Lawyers’ opinions major factor in election of judges

Bill Gang

Friday, Nov. 8, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

The nine races for District Court and Family Court were remarkable not for any trend that prevailed, but for the lack of a trend.

Gender, money and race seemed to play little role in Tuesday's outcome. If anything, word of mouth in the legal community seemed to carry the day.

Women won their share of the seats, but the election did not turn out to be the Year of the Woman, as some pundits had forecast.

District Judge Sally Loehrer won re-election, and Deputy Public Defender Kathy Hardcastle and attorney Dianne Steel won races for open seats. But Municipal Judge Valorie Vega and attorneys Laura Ungaro and Kendal Sue Bird lost.

Neither did the simple expenditure of money decide the outcome in every instance. Old-fashioned grass-roots campaigning won at least a couple of the races.

That was the case in the contests where District Judge Michael Douglas and Hardcastle won despite being outspent.

But money did seem to lift attorney Mark Gibbons over Vega in the Department 7 seat being vacated by District Judge Bill Maupin, who is on his way to the Nevada Supreme Court. Gibbons spent more than $200,000 from his own pocket to edge Vega.

Race also wasn't a factor for the two black district judges, as their different win totals suggest.

District Judge Lee Gates won 70 percent of the vote, but Douglas squeaked past attorney Ken Cory only by about 4 percent to reclaim the seat that Gov. Bob Miller appointed him to early this year.

The only trend, perhaps, was that the winners -- and even those who did well but not well enough -- were candidates that lawyers endorsed.

"It's absolutely clear that it has a major impact," said District Attorney Stewart Bell.

"I get asked by a lot of people who's going to do a good job and who's not," he said of pre-election inquiries from those interested in the races. "Most of the time my opinions are respected."

Bell said if a dozen or more voters ask the 3,000 lawyers in Clark County about the races, and if the opinions are generally consistent, "that accounts for a lot of votes."

District Court Administrator Chuck Short added that law firm staff members also offer advice to families and friends.

"It ripples," he said. "Lawyers' perceptions have considerable influence with the electorate. The average person doesn't have time to research the candidates. It is a common practice to ask lawyers or others who know about the races."

R&R Advertising executive Howard Stutz, who is married to Vega and ran her unsuccessful campaign, noted that a poll of three judicial races two weeks before the election showed nearly half the voters were still undecided.

Stutz said Vega had the support of the criminal-law attorneys while Gibbons, who has not practiced much criminal law, was supported by civil lawyers.

Gibbons won by only 3 percent.

"A lot of people know a lawyer or two and ask, 'Who do you like?'" Stutz said.

Attorneys seem to voice the same criteria for judges: knowledge of the law, fairness, hard work and courteousness.

If a judge is doing a good job, lawyers tend to support re-election even if the challenger is credible.

No one claims that lawyers can control the outcome of judicial races, but Bell said their influence is not a bad thing.

He said for voters to receive input from people who know the contestants "is better than just going by signs or by who's good looking or glib.

"They're trying to find out who's good and who's not."