Panel holds off on plan for judges

Members of a panel studying Nevada's court system said Wednesday that they need more information before deciding whether to endorse a plan that could change the way judges in the state are chosen.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, who has proposed a so-called merit selection process for judges, conceded that his plan faces an uphill battle.

"It's going to be a hard sell," Raggio told members of the Nevada Supreme Court's Article 6 Commission.

The commission has been directed by Chief Justice Bill Maupin to look at ways of improving the state's judicial system. Members of the panel met via video conference Wednesday in Las Vegas and Carson City.

Raggio, a longtime Nevada lawyer, spoke in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 2, a proposed constitutional amendment. If approved, the amendment would end Nevada's 143-year tradition of allowing voters to pick judges in contested elections.

The senator said similar proposals have advanced from the Legislature to the ballot twice before over the years, only to face a sound defeat by voters.

"I stress this because this is not a new idea altogether," Raggio said.

He said he thinks the concept has more support now than ever. The State Bar of Nevada and two of the state's daily newspapers -- the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Las Vegas Sun -- have endorsed the plan, he said.

Under Raggio's 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 a second list of three candidates.

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

Before the new amendment could appear on the ballot, it would need approval from the 2009 Legislature. Voters then would decide in 2010 whether they want to make the change.

Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, did not attend Wednesday's meeting but previously has spoken in favor of Raggio's proposal. Buckley, also a lawyer and member of the commission, and Raggio both said a merit selection system would reduce the need for judicial candidates to raise contributions to win elections.

Raggio said the current system leaves the public with a perception that judges have lost their independence.

But, he said, "I certainly don't want to leave a message here that we don't have a good judiciary."

Raggio said the new attitude toward judicial selection was prompted, in part, by a series of stories that appeared last year in the Los Angeles Times. The series, titled "Juice vs. Justice," disclosed what appeared to be widespread conflicts of interest and favoritism by several Las Vegas judges.

If supporters of merit selection for judges can educate the public about its benefits, Raggio said, he thinks they can succeed in gaining its approval.

MGM Mirage Senior Vice President Paula Gentile, co-chairwoman of the commission, asked whether Raggio's plan would bar judges from raising money for their retention elections.

Raggio said it would not, but retention elections require far less money than traditional elections. He also said 15 other states already hold retention elections for judges.

Gentile said she has not decided on her position. She asked whether supporters of the merit selection system can show that it produces better judges than a system of open elections.

Reno lawyer Thomas "Spike" Wilson, a member of the commission, said the proposal will need a well-funded campaign to gain approval.

"I think we're going to have to tell the story of what's wrong with the present system," he said.

Clark County District Judge David Wall, a member of the commission, said other elected judges like himself will refuse to support a campaign that paints elected judges as inferior to appointed judges.

Wall also said he "probably never had political clout to get appointed."

Gentile said appointees can suffer from the negative public perception that they follow the party line of the politician who appointed them. She wondered aloud whether Raggio's proposal would substitute one problematic perception for another, and she urged the commission to decide soon whether it will back the plan.

Members of the panel said they first wanted to hear from National Judicial College President William Dressel, the commission's co-chairman, who could not attend Wednesday's meeting because of a medical issue. Dressel heads a subcommittee that has been looking at merit selection of judges.

Gentile said the commission probably would meet again in late January.

The commission heard a report Wednesday from Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, a nonpartisan group that seeks to keep the nation's courts fair and impartial.

According to statistics presented by Brandenburg, 76 percent of voters believe that campaign contributions "have at least some influence on judges' decisions," and 26 percent of state judges agree.

Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0264.