Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose, left, and Justice Michael Douglas prepare to lead the first Article 6 Commission meeting Tuesday at the Regional Justice Center. The commission, made up mainly of judges and lawyers, is charged with reviewing Nevada's court system and recommending changes. Photo by Isaac Brekken/Review-Journal

A committee of judicial and community leaders tasked with recommending reforms for Nevada's overloaded and oft-criticized court system, met for the first time Tuesday at the Regional Justice Center.

The gathering of the Nevada Supreme Court's Article 6 Commission was largely informational, as about 20 of its 29 members discussed policy and infrastructure problems facing the courts from campaign finance to a witness stand in White Pine County's courthouse that's too close to the jury box.

The impetus for creation of the commission, named for the section of the state constitution that created the courts system, was the need for total review of Nevada's judicial system, retiring Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose said.

Such an analysis hasn't been done on a statewide level since the Rose Commission, about 10 years ago, and that only focused on urban courts, he said.

Rose said the Supreme Court had been planning the commission prior to the Nevada judicial system's excoriation by the Los Angeles Times. A series of stories highlighted a perception that the Nevada system is rife with improprieties related to judges taking campaign contributions from attorneys.

Three main issues Supreme Court justices will bring before the legislature took up most of Tuesday's nearly six-hour meeting: judicial selection, judicial fundraising and the need for an intermediate appellate court.

Rose and incoming Chief Justice Bill Maupin back the Nevada plan for judicial selection as a compromise between electing and appointing judges. Under the plan, the governor with the help of a selection committee would appoint a judge, who then would face an open, regular election two years later. If victorious, that judge then would only face retention elections. If a majority of voters cast ballots to dump the judge, then the governor would appoint a replacement, and the process would start anew for that replacement.

Nevada Supreme Court justices also have urged creation of an appellate court that would narrow the number of cases that reach the Supreme Court level. They've pushed to change the filing date for all judicial candidates from May to January, too, so candidates know sooner whether they need to raise more money to campaign.

The commission will likely decide in February whether to recommend those three proposals to lawmakers this coming session, but most members seemed supportive of the measures on Tuesday.

Juli Star-Alexander, director of Working Together to Attain Fairness, a Las Vegas group that advocates for judicial system changes, said she was disappointed to see that "it's pretty clear they've already decided to support the Nevada plan."

Her group proposed a system of "sortition," which eliminates the need for appointing or electing judges by giving every attorney in good standing with the bar a chance to preside. It is not used anywhere in the United States, she said.

"I'm afraid it (the commission) is just a thin veneer of accountability," she said.

The group is led by three Nevada Supreme Court justices, and the overwhelming majority of the members are judges, lawyers and court administrators.

Star-Alexander said she believes the outcome of the commission was predetermined by Nevada's judicial community. She fears the commission is just a dog-and-pony show designed to be a shield against the Los Angeles Times criticism.

Appointing judges, creation of an appellate court system and changing the filing date for judges have failed to win approval on the ballot or in the Legislature. Commission members said if they decide to advocate such changes they'll need to conduct a massive education and marketing effort.

Supreme Court Justice Michael Douglas, who is commission co-chairman, said the Times' criticism of the status quo of Nevada's judiciary has incited lawmakers to look at judicial selection with interest.

"It (the series) was kind of the cloud with the silver lining," Douglas said. "It pointed out a lot of problems we've been talking about ... All of the sudden the issue of having to select judges is alive again."