Judges defend plan to limit contributions

CARSON CITY -- A Nevada Supreme Court proposal to restrict campaign fundraising for judges and justices who do not draw opponents was criticized Thursday by some members of the judiciary and the ACLU of Nevada.

Others testifying during the hearing before the Supreme Court supported the proposal to ban the solicitation of campaign contributions by judges who are running unopposed.

But Justice of the Peace Doug Smith, testifying by videoconference from Las Vegas, said he knows of no case where a judge continued to raise money after drawing no opponent.

Smith said he puts up signs and seeks endorsements when campaign season begins, but never accepts contributions after the close of filing if he draws no opponent.

Washoe District Judge Janet Berry, who also testified on the proposed amendment to the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, made similar comments. The idea of raising money when a judicial candidate has no opponent is, "totally foreign to me," she said.

But Berry had a problem with another part of the proposed amendment, which now proposes to not only ban monetary contributions to unopposed judicial candidates, but to ban the solicitation of "public support" for a campaign as well.

Berry said the proposed language is likely unconstitutional, and infringes on the right of a judicial candidate to talk to groups and neighbors about their work as a judge during the election season.

She said judges will sometimes seek potential supporters before the election season begins in case they draw opponents. The rule wold imperil such discussions, Berry said.

While Berry had no opposition to the ban on fundraising, the ACLU of Nevada did oppose the proposed language.

Lee Rowland, a staff attorney for the organization, said campaigns are not just about winning re-election. They are also about communicating with voters and constituents, she said. Limiting this ability to communicate by restricting all fundraising goes too far and raises constitutional concerns, she said.

"Elections involve crucial discourse concerning the most relevant and pressing issues of the day," Rowland said. "While the state of Nevada may, if it chooses, eliminate completely the process of judicial elections, it does not have a lesser included power to limit candidate expression with the elections that do occur."

But Washoe District Judge Brent Adams, who has been involved in judicial campaign reform, spoke strongly in favor of the contribution prohibition.

"This is a reasonable restriction" that doesn't violate the constitution. he said.

Adams also disagreed with his judicial colleagues, saying there have been cases where unopposed judges continued to solicit campaign contributions, although he did not offer any examples.

The court is expected to act quickly on the proposed amendment. Based on the testimony, the proposed language could see some alterations.

The proposed amendment on judicial campaigning has come about as a result of the passage of Assembly Bill 505 of the 2007 legislative session. Judges used to file for office in May like other candidates. Because they did not know until then if they would have an opponent, judges sought out contributions much earlier in the election season.

AB505 changed the filing deadline for judges to the first two weeks in January. Because judges will know early if they have an opponent, the Supreme Court can restrict fundraising for them.

In testimony on the bill, Justice Mark Gibbons said 60 percent of judicial candidates ran unopposed in last year's election.

State Bar of Nevada representatives told lawmakers the bill would help remove the perception that justice is sold to those who contribute to the campaigns of judges.