CARSON CITY -- A bill draft request aimed at improving the state's judicial election system is being supported by the State Bar of Nevada Board of Governors.

The bill draft, number 663 sought by the Nevada Judicial Council, the state Supreme Court's oversight panel. The bill draft would change the filing dates for judicial candidates and restrict fundraising for judges who do not have an opponent in a contested election.

Rew Goodenow, president of the State Bar, said the measure is "an important first step towards de-emphasizing the influence of money in the judicial election process and the State Bar supports these proactive efforts."

The Board of Governors has also come out in support of changing the method by which state judges are selected to a "Nevada Plan".

The Nevada Plan would be a change from Nevada's current system of contested elections to a system where judges are initially appointed by a judicial selection commission, then tested in a contested election and, if successful, run only in retention elections thereafter.

"I hope voters will support it this time around," Goodenow said.

Because the change in the judicial selection process would require an amendment to the constitution, it would have to be approved by the Legislature twice, in 2007 and 2009, then approved by voters in 2010 before it could take effect.

The judicial campaign bill draft request would change the filing dates for all judicial officers except municipal judges to a two-week period beginning with the first Monday in January. The current filing period for all state judicial and other political offices is a two-week period in May in an election year.

By having the filing period for judges at a much earlier date, candidates would know whether they had an election opponent. Judges who did not have an opponent would then be prohibited from soliciting campaign contributions through an amendment to the judicial canons.

Because the current filing date for judges is not until May in an election year, judicial candidates have to start fundraising and putting a campaign together in case they end up with an opponent. By moving the filing date up four months, all judges would know whether they had opponents before campaigning would have to begin.

Supreme Court Justice Mark Gibbons said it will be the third time the change has been sought in the Legislature.

"We want to do what we can to eliminate money and political contributions as much as possible," he said.

In the 2002 election cycle, when most judges were up for re-election to their six-year terms, 60 percent of the district court judicial offices were sought by single candidates with no opposition, he said. But because the candidates, both incumbents and those running for vacant seats, did not know whether they would have opponents until May, they engaged in campaigning and fundraising, Gibbons said.

In addition to eliminating the need for fundraising, those unopposed judges also could focus on their work in court and not have to take time out to campaign, he said.

The primary argument raised in opposition to the bill in the past is why the judiciary should be treated differently, Gibbons said. But the desire to eliminate money in nonpartisan judicial races where possible makes the measure worthwhile, he said.

The bill is particularly critical this session because in 2008, 56 of 64 district court judges are up for election statewide, Gibbons said. Two Supreme Court seats also are up.

If the filing deadline is changed, and 60 percent of judges are unopposed, then there will be far less campaigning and fund-raising by judicial candidates next year, Gibbons said.