weather icon Partly Cloudy

State high court misses mark in recall ruling

In response to Steve Sebelius’s Sunday commentary “No recall for judges”: I think it’s unfortunate that the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in the manner that it did, and I believe justices Kristina Pickering and Michael Douglas got it right in their dissent.

But I strongly disagree with Mr. Sebelius’s conclusion that, “The study that led to the creation of the Judicial Discipline Commission had two recommendations, only one of which was laid before voters. The other? Appoint, rather than elect, judges. Now we have another compelling argument to do just that.”

I, for one, research all candidates and judges before I go to the voting booth. To voluntarily surrender our rights and responsibilities to vote for judges would mean that another judge, a politician or a government bureaucrat would have the responsibility to appoint judges. This, in my opinion, would not only be foolish but a complete abdication of our responsibilities as voters.

Since the Nevada Supreme Court has now denied us our right to recall judges, it becomes even more imperative that we retain our right to vote for judges. If a judge does not adhere to his responsibility to follow the law and the state constitution, then he can, at the very least, be voted out when he is next up for election, which is a different form of “recall.”

If judges are appointed instead of elected we would no longer have this choice.

Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
LETTER: The value of the US Postal Service

We appreciate your recent attention to the U.S. Postal Service in an editorial and a commentary response.

LETTER: Not a Donald Trump fan

Donald Trump will go down in history as the most evil person who ever served as president of the United States.