Committee says judge candidates can’t reveal party

Thursday, Aug. 20, 1998 | 10:36 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A committee, formed by the Nevada Supreme Court to oversee the ethics and election practices of judges, issued its first decision Wednesday saying candidates for judgeships are not allowed to publicly reveal their political parties.

The Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices said complaints on election violations were filed against two candidates for judge because they responded during a radio interview to the question about their political affiliation.

The committee, in a decision signed by vice chairman George W. Foley Jr., said no action would be taken against the two candidates but warned others running for judge that they should decline to answer the question of political affiliation when asked in interviews.

The identities of the two candidates were not revealed. But one of them maintained the canon of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct violated his right to free speech. The canon says a judge or candidate may privately reveal his political party but should not do it in public.

"A candidate for judicial office who publicly advertises and announces his political party affiliation is likely to be perceived as partial and, if elected, or re-elected, likely to be swayed by partisan political interest or likely to favor the political views of the party to which he has publicly affiliated himself or herself," Foley wrote.

Leonard Gang, secretary to the committee, said it felt the disclosure by the two candidates of their political party was inadvertent. Rather than imposing sanctions, the committee felt it was better to issue a decision, educating others running for judge.

The committee, created last year by the Supreme Court, could have required the candidates to issue a public apology or it could have made public the decision naming the offending parties.

In these two cases, the candidates were only responding to questions by an interviewer and there is no evidence "either candidate has affirmatively advertised or promoted his or her party affiliation," said Foley of Las Vegas, in explaining why no action was taken against the two.

The committee also issued two advisory opinion to judges on questions of ethics in their jobs.

It said a district judge may not assist the prosecution in preparing for trial of a case originally prosecuted by the judge prior to taking the bench. Under this scenario, the judge had served as a prosecutor in a case where a man was convicted and sentenced. The sentence was reversed and a new hearing scheduled.

In the interim the prosecutor had been named district judge. He wanted to know whether he may volunteer, at no charge, to help the prosecution prepare for the new sentencing hearing.

Foley said the canons on judicial behavior prohibit a judge from practicing la.

"In addition, by providing legal assistance or advice in a criminal prosecution, a judge would be engaging in conduct which may cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge in other matters and such conduct violates the principal of separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches of government," Foley said.

In the second advisory opinion, the committee said a part-time judge in the municipal court can practice law before the district court which has appellate jurisdiction over that municipal court.

Foley added, "Obviously, the judge may not act as counsel in the district court on any matter in which he acted in his judicial capacity in the municipal court."

These were the third and fourth advisory opinions issued by the committee. In June it said a sitting judge may not permit his name to be listed as a member of an "Honorary Host Committee" for a charitable event.

Its first advisory opinion, issued June 15, said a non-partisan elected municipal judge may not run for the board of regents of the University and Community College System, also a non-partisan office. If the judge wanted to seek the office of regent, he should resign his judgeship.