Panel seeks to end ex-judge's bid to regain post

      The commission that booted Gary Davis from his former job as North Las Vegas municipal judge now wants to block Davis from running for the same post -- three weeks before the election.
      The state Commission on Judicial Discipline asked the Nevada Supreme Court to prevent Davis from running for the office in the motion filed Friday, the same day early voting began.
      Special prosecutor Frank Cremen argued in his motion that if the court does not stop Davis from running, "the concept of judicial discipline in the state of Nevada will be irreparably injured to the extent that a Municipal Court judge will be able to (flout) a removal order by filing again for the position."
      A livid Davis said the commission's decision to file against him "is a political hit with three weeks left in the election."
      His daughter and campaign manager, Amber Davis, said the action amounts to election tampering.
      Davis' signs have been up since Feb. 1; he filed March 28.
      Cremen said he had to wait until Davis filed, and then the Las Vegas attorney was out of town. "We filed it the week I got back," he said.
      A chance exists Davis could win an election before the issue is resolved.
      Davis, who has three opponents in the nonpartisan race, is hoping to win by taking more than 50 percent of the total vote on May 6. If he does not, the top two vote-getters go on to the June 3 election.
      The other candidates are warrant officer Steven Szostek, attorney Natalie Tyrrell and detective Warren Van Landschoot.
      Davis is not blaming his opponents; he is blaming the members of the Judicial Discipline Commission.
      "They have crossed the line. I am going to sue each and every one of them as individuals for malicious prosecution," Davis said.
      The commission found on Dec. 4, 1995, that Davis was guilty of judicial misconduct when he borrowed money from court employees, publicly endorsed and campaigned for another judge, conducted an antique business from his chambers, directed court employees to perform personal errands for him during work hours, told people convicted of crimes in 1991 and 1992 to contribute to certain charities, and used property that was zoned for residential purposes for commerce after the city advised him against it.
      The commission said that during the hearings, Davis at least twice "willfully and deliberately testified falsely."
      In September 1996, Davis appealed the commission's finding to the Supreme Court, and Cremen's motion was filed as part of that case, which has not been decided by the court.
      Davis said the law permits him to run again and cites a 1981 attorney general's opinion that says "a Municipal Court judge otherwise qualified to seek re-election may be a candidate for and serve in such judicial office for a new term, notwithstanding his or her suspension or removal from office by the commission."
      Cremen said that because no case law exists on the issue, the attorney general's opinion is merely advisory, and the Supreme Court can accept or reject it.
      Asked why the commission did not ban Davis from running for judge again in the original decision, Cremen said he could not speak for the commission, "but I don't know that one could anticipate Gary Davis doing this. Gary Davis is a unique individual."