Candelaria Decision Posted

The Nevada Supreme Court has issued its decision in In re Candelaria.

As you may remember, this was the case of Boyd Law student graduate Amber Candelaria, who attempted to meet the judicial candidacy requirements of NRS 4.010(2)(a) for justice of the peace by relying on her invoice from the State Bar requiring her to pay the dues of a fifth year attorney.

Justices Cherry and Saitta were "deeply troubled" by the majority justices defining a year as (generally) 365 days, and filed a dissent to the opinion. Hooray for elected judges!

(Opinion; Thanks, Tipsters!)

Tidbits

• Remember that lady who grabbed and shoved a 3-year-old child for kicking the back of her seat on a Southwest Airlines flight last week? Yeah, she's one of ours. (FOX Phoenix; LV Now)


• Our fantasy of having fantasies of a judicial ménage à trois has been crushed; our Supremes shot down Amber Candelaria's appeal. Think she'll take it up with SCOTUS? (LV Now)


• Rumors are swirling that James Pisanelli and the "polarizing" Todd Bice may be leaving BHFS to start their own firm.


• Our State Bar is "investigating" attorney Jacob Hafter, who happens to be a member of the State Bar's Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel, for allegedly false comments he made regarding the possibility that Catherine Cortez Masto was being "investigated" by the State Bar. So cute how the RJ thinks our bar is capable of placing someone in the "hot seat." Lukewarm seat, maybe. (LVRJ)

How Very Appealing ...

Oh, no ... she's hot? This changes everything.

Crusader of justice Amber Candaleria has filed her undoubtedly meritorious appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court which seeks to remedy the absolute injustice that has been thrust upon her by the evil Judge James Bixler.

Equal Protection, "bar years," whatever it takes ... let's just get her on the bench. Sorry Bernie, we love the bow tie, but come on - look at her!

Candaleria had this to say about how she expects her pending appeal to affect her candidacy:

"For now, the appeal will take most of my time and energy," she said in an e-mail. "It is quite close to the primary, but I am hopeful that the appeal can be heard quickly and in time to protect the voters' fundamental right to vote for the candidate of their choice. This process has by no means been easy, but I believe in what I am doing and that I am the most qualified candidate. I have dedicated my career to public service and access to justice. To this end, my resolve cannot be shaken."

You go girl with your qualifications ... shake that resolve!

(LVRJ; Thanks, Tipster!)

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)