Benefiting the public and the judiciary

A covert congressional committee charged with watching paint dry would be more responsive and transparent than the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission. The body responsible for keeping the state's judges in line is so sluggish we might witness peace in the Middle East and the next ice age before current complaints are resolved.

Secrecy. Lethargy. No accountability. The Judicial Discipline Commission has consistently exceeded our lowest expectations.

Recognizing that poor performance in matters of justice can't be tolerated, the Nevada Supreme Court has been ordering long-needed maintenance on the state's judicial system. Over the past couple of years, the court has examined many of the judiciary's perceived shortcomings, including indigent defense, campaign financing and the inappropriate sealing of civil lawsuits.

But those issues and their constitutional concerns were quick fixes compared with the Judicial Discipline Commission. Upon addressing this body, the court's Article 6 Commission found an institution that inspires no public confidence in the state's ability to punish and remove unfit judges. Among its many shortcomings:

-- Parties who file complaints against judges aren't told how their cases are resolved. In one case, an attorney was informed that his complaint was dismissed but to rest assured that the commission "has taken what it considers to be appropriate action."

-- People who file complaints are forbidden from making their allegations public; talking or writing about their complaints can lead to contempt charges.

-- The Judicial Discipline Commission routinely takes years to resolve even the most serious, obvious complaints of judicial misconduct.

In a case involving the late former District Judge Jeffrey Sobel, the commission needed three years to determine he wrongly demanded campaign contributions from an attorney before him who had contributed to the campaign of his challenger. By the time the decision was issued, voters already had ousted Mr. Sobel.

That cycle repeated itself late last year when voters tossed out troubled Family Court Judge Nicholas Del Vecchio and anti-social District Judge Elizabeth Halverson before the commission decided neither was fit to ever serve on the bench again. Ms. Halverson collected nearly two years of salary on unpaid leave while the commission leisurely built its case.

So it was good news Monday that a subcommittee of the Article 6 Commission -- named after the part of the Nevada Constitution that empowers the judiciary -- issued a report urging several reforms to reverse these practices.

The report's suggestions, which must be approved by the Legislature to take effect, include making resolutions and punishments public; adhering to the Bill of Rights and allowing citizens to speak about their grievances; and pushing for case resolution within 18 months of the filing of a complaint. All would be positive steps.

Asking the commission to apply common sense and better prioritize its cases would have been helpful, too. Especially in the cases of Ms. Halverson and Mr. Del Vecchio, the commission should have stepped up its work to wrap up very public allegations before the August primary election.

"Prompt resolution of complaints of judicial misconduct benefits both the public and judges," the report said.

Indeed, how can the taxpaying public have faith in the fairness of the courts if the judges they elect and compensate are judged under a different set of standards?

The Legislature should pass all of the Article 6 Commission recommendations for the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission -- with no excuses about funding.