Poker star’s divorce case sparks Nevada Supreme Court arguments

CARSON CITY - Because poker star Phil Ivey made a $5,000 campaign donation to the judge who granted his divorce, the Nevada Supreme Court is considering whether judges must sit out of cases involving their contributors.

"This is an election state (and judges need contributions)," said Justice Michael Douglas during 45 minutes of oral arguments Tuesday. "That is the reality."

Chief Justice Michael Cherry said there might be "free speech" problems if the high court tried to pass rules blocking people from contributing to judicial campaigns.

He said any decision could affect how campaigns for all 82 district judges in the state are conducted in 2014.

Allegations that judges in Nevada are biased in favor of people who donate to their campaigns have been raised for years, including in a stinging series of stories in the Los Angeles Times in 2006.

The high court several years ago prohibited judges from soliciting contributions in elections where they have no opponents. Only about one-third of judicial races now are contested. Typically contributions to judges come from law firms.

Ivey, winner of eight World Series of Poker medallions, was granted an uncontested divorce from his wife, Luciaetta, in December 2009 by Clark County Family Court Judge William Gonzalez. Then in 2011 she filed a petition that claimed her ex-husband was not paying required spousal support.

According to published reports, their community property had been valued at $8 million in 2008 and Ivey was considered by analysts as the best poker player in the world.

Before Gonzalez could hear her case, Luciaetta sought to disqualify the judge from hearing the case because of potential favoritism toward Ivey. District Judge Jennifer Togliatti refused to disqualify Gonzalez and Luciaetta then appealed to the Supreme Court.

In his argument Tuesday, Luciaetta's lawyer, Bruce Shapiro, said he was not accusing Gonzalez with any wrongdoing, but the contribution creates the appearance of impropriety to the general public.

He noted that few $5,000 contributions were made to Family Court judges in 2010. Counting contributions made by Ivey's lawyers, Shapiro said Gonzalez raised more than $12,543 from them, or slightly more than the entire contributions that his opponent received from all of his contributors.

"Nineteen other judges (in Family Court) could hear the case," Shapiro said.

But Justice Mark Gibbons noted that $5,000 was only 15 percent of Gonzalez's total campaign contributions.

"I raised about one-half million (dollars)," said Gibbons about one of his elections. "My opponent raised $10,000. What does it mean?"

His comment that he was the best candidate drew laughter from the other justices and audience members.

Ivey's lawyer, David Chesnoff, contented Luciaetta has no case. He noted the divorce was uncontested, there are no children, and the contribution was made after their divorce.

"The case is already dead," he added.

Chesnoff said Ivey stopped making payments to his ex-wife early in 2011 when Full Tilt Poker stopped making payments to him after it was seized by the Justice Department for alleged federal violations. Ivey has filed a lawsuit against Full Tilt.

"Mrs. Ivey made millions (from the divorce settlement)," Chesnoff said. "Tilt was stopped, alimony stopped. Are we going to tell people they cannot contribute? We exist in a state where judges are elected."

Shapiro concluded the hearing by saying Ivey is free to make any contributions he wants, "but that does not mean Judge Gonzalez has to hear this case."

Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3901.