Buckley: Judge selection plan faces challenges

CARSON CITY -- Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley said Monday that a proposed constitution amendment to change how Nevadans elect judges would be defeated by voters if it appeared today on election ballots.

"Most people aren't familiar with it at all," said Buckley, D-Las Vegas, about the proposed constitutional amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 2.

Even if citizens were aware of the proposal, she said they would need to be shown it would bring better judges to the state.

"What is it going to do to make a better system? Why is it important? There has to be a full robust debate."

Buckley serves on the Nevada Supreme Court's Article 6 Commission, which has been directed by Chief Justice Bill Maupin to look at how to improve the courts in the state.

During the commission's meeting Monday, she and other members talked about SJR2, which would end Nevada's 143-year tradition of allowing citizens to elect judges in contested elections.

Under the so-called merit system proposal, each judge would be appointed by the governor from a list of three final candidates reviewed by the Commission on Judicial Selection. If dissatisfied with the first three candidates, the governor could request that a second list of three candidates be submitted.

After serving their first terms, judges would stand for re-election in "yes" or "no" retention elections. Those who receive at least 55 percent of votes would remain in office. A Commission on Judicial Performance would be appointed and prepare information for voters about the performance of judges seeking re-election.

A similar proposal was defeated by voters in 1988. Before the new amendment could appear on the ballot, it would have to be approved by legislators in 2009. Voters then would decide if they want to make the change in 2010.

Proponents, including Buckley and Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, spoke in support of the proposal at hearings in May, saying it would reduce the need for judicial candidates to raise contributions to win elections.

Stories in the Los Angeles Times last year emphasized that judges in Nevada sometimes request political contributions from law firms that have cases pending in their court, leaving the perception that justice may be for sale in the state.

During the Monday meeting, Reno resident Ty Cobb called establishing a merit system for judges and winning support for establishment of an appeals court in Nevada the "two overriding issues" affecting the Article 6 Commission. Proposals to establish an appeals court in the state also have been rejected by voters.

Cobb, the father of the assemblyman of the same name and a Reagan administration policy adviser, expects the commission will back both proposals and should focus its energy on winning public support for them.

William Dressel, co-chair of the commission and president of the National Judicial College, said money must be secured to publicize and win support for the proposals and advocates must be ready for "attacks from within."

Las Vegas lawyer Paula Gentile, the other commission co-chair, said she doubted that all commissioners will support merit selection of judges.

"But we need to start looking at it so we can weigh in if we so choose," she said. "Not everyone is of the same mind on this issue."

Dressel added he doubted that all media outlets in Nevada would support the proposal. He chairs a commission subcommittee looking at merit selection of judges.

In an interview, he said he served as a judge in Colorado for 22 years and that the state has a merit selection plan.

"Judges still need to get out and campaign," he said. "I went to every service club, the League of Women Voters, to schools. Kids would go home and say 'Mom and Dad you know who was in school today? Do you know what Judge Dressel had to say?' "

Dressel said commissioners must decide whether to make merit selection of judges a top issue and then decide how to get the message across to the Legislature and public.

"We need to come up with the pros and cons so legislators and voters can say the pros outweigh the cons and it gets out of fund raising so people will not wonder if judges get money from law firms."

He acknowledged that securing legislative support in 2009 is not going to be easy.

He said the proposal lost previously in Nevada because it was framed in a way that voters felt they were losing their votes by changing how judges were elected.

"It needs to be framed differently," he said. "What type of vote do you want?"