Supreme Court commission approves plan to change how judges are chosen

CARSON CITY -- Members of a panel studying Nevada's court system voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to endorse a plan that could change the way judges in the state are chosen.

The Nevada Supreme Court's Article 6 Commission voted 18-2 to support Senate Joint Resolution 2, a proposed constitutional amendment. If approved by voters, the amendment would end Nevada's 143-year tradition of allowing voters to pick judges in contested elections.

The Legislature passed the proposal in 2007 but must approve it a second time in 2009 before it could go to the voters for their decision in the 2010 general election.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, a member of the Article 6 Commission, is sponsoring the change. It would require the initial appointment of judges with voters then being asked whether they should be kept or not.

"This is not a perfect solution," Raggio said. "But it is certainly a giant step forward towards establishing more confidence in the perception of the judicial process. This isn't going to take away the right of the public to vote."

But MGM Mirage Senior Vice President Paula Gentile, co-chairwoman of the commission, opposed the proposal, saying what is needed is more focus on judicial performance and evaluation.

"I just don't think changing the method of selecting judges, appointing rather than election, necessarily adds anything to the equation," she said.

Under SJR2, a Commission on Judicial Performance would be appointed to prepare information for voters about the performance of judges seeking to keep their jobs.

But Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Gibbons, who sat in on the meeting but is not a member of the commission, said the court is moving forward independently with its own comprehensive evaluation of the judiciary.

Justice Bill Maupin said the evaluation process being looked at, which would seek responses from not only attorneys but others, including witnesses and jurors, would serve two purposes. Voters would have more information, and the jurists themselves could use the information for professional improvement, he said.

The Supreme Court will decide whether the evaluation process is put into use in the state, which could go forward regardless of whether voters approve SJR2.

Also speaking in favor of SJR2 was Judge Stephen George, who serves on the Henderson Justice Court. George said the appointment process will give voters more say than the current system.

Most judges run unopposed, and getting just one vote on election day returns the judge to the bench, he said. Under the retention process, a judge would have to get 55 percent of the vote to remain in office, George said.

"What this does is give more power to the people," 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.

Previous efforts to change the method of selecting judges have been rejected by voters.

Also, the Article 6 Commission voted unanimously to support another constitutional amendment in the Legislature, one which would create an intermediate court of appeals. The proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 9, must be approved again by the 2009 Legislature before it could appear on the ballot in 2010.

Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty supported the measure, saying it would allow the Supreme Court to focus on more important cases while as many as 1,000 routine appeals yearly could be addressed more efficiently by the three-judge intermediate court.

The cost would be about $1.2 million a year for the judges and their staff, with no new space requirements necessary, he said.