|
By Caren Benjamin
Review-Journal
In the wake of a nasty judicial campaign season, a bill that would end contested elections for judges is gathering momentum in the Legislature.
Some of Clark County's District Court judges say the measure would do little to take the politics out of justice.
Others applaud the effort, which they say would keep the image of the judiciary from being sullied by the mud of political battle.
"Judges need to be taken out of the political arena so as not to create the appearance that they are pandering to voters and special interest groups," said District Judge Michael Douglas, who was appointed in December 1995 and defeated lawyer Ken Cory in November's election.
Even with an appointment system, "partisan politics will still be involved," countered Chief District Judge Myron Leavitt, who was appointed in 1984 and has since run unopposed. "Judges should be selected by all the people, not just a small, select group of people."
The proposal before the Legislature would create a commission to screen judicial applicants. The bill's creator, Assemblyman Jack Close, envisions a commission composed of "women, minorities, not just lawyers, all segments of the community."
The governor would make a final selection from three finalists chosen by the commission.
In election years, voters would decide whether to retain or get rid of incumbent judges.
Close, a sophomore Republican from Las Vegas, introduced the same plan in the 1995 session. That measure got only 17 votes in the Assembly.
This session, Close has 23 co-sponsors and he said public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of an appointment process.
The measure, Assembly Joint Resolution 6, was heard before the Assembly Judiciary Committee Thursday, but no action was taken.
A recent poll sponsored by the Review-Journal and KLAS-TV, Channel 8 found 59 percent of voters in favor of judicial appointment, 30 percent opposed and 11 percent undecided.
Close also pointed to the 21 percent of voters who chose "none of these candidates" in November for two state Supreme Court races.
"Clearly the voters are saying here that they don't necessarily like the candidates and they don't like the process," Close said.
Both dislikes could be changed for the better without completely eliminating the voice of the voters, he argued.
The quality of judges is bound to improve if judicial hopefuls are screened by a panel of experts, District Judge Sally Loehrer said.
"Now anyone with $150 and a license to practice law can get on the ballot," said Loehrer, who was appointed in 1993. That means winning a judicial race can be simply a matter of "who has the most effective ad machine," she said.
The flip side of that argument is that appointments could keep some qualified, politically unconnected attorneys out of the running, said District Judge Kathy Hardcastle, who won her seat in November against attorney Tom Leen. "I don't have that kind of political clout. I don't owe anybody any favors and no one owes me anything. I could never have pulled down an appointment."
District Judge Mark Gibbons, who won in November against Municipal Judge Valorie Vega, agrees that campaigning before the public is a great equalizer.
"Being a political unknown, the only chance I had to win was to outspend the candidates who were better known," Gibbons said.
Nor will appointments take the politics out of the system, said Leavitt, who remembers well the process of "running" for his court appointment. "I knew who the people were on the selection commission and don't think I didn't politic every one of them. I'd call them all, or a friend of a friend, and ask them to give me a shot.
"Other than that it's only to a few, select people, how is that different from campaigning?"
The difference, Douglas said, is the money. Though justice cannot be bought, "we do not want even the appearance of it," he explained. "We don't want people thinking, 'How can a judge be fair and unbiased when he's getting money from an attorney, a business, a casino, that comes before him?' "
Time and effort are also at issue when it comes to campaigning, Loehrer said. For a sitting judge, the amount of energy spent fund raising and campaigning can get in the way of work in the courtroom, she explained.
In the end, that effort is often wasted on the voters, Douglas said. In judicial elections people often don't know who they are voting for or why, he said.
"There is not a single candidate who didn't say they would be tough on crime and make the court more efficient. But what does that really tell the public?" Douglas asked.
Loehrer would like to see a judicial appointment commission issue yearly evaluations to let the voters know how the experts think a judge is doing. Close's plan would include an evaluation process.
But Leavitt questioned why the public should be told who is and is not a good judge when voters routinely pick school board members, senators and others without a guidebook.
"If the public is not informed about judges, it may be the duty of the press or the public to find out. It is not the job of some quasi-governmental agency to tell them who they should elect," he said.
The difference between judges and other elected officials is that the judiciary is ethically bound, in essence, not to have a platform, Douglas said.
He said the case could be made that a judge should not decide certain criminal cases because as a candidate the judge promised to hand down harsh penalties.
For example, Gibbons' television advertisements promised that as a judge he would give longer sentences to violent criminals.
But Gibbons does not see a conflict. "The law allows me to do that. I intend to do it," he said.
|
|
