Judge-elect suing ethics committee

Bill Gang

Monday, Nov. 30, 1998 | 11:10 a.m.

Family Court Judge-elect Robert Lueck, one of three judicial candidates who was chided by a state judicial ethics committee over campaign ads, filed a federal court lawsuit today claiming his free-speech rights were violated.

He joins Family Court Judge Gary Redmon and attorney James Mahan in challenging the constitutionality of the actions by the the Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices.

Redmon and Mahan also were chastised by the committee over statements they made during their campaigns.

If the three win, it could gut the power of the committee, which was created by the Nevada Supreme Court in 1997 as a way of cleaning up judicial elections. Those elections have been some of the most contentious and drawn considerable criticism from the legal community and the public.

The intent was to provide an avenue of immediate recourse for questionable campaign practices that could unfairly skew an election.

But the three Clark County candidates who felt the committee's wrath say the committee has gone too far and stepped on the candidates' First Amendment rights.

Lueck was found on Oct. 30 to have violated a canon of judicial ethics by stating in a campaign ad that his opponent -- incumbent Family Court Judge Fran Fine -- had been "convicted" of judicial misconduct and removed from office.

The committee concluded the term "convicted" improperly implied a criminal violation had occurred when that was not the case.

In his lawsuit, Lueck charged that the committee "engaged in intentional and deliberate acts of censorship."

"The content of the advertisements were factually and legally correct," the lawsuit stated.

Although Lueck and his lawyer, John Watkins, concede the committee's action did not have an effect on the election's outcome -- Lueck won with 68 percent of the vote -- they contend the action taints the new judge's stature.

"The committee's decision is false and defamatory in that the decision states that Lueck did violate a canon of judicial ethics ... by knowingly misrepresenting a material fact," the lawsuit stated.

Lueck said he did not misrepresent any facts but still changed the wording.

The lawsuit argues that federal action is necessary, because there is no judicial review of the committee's actions at the state level. In addition, the suit argues, the declaration of ethical wrongdoing could be used against Lueck in future elections.

Lueck wants a court order stating the committee's opinion about him cannot be enforced and an injunction "prohibiting the committee from conducting itself as a censorship body for political advertisements for judicial candidates."

In the case of Mahan, who ran unsuccessfully for District Court Department 17, the committee concluded he did not maintain "the dignity appropriate to judicial office" by running ads implying his opponent was likely to sympathize with criminals.

Mahan was ordered to remove a television commercial showing defendants joyful at the prospect of Special Public Defender Mike Cherry becoming a judge.

Cherry won the election.

In the case of Redmon -- a current Family Court judge who was running for a newly created Department 19 seat on the civil-criminal court -- the committee stated that his ads implied he was the incumbent.

He changed his ads and won the election over longtime attorney Drake Delanoy.