August 2008 Nevada Lawyer
PRESIDENT’S COLUMN
JUDICIAL ELECTIONS – TIME FOR CHANGE
BY BRUCE BEESLEY, PRESIDENT, STATE BAR OF NEVADA
In order for Nevada’s judicial system to work, it must be fair and free from improper influence. Even more importantly, members of the public must believe that the judiciary is fair and free from improper influence. While I believe the former is true in Nevada, events of the last few years have convinced me the latter is no longer true.
The last few years, there have been articles in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times regarding the improper and corrupting influence of campaign contributions in Nevada. The American Tort Reform Association, ranking America’s most unfair jurisdictions in its Judicial Hellholes® publication for 2007, listed Clark County for the first time, indicating that “the decks appear to be stacked in favor of local lawyers who reportedly ‘pay to play’ in the county’s courts.” These recent articles have convinced me it is time for Nevada to abandon the process of electing judges – a process which has served the state well for over 140 years. This will eliminate, at least, much of campaign contributions’ corrupting influence.
When Nevada had a population of approximately 300,000 people and all of its communities were small by today’s standards, most, if not all, voters either knew the judicial candidates directly or knew people who did know the judicial candidates. With today’s population exceeding 3 million people, very few voters have any connection with judges or judicial candidates. I know there are those who prefer the existing system and claim that elections offer the only way for women and minorities to ascend to the bench. While that may have been true as recently as two decades ago, women, minorities and sole practitioners have been appointed, and have served our state well, in recent years. Indeed, one of those appointed judges is currently seeking election to the Nevada Supreme Court.
I would submit that Senate Joint Resolution 2, the modified Missouri plan passed by the Legislature last term, along with the changes to the selection process made by the Judicial Selection Committee, should satisfy the concerns of those opposing merit selection. The modified Missouri plan provides that a judge will be appointed through the judicial selection process and will serve a term of two years prior to running for retention. The bill preserves the early filing requirements now in place so that judges will know early in the process if there will be a campaign to remove them from office. The Judicial Selection Committee has recently changed its rules to make nearly all aspects of the selection process public. The judicial application will be public, the applicant will be interviewed in public and the committee will take its vote in public. The only aspects of the process which will not be public are confidential statements concerning the applicant’s suitability. Following this procedure, the governor will select from among three qualified candidates put forth by the committee.
The Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, in its Preamble, states:
Our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us. The role of the judiciary is central to American concepts of justice and the rule of law. Intrinsic to all sections of this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. The judge is an arbiter of facts and law for the resolution of disputes and a highly visible symbol of government under the rule of law.
As you read this article, Nevada will be well into the campaign season. I ask you to look at the billboard ads, televisions ads and statements made by, and on behalf of, the judicial candidates and tell me if you really think this will ensure that the election process will advance the principles set forth in the Code of Judicial Conduct.