Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: New poison pill for us

Saturday, Sept. 16, 2000 | 6:28 a.m.

Mike O'Callaghan is the Las Vegas Sun executive editor.

THERE'S A NEW run being made on removing your power to elect or defeat the men and women who can decide your fate in our courts. This effort is made every few years and eventually reaches the ballot for Nevadans to defeat it. Seldom is the same sugar-coated pill offered for voters to swallow. Once voters show their distrust at the polls, a new flavor of coating is put on the next deadly pill offered for them to swallow.

The latest compromise offered by the Judicial Assessment Commission allows for the governor to appoint all judges from three candidates selected by the Judicial Selection Commission. After serving two years, that appointed judge would then have to face an open election. If he wins then, he would no longer have to face an opponent, but every six years would only have to run against his record. If he doesn't win after two years in office or fails to be retained in an election, guess what happens? The same old process of a new judge being appointed by the governor and then only facing an opponent once. Never does the voter again have a choice to make between two or more candidates seeking that seat on the bench.

All nice, neat and clean because no longer do judges have to face voters every six years and be compared with what other candidates have to offer. No more messy elections or a requirement that those who judge us must also, as individuals, be judged by us. No longer will we hear judicial candidates tell us what they have to offer and explain their suggestions to improve our judicial system.

Convincing Nevadans that the latest pill being offered is good government just won't fly. It won't take politics out of the process, it will only reduce the number of people having a voice in who will judge us and run our courts. The voice you and I now have at the polls after comparing candidates will be reduced to an ineffective mere whisper. A small commission and the governor will then have a voice much louder than should be allowed in our form of government. The governor, by his or her very nature, is a political animal who already has plenty of power as head of the executive branch of state government. The same can be said about the Legislature as a player in this game.

In 1985 this columnist looked at an earlier version of this judicial pill being offered Nevadans. What I wrote then applies to what again is being prepared for them to swallow. It's healthy for judges being required to face the voters every six years during hot summer months. It's a cleansing process good for all who participate. Voters should be able to see, touch and ask questions of the people who can fine them, take their liberty and even their lives. Why shouldn't Nevadans have the opportunity to compare candidates rather than just vote YES or NO on a shadowy record oftentimes confused and/or protected by legal terms and court rules?

Our form of government isn't always the neatest process but it has served us well over several generations. I'll take what we have, waste and all, before surrendering to the belief that the voters aren't competent to select their judges. Do they make mistakes? Yes, and the next election they can, and usually do, rectify such errors when comparing candidates. If the Judicial Selection Commission and governor make an error, the chance it will be corrected in the next election is slim. YES or NO votes on a judicial record just aren't as productive as public debates between two or more candidates.