed judges. They always forget to mention they endorsed her...
ReplyDeleteI was getting a BJ from my boyfriend last night, and he told me that electing judges is better than appointing them.
ReplyDeleteThen, one day he was bending me over the couch, and I thought to myself as my head was slammin against the wall, gee maybe appointing judges would be better than electing them. Oh well, what are ya gonna do?
10:44 PM - Sid, you need to think for yourself.
ReplyDelete10:02 Rocks with that comment.
ReplyDeleteThe RJ ENDORSED her? Why?
Because the RJ is a worthless fishwrap and its political endorsements are essentially arbitrary. At least the voters make their decisions based upon the number and quality of the candidates' signs. Sadly, that is less a less arbitrary basis for selecting a candidate to back.
ReplyDeleteThe RJ endorsed Halverson because a) Halverson appealed to the libertarians on the editorial board, b) the board was wholly unimpressed with Bill Henderson (who has ended up doing surprisingly well as a judge) and c) because they don't know anymore about family court candidates than anyone else except the attorneys who work there.
ReplyDelete151 +9000
ReplyDeleteI've been advocating exactly the proposed system for years, with the addition of a voter recall procedure.
ReplyDeleteI get that it's a democracy, and the voters get the government that they deserve, but *I* get the government that they deserve, too. Tyranny of the majority is bad enough. Tyranny of the majority of people picking alphabetically or based on the size of the judge's jugs is just intolerable.
@9:55 Jim Ream
ReplyDelete