Trio threaten lawsuits over ethics panel actions

Bill Gang and Cy Ryan

Wednesday, Nov. 11, 1998 | 11:25 a.m.

Three judicial candidates -- two of them successful -- have vowed to file federal lawsuits over declarations by the State Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices that they violated fair campaign practices.

The three -- Robert Lueck, James Mahan and Family Court Judge Gary Redmon -- said Monday that the last-hour sanctions by the committee were over petty issues and violated their First Amendment rights.

"I thought all three decisions were ludicrous," Redmon said Monday.

This was the first year the committee, created in 1997 to field complaints on judicial campaigns, operated. The challenges will, if nothing else, help define the scope of its authority.

The concern of the three, however, is that as a result of the committee rulings, they will now be labeled as unethical campaigners, and that has the potential to affect their political futures.

Lueck, who unseated embattled incumbent Family Judge Fran Fine, was declared by the committee to have used misleading advertisements, stating that his opponent was "convicted" in a case in which she was ordered removed from office by the state Commission on Judicial Discipline.

The committee noted that "convicted" implies a criminal action, and it criticized Lueck for advertisements that claimed those who voted for Fine, would be "wasting your vote." He was ordered to change the newspaper advertisements.

Fine was ordered removed from her job by the state Judicial Discipline Commission for holding improper conversations with experts in cases without lawyers from either side being present. She has appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Lueck said there was nothing erroneous in the ads and the word "convicted" can apply to civil cases as well as criminal.

The committee chastised Mahan for his fliers and TV ads in his unsuccessful race against Michael Cherry for District Judge Department 17, and criticized Redmon for his TV ad in his race against Drake DeLanoy for the newly created judicial Department 19.

Mahan was ordered to remove language from his fliers that said Cherry, a special public defender, spent much of his career trying to keep criminals out of jail. Mahan also questioned how Cherry could understand the agony of victims when an offender is set free because of "legal maneuvering or crafty tactics."

"I thought it was fair comment on his statements that he was going to be tough on crime," Mahan said Monday, noting that judicial candidates in past elections have used similar ads.

The commission also said that Mahan, in television ads that depict criminals smiling while getting mug shots taken, failed to maintain "the dignity appropriate to judicial office."

Redmon's TV ad, the commission found, implied Family Court was the incumbent in District Judge race. Department 19, however, is one of three new District Court seats and there is no incumbent.

"I am a judge," Redmon said, noting that Nevada Supreme Court rules permit sitting judges to use their titles in ads when they seek other judicial positions.

Redmon said he was frustrated with the committee findings, because there was no way to appeal the conclusions, which could then be used by opponents in the races.

"You're just kind of out of luck," he said. "But to my way of thinking, that's not the way it should be under the law."