EDITORIAL: Supreme bailout

Were Nevada voters sold a bill of goods on Question 1?

In November, Nevadans approved the creation of an appellate court, 54 percent to 46 percent, to provide some relief to the overburdened state Supreme Court. Question 1 supporters, led by Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty, said the state would not have a problem paying for the new court. With three judges and limited staff, it would cost just $1.5 million per year. Besides, Justice Hardesty noted last year, the Supreme Court was so efficient it had reverted to the general fund between $900,000 and $2.5 million per year for five years.

This newspaper endorsed Question 1 last year, not just because the appellate court was needed to expedite and improve justice in Nevada, but because Nevadans were assured the state could afford it.

The appellate court was created and started work this year. Lo and behold, Justice Hardesty testified before lawmakers this month that the Nevada Supreme Court is in financial crisis and will go broke by May 1 if the Legislature does not provide emergency funding. The court relies heavily on traffic and parking ticket revenue, which is declining across the state, likely because understaffed law enforcement agencies don’t have time to write citations for moving violations.

So Justice Hardesty says the court needs a $700,000 general fund bailout to make it through June 30, the end of the fiscal year. And the judiciary’s next two-year budget has an estimated $1.5 million ticket revenue hole that will have to be filled by taxpayers — a hole that wouldn’t be there if the appellate court were rejected.

“Do you want me to close the judicial branch of government at the state level on May 1?” Justice Hardesty asked lawmakers.

Set aside the appellate court issue for a moment. Is ticket revenue the best, most stable way to fund courts? No. Writing citations to bolster justice encourages injustice. But some of the court’s financial problems also appear to be of the judiciary’s making.

As lawmakers contemplate bailing out the Supreme Court, they should ask tough questions of justices. Were they straight with voters last year? If not, then the Legislature’s response to the bailout request should be a resounding “No.”