Judges get re-election protection

With early voting under way, a few thoughts on Nevada's primary election ...

It's good to be a judge. Especially at re-election time.

Incumbency is most powerful in the judicial branch. Voters don't typically pay much attention to the courts, and judicial canons prohibit candidates from attacking one another with the kind of fervor seen in executive and legislative races.

That's a good thing for Family Court Judge Steve Jones and Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Tony Abbatangelo. If these men were state senators seeking re-election, they probably wouldn't make it out of the primary. But because they're judges, they're staying below the radar, they're insulated from campaign criticism and they're coasting to new terms.

Jones' personal life and judgment have hardly been beyond reproach. He's been involved in domestic violence incidents with two different women, both times as the victim. He was acquitted of domestic battery in 2006 after his alcoholic girlfriend recanted her testimony in the case.

Jones also had financial dealings with his former brother-in-law, Thomas Cecrle, that attracted scrutiny. Cecrle had been sued many times over his business practices and allegations of unpaid debts, and in 2007 he pleaded guilty to a felony drug charge.

If a judge charged with settling failed relationships has a pattern of dysfunctional and questionable associations himself, it's a character issue worth debating in a campaign.

Abbatangelo's history is more troubling. He pleaded no contest to misdemeanor domestic violence last year in connection with a 2008 attack on his wife. According to police documents, Abbatangelo choked, pushed and sat on his wife. Over the years, Abbatangelo has also faced allegations of favoritism and overseeing an ethically questionable "friends and family" docket to reduce traffic tickets for courthouse insiders.

And yet it's frowned upon by the judiciary for someone to launch an aggressive campaign against Abbatangelo for carrying out an act of violence and having questionable integrity? How can the free political speech of an election be deemed worse than the actions and decisions of the judges themselves?

Party switchers

Although Democrats don't have any high-profile primaries to drive turnout for their few elections, they're deeply involved in the current campaign -- on the GOP side.

The Democratic establishment and its proxies are piling on Brian Sandoval, the Republican front-runner for governor, and Sue Lowden, the GOP leadership's choice for the U.S. Senate nomination, because polls show them easily defeating Rory and Harry Reid in November.

Democrats would be downright giddy if unpopular Gov. Jim Gibbons could overtake Sandoval in the primary, thus making Rory Reid the man to beat in the general election. Harry Reid's camp, meanwhile, wants every mile it can get from mocking Lowden's "chickens for checkups" remark about bartering with physicians. They'd like to face anyone but her.

But if Democrats really wanted to swing these primaries, wouldn't it be more effective to get regular voters to switch their registration to the GOP, then cast June ballots for Gibbons and, say, Sharron Angle in the Senate race?

According to the Clark County Election Department, as of two weeks ago, about 1,200 registered Democrats had changed their party affiliation to Republican this year. A sign of a clandestine campaign to change an election outcome?

Not likely. During that same period, almost 1,300 Democrats changed their registration to nonpartisan, as did more than 1,000 Republicans. Registration changes went the other way, too, but in far fewer numbers. The bulk of those switches can be chalked up to anti-incumbent sentiments.

Whatever the intention of Democrat party switchers, and whatever else the party insiders might throw at Sandoval, it's not going to be enough to extend Gibbons' political career.

But wouldn't it be something if a couple of hundred Harry Reid loyalists ended up handing the neck-and-neck GOP Senate race to fast-rising Angle?

They might want to be careful what they wish for.

Petition politics

Gibbons and Chad Christensen launched initiative petitions this month that clearly were intended to give their limping campaigns a boost.

Gibbons announced a signature-gathering effort to make all public employee union contract negotiations open to the public. Christensen, a Republican assemblyman from Las Vegas who's out of the running in the U.S. Senate primary, wants to give Nevada voters a chance to adopt Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigration.

Both of these policy ideas are slam dunks for voter approval. But they might be Hail Mary passes to actually qualify for a ballot. Gibbons and Christensen are going to lose their primary races, and their newfound passion for these petitions might go down with them.

It will take superior organization to collect nearly 100,000 valid signatures from registered voters. It will also take a lot of resources to withstand the intimidation and litigation from well-funded unions and the illegal immigrant lobby, who'll do whatever it takes to keep those issues away from the electorate.

Christensen's petition, like its sponsor, doesn't have staying power. Gibbons' petition, on the other hand, just might. Even after he loses June 8, Gibbons will remain governor until January. The bully pulpit of his office could be enough to drive signature collections, especially if government unions continue to resist contract concessions.

In addition, his steering committee includes state Sen. Mark Amodei, the state Republican Party chairman, and former state Sen. Bob Beers, who's all too familiar with the legal minefield petitioners must cross -- his Tax and Spending Control initiative was killed by the courts a few years ago.

"On a common-sense issue like this," Beers said, "you can often find good attorneys willing to help you at a discounted rate."

They'll need the help. The unions and their elected water carriers prefer the protection of secrecy. It's easier to spend your money if you're not there to object.

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is a Review-Journal editorial writer.