Bill requiring NLV muni judges be attorneys ripped

Wednesday, Feb. 5, 1997 | 11:59 a.m.

Ousted North Las Vegas Municipal Judge Gary Davis does not mince words when it comes to Assembly Bill 69 -- a measure that would require future North Las Vegas municipal judges to be attorneys.

"You mean the screw Gary Davis bill?" said Davis, a nonattorney who was removed from the post he had held since 1979 in December 1995 after the Nevada Judicial Discipline Commission determined he had committed acts of noncriminal misconduct.

City officials argue the measure is not aimed at Davis, and that it addresses several areas of the Municipal Court which need to be changed to meet the explosive growth in recent years.

But to many, including assemblymen from North Las Vegas, the motive behind the bill certainly can be interpreted as blatant and singular in its goal.

Davis, who battled with the North Las Vegas City Council over issues such as alleged excessive renovations of his chambers, is appealing the discipline commission's findings, which he says "only cost me a job, but cost the voters their vote."

Davis awaits the Nevada Supreme Court's decision on his appeal and says he plans to again run for municipal judge this year. That is, unless lawmakers pass AB69.

The charter-changing measure is set to be heard by the Assembly Government Affairs Committee at 9:30 a.m. Friday at the Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412. If approved, the bill would then go to the Assembly, the Senate Government Affairs Committee, the Senate and finally to the governor to be signed into law.

Davis, 48, admits he has an uphill fight on his hands.

"They (some members of the North Las Vegas City Council) want to make sure Gary Davis can't run, because if I run I will win -- and they know it," Davis said. "This bill is nothing more than a personal vendetta.

"Even if you do not like me, you have to accept that what is happening (with this bill) is wrong."

Davis and his supporters argue that the Municipal Court should not require its judge to be an attorney because it is the court of the people -- the common man accused of misdemeanors.

"You should be judged by your peers, not by attorneys," said Davis, a longtime owner of a local plant nursery.

He fears that AB69 will be pushed through because lawmakers are heavily influenced by attorneys. Also, he said matters involving specific city charters traditionally are not strongly opposed by representatives from other areas of the state.

However, at least two of the three assemblymen from North Las Vegas say they have to question the city's motives for introducing this bill.

"I'm opposed to it," said Assemblyman Tom Collins, D-North Las Vegas. "It takes away the right of the people to choose a person in their community and from among their peers to serve as judge. The Municipal Court is no place for lawyers.

"The bill's real intent is for some people in the city to express their own personal feelings against Gary Davis."

Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, D-North Las Vegas, said she has received a lot of e-mail and phone calls -- not one in support of the bill, and not one even mentioning Davis.

"The e-mail messages I've received from my constituents ask that we please not take their rights away," Chowning said. "I questioned the North Las Vegas staff on this, and they said that (stopping Davis from running) was not its intent.

"But surely it (the Davis issue) does put a shadow on this bill."

Chowning says she will keep an open mind about AB69, but notes that if lawmakers determine it is indeed a veiled effort by the city to single out Davis, the measure undoubtedly will meet "a very skeptical" review.

Anita Laruy, serving as a city lobbyist for the bill, says it was developed by Judge James Kelly -- an attorney and North Las Vegas justice of the peace who was selected to replace Davis -- not by the City Council.

"This is a policy issue," said Laruy, also an attorney. "A judge who is an attorney has a better understanding of the law. And the bill addresses more than just a judge being an attorney."

Other changes include lowering the residency requirement for a North Las Vegas municipal judge from two years to six months and allowing the city to create a second municipal judge position when the size of the population calls for it, she said.

In six years, North Las Vegas has grown from 48,000 people to 86,000.

While North Las Vegas, Henderson and other small communities do not require their municipal judges to be attorneys, larger cities such as Reno and Las Vegas do, Laruy noted.

In Las Vegas, Municipal Judge Seymore Brown is the only remaining nonattorney on the bench. He was grandfathered in when the law changed several years ago.

Davis says if the bill passes, he reckons there will be "about 10 people" in North Las Vegas who will be qualify to run for municipal judge.

"If they pass this bill, they cannot stop me from running for mayor," Davis said. "However, I want to be the judge -- that is my first choice."

Davis took the Fifth Amendment in his hearing before the Judicial Discipline Commission because he felt it was unfair that they were his accusers and his judges. Also, he did not want his statements used against him.

Davis was accused of borrowing money from court employees, using workers to run personal errands, playing offensive music to those being held in jail and selling antiques out of his courthouse. Some allegations are 15 years old and, according to Davis, had been long resolved.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Davis said in court documents that "(when a) discipline commission can remove a judge who was elected by thousands of voters, it is an 'anti-democratic' process."

In July, by a 3-2 vote, with then-Councilwoman and now-Clark County Commissioner Mary Kincaid and Councilman John Rhodes voting nay, the North Las Vegas City Council sent the matter to the Legislature.

Also last year, Kincaid defeated Davis for a spot on the County Commission. Several years ago, Kincaid, a nonattorney, lost to Davis in the race for municipal judge.

Davis says the bill could backfire in the faces of his political enemies.

"If the Supreme Court puts me back on the bench and this bill passes, then I will be grandfathered in and allowed to run again," Davis said, noting that he is contacting legislators, asking them to reject the measure before that scenario develops.