Voters have hard time picking judges

On Nov. 2, voters statewide will make a choice in 29 contested judicial races, all but six of them in Clark County.

Here's a quick test: Name any three of the 44 candidates, and say why they are more qualified than their opponent.

Unless you're a lawyer who practices here, you just flunked that test.

Don't feel bad. There really isn't much to go on. Unlike other candidates for public office, judges are barred from making promises, empty or otherwise.

"In my opinion, asking the average voter to be fully informed on 29 races would be asking them to do the impossible," said Jeff Stempel, a law professor at Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "It's too much to ask voters to get to know every candidate," particularly when they can't give you anything useful.

"The rules make it too difficult for laypersons. It's tough for me, as a lawyer, to research candidates. What does it mean when they say, 'I'll be tough on crime,' or 'I have integrity'? We have no way to quantify those kinds of statements."

Stempel said even the topics that candidates can discuss, like their judicial philosophy, go untouched.

The disconnect between voters and judicial candidates is more profound when hotly contested races are under way in partisan elections, like what is happening this year with Sen. Harry Reid and challenger Sharron Angle, or the race between 3rd Congressional District incumbent Dina Titus and Joe Heck.

This is where the mechanics of campaigning come into play full force. Candidates are prohibited from doing what other office-seekers take for granted: Making political speeches, leading a political group, sitting on partisan boards, publicly identifying with any political organization or seeking endorsements from partisan groups.

While 2010 is an off-year for judicial elections, there are more candidates than usual because of seven new Civil Division and one new Family Division judgeships. That's 12 more candidates who aren't saying much for voters to vet.

Some candidates are not able to resist slinging mud.

In the Las Vegas Review-Journal voter guide published Oct. 17, Justice of the Peace Department 3 candidate Janiece Marshall in a half-page political ad reminded voters of the incumbent's domestic violence conviction:

"Judge Tony Abbatangelo ... convicted of battery domestic violence. Criminals should not be judges!," reads her ad in shocking red ink.

And judges do raise money. According to the most recent campaign reports available, judicial candidates in Clark County raised about $1.6 million in campaign contributions for the first half of this year. The next report is due Oct. 26.

That has helped pay for the forest of signs sprouting from vacant lots a smattering of television and radio ads that tout the fairness, experience and qualities of the candidate while carefully avoiding any hint at what they would do with any particular case or issue.

Recognizing the appearance of impropriety inherent in judicial candidates taking money from attorneys and businesses that could appear before them, the Nevada Supreme Court has tried to reduce the amount of money fueling judicial races.

In 2008, the candidate filing deadline was moved up to mid-January from mid-May -- when candidates for all other offices file -- so unchallenged incumbent judges would not need to raise campaign funds. The Nevada Supreme Court's unanimous decision to move the deadline was primarily an effort to slow the money train that has rolled through judicial campaigns in recent years.

But the biggest move of all is a measure on next month's ballot:

Question 1 would amend the Nevada Constitution to change the process from direct election to merit selection.

Instead of voting in new judges on the basis of campaigns, a state commission would vet candidates and recommend at least three to the governor, who would appoint one. Two years later, the appointee would face voters in a retention election. Before that election, voters would be presented with a comprehensive performance evaluation.

But polls indicate voters are reluctant to approve that change, which opponents say would deprive them of the right to vote for judges and would result in cronyism in the appointment process.

"There is some legitimacy to concerns merit selection would create a good old boy network," Stempel said .

However, he believes the argument is weighted in favor of merit selection. "The governor can't appoint a crony if he isn't on the list, and if he does the crony still has to go to a retention election."

Bottom line: Judges will be appointed on the basis of qualifications, not popularity among lawyers who finance campaigns. If a rascal makes it past the governor , then people have the ability to throw the bum out.

Contact Doug McMurdo at dmcmurdo@reviewjournal.com or 702-224-5512 or read more courts coverage at lvlegalnews.com.