EDITORIAL: Discipline panel sanctions Goodsprings justice of the peace

The state Commission on Judicial Discipline came down hard last week on a rural judge who was accused of various ethical violations. But while it’s good to see judges being held to a high standard, the case also highlights the folly of a recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling that shields them from recall elections.

The disciplinary panel suspended Goodsprings Justice of the Peace Dawn Haviland for one year without pay — she makes about $70,000 a year — and ordered her to take what might be generously described as “how to be a judge” classes. The panel cited the jurist’s “repeated failure to follow the law, her proclivity toward following her own moral compass in administering her version of justice irrespective of the law, and her lack of remorse and admission of wrongdoing for the same.”

Judge Haviland, who ran unopposed in 2012, has been on the bench since 1999 and, like many rural JPs, does not have a law degree. Among other things, she was accused of bullying employees, improperly sealing court records and running background checks on her friend’s boyfriend. Her attorney argued that the accusations were smears concocted by disgruntled employees.

But members of the discipline panel clearly detected plenty of flames amid the smoke. Still, Judge Haviland is free to return to the bench next year to complete the remainder of a six-year term that expires in 2019 — and there’s nothing Goodsprings voters can do about it.

That’s because the state high court in April carved out a special exemption for Nevada judges, ruling that — unlike other elected officials — they may not be subjected to the recall process.

The decision is in direct contradiction to the state constitution, which holds that all “public officers” may be removed from office under Article 2, Section 9. But the 4-2 majority held that the creation of the Nevada judicial discipline panel in 1976 somehow usurped the public’s right to recall judges.

The decision was based on wishful thinking grounded in the urge for self preservation. And in the case of Dawn Haviland, we see its real-world ramifications.

Goodsprings voters may or may not believe that Judge Haviland’s transgressions merit removal from office. But if a faction of residents felt that the disciplinary process had failed, they should have the right to attempt a recall. The fact that the Nevada Supreme Court has arbitrarily precluded them from employing that vital tool is itself an unfortunate injustice.