High court won’t hear ex-justice’s suit

Monday, March 6, 2000 | 11:21 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit by former Justice Charles Springer of Reno, who claimed he was shortchanged in his pay during his final term on the court.

The court said Springer needs to begin his lawsuit at the District Court level.

The suit, filed last week in the Supreme Court, complained Springer was paid 20 percent less than his old rival, Justice Cliff Young, from 1997 to 1999, when he retired.

Named as defendants are Young, state Controller Kathy Augustine and the state.

The failure of a constitutional amendment on the 1994 ballot and a 1995 act by the state Legislature combined to create a system in which state justices are paid different amounts.

The state Constitution prohibits raising the pay of justices while they are in office, so when a pay raise was given by the Legislature, justices, who have staggered terms, would receive it only after they had been re-elected.

To keep justices from getting differing paychecks, the Legislature allowed those who were earning less to be paid for their service on the state Board of Pardons, thereby equalizing the pay. A constitutional amendment on the 1994 ballot would have allowed judges' salaries to be raised during their term, but it was overwhelmingly defeated.

Then the Legislature in 1995 abolished added pay for work on the pardons board. It also authorized a pay raise for justices who were elected in 1996. Young won re-election in 1996 and started collecting higher pay in 1997.

Springer, the senior member of the court, did not qualify for the raise and was no longer getting paid for work on the pardons board.

So in his final two years of 18 years on the court, Springer made less than his junior member, his lawsuit noted.