EDITORIAL: Courting voters

There’s a very good reason why rows of roadside campaign signs are dominated by judicial candidates: Judicial races dominate November’s ballot.

Depending on where they live, Clark County voters might decide 20 offices and the three statewide ballot questions. That’s plenty of election homework. But add 28 total contested District Court and Family Court races, and the duty of casting an informed ballot becomes that much more daunting.

Beyond billboards, mailers and TV ads, where can a voter go for information on the judiciary?

The Review-Journal commits a great deal of resources to educate taxpaying voters about Southern Nevada judges. For about two decades, the newspaper has conducted a biennial performance review of every sitting judge by surveying the attorneys who practice before them. Judges are rated on the application of the law and rules of evidence, their courtesy and their perceived biases, among other categories. Most importantly, attorneys are asked whether judges should be retained by voters.

Several judges on November’s ballot (early voting for the general election is underway in Clark County) received negative retention scores in last year’s Review-Journal survey — meaning a majority of responding attorneys said the judge should not be retained.

Judges have tremendous power. Judges who are prepared, work hard and understand the law ensure justice is done. Bad judges inevitably deliver bad decisions, which cost the public dearly through delays, appeals, and ruined lives and businesses.

To review the newspaper’s complete Judicial Performance Evaluation, visit www.reviewjournal.com/news/judicial-performance-evaluation.

You can review candidate information — for all races, not just judicial ones — at www.reviewjournal.com/voter-guide. Scroll down to the “All Races” button and highlight the office you’re interested in researching.

Then, review the newspaper’s endorsements in every judicial race at www.reviewjournal.com/endorsements. Performance evaluations played a big role in our judicial endorsements, which are explained in each race.

Some candidates are clearly better than others. The lowest-rated District Court judge on the ballot is Doug Smith in Department 8. His challenger, Christine Guerci-Nyhus, deserves voters’ support instead. Three poorly rated Family Court judges are on the ballot as well: Cheryl Moss in Department I, Kenneth Pollock in Department J and Sandra Pomrenze in Department P. Voters should support their challengers: Travis Shetler in Department I, Rena Hughes in Department J and Nathan Gibbs in Department P.

Cast an informed vote.