Los Angeles Times reporters Michael J. Goodman and William C. Rempel have finally put into words what most journalists, lawyers and judges have been saying about Nevada's judiciary for years: There's so much juice involved in justice here that everyone involved wishes they could stop squeezing the pulp fiction of fairness into a glass.

The three-part Times series, which ran last week, provided painstaking details about the pay-to-play system that is business as usual from District Court to the federal court.

During the recent public corruption trial, when strip club magnate Michael Galardi alleged he had bribed or plied judges and lawyers with free drinks and lap dances, numerous people talked to me about the insidious nature of the judiciary here.

The Times piece is a must-read for anyone who cares about Nevada. It has already become the talk of the judicial world and has led to some barbs about the failure of the Las Vegas media to tackle the topic. It's also led to new calls to reform the system.

But as flawed as the monied system electing our judges is, appointing them can be equally pernicious.

The Missouri Plan is the one most often cited as a model of reform. The Show-Me State doesn't offer much of a show for voters. Whenever a judicial vacancy arises, a nonpartisan judicial selection commission requests applicants, interviews candidates and recommends three people to the governor, who then interviews the finalists and makes the appointment.

After serving on the bench for one year, the judge faces voters without any opponent. It's a straight yes or no to retain the judge, and judges almost always get the yes vote. If the voters disapprove, the judge must step down and the process begins anew to fill the vacancy. Ten other states use the plan.

Tennessee has the so-called modified Missouri Plan, a more detailed and complex version with the same goals. A 17-member judicial commission, comprising a diverse group of representatives, vets applicants and forwards one to the governor for appointment. Since 1970, when the plan took effect, Tennessee voters have rejected just one judge.

As much as I'd like to find a better system than the one we've got, I still believe voters should have choices for the judiciary, and that a simple yes-or-no vote isn't much of an election.

In the Missouri Plan states, the public is almost totally shut out of the process. In the modified plan used in Tennessee, a variety of minority and political groups are represented in the selection commission, but some continue to question whether the process attracts the best candidates for vacancies.

Judges are supposed to be fair and open-minded. So a system that requires a virtual shakedown of lawyers who appear before them makes them inherently unfair and abjectly political.

If you don't think judges should be politicians, you probably should support a modified version of the Missouri Plan.

But I think all public servants should be made to answer for their decisions and actions every so often. Having six years between elections helps minimize the constant churning of checks that we see in legislative and congressional races.

I think the best solution is to keep the judges elected and mandate increased disclosure and updated judicial canons.

For starters, campaign contributions should be solicited through campaign committees, not the judges themselves. The committees should disclose all parties with cases pending before each judge.

Nevada canons say judges must disclose to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It's fair to argue, after reading the Times series, that campaign contributions alone would make a reasonable person question whether a judge should be disqualified from a case. Judges should compile a list of donors and mention whenever one of them appears before them.

Any judge who runs unopposed should be made to return contributions in a pro-rated fashion, the way the Times notes former Clark County District Judge John McGroarty did.

The Legislature must require disclosure of how all unspent campaign contributions are eventually spent. And it must give the secretary of state the technology and manpower to enforce that disclosures are being made.

Abandoning a broken system for one that can be equally flawed cannot possibly be seen as reform. When you take the decision away from voters, you put it into the hands of consultants like Sig Rogich.

Requiring true transparency would let voters take the juice out of the judiciary.

Erin Neff's column runs Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.