We previously posted about the Clark County election results, but neglected to comment about what may be the biggest upset to come out of this election: Judge Jessie Walsh remains on the bench. Now, let's not get off on a Halverson rant here, Judge Walsh is not (and will never be) as bad as "the great one." However, the fact remains that Judge Walsh was the only judge to score below a 50% retention rating in the Judging the Judges poll (available here as a PDF) and survive the election.
(To be fair, Judge The Hut was, shall we say, indisposed, and Judge Gates didn't bother to run.)
However, common wisdom seems to be that the Judging the Judges poll is what governs the general public's opinion of our judiciary. With no party affiliation listed on the ballot, how else is the general public deciding whether to retain (or replace) these individuals? How is it that an incumbent Judge so poorly rated as Walsh is able to maintain her seat on the bench? Is it because it was easier to draw a mustache and horns on Bill Kephart's signs? Here's a theory:
Anything the public heard concerning judges this election year was focused on one person: Liz Halverson. The bar for judicial ineptness has officially been raised. Short of being an absolute unbearable tyrant in the courtroom, the public now thinks: "Meh, how bad can she be? At least she's not like that fat lady."
All the incumbent judges who retained their seats in this election should send Halverson a big box of Krispy Kremes in gratitude. Without her, the public may have been a bit more critical of our currently-seated judicial jockeys. Or, maybe, Walsh just isn't that bad of a Judge. We're interested to hear your take on what happened, sound off in the comments.
.jpg)
