Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2004 | 11:16 a.m.
The spotlight doesn't usually shine on Nevada Supreme Court judicial races, but the focus could be laser-sharp this election season.
The interest has been raised because of the number of seats up for election and because of the Supreme Court's controversial decision last summer that paved the way for last year's historic tax increases. It appears that there will be more candidates -- and, presumably, more money -- in this election than any Nevada court race in recent memory.
So far, seven people are eyeing three court seats up for grabs in November.
"There's almost a stampede, and there's some pretty good candidates," said Senior Justice Cliff Young, who served full time on the Nevada Supreme Court for nearly 20 years.
At least two seats will definitely change hands, meaning the race could dramatically change the direction of the state's highest court. Chief Justice Miriam Shearing is retiring, and the death of Justice Myron Leavitt creates a second open seat.
The focal point so far in the election is Justice Deborah Agosti, who was the chief justice last year and author of the court's decision to break the legislative stalemate over taxes. She is up for re-election.
In the wake of the ruling, Agosti and the court were vilified by some tax opponents. Agosti is expected to be targeted by organizations that typically don't throw money into judicial races but disagree with the decision.
The Nevada Retail Association, for example, has never been involved in pushing Nevada Supreme Court candidates, said Liz MacMenamin, director of government affairs.
That will change this year, MacMenamin said, when the association pushes Washoe County Chief District Judge Jim Hardesty to fill Shearing's seat and entertainment attorney John Mason to replace Agosti.
"This is a very political court," MacMenamin said. "The decision that they handed down was very political. We'd like to see that changed."
Some in the pack said they chose to run because of the tax decision.
"There's a lot of people running -- a lot of credible people running," said Mason, one of three people challenging Agosti.
"And for the first time perhaps in the history of our state, a lot of people and organizations are focused on the Supreme Court race because they've come to realize how out of touch this Supreme Court can be with their interests."
Last summer Gov. Kenny Guinn asked the Nevada Supreme Court to intervene in a legislative stalemate.
Facing a projected state deficit, lawmakers had crafted a tax package but both the Assembly and the Senate fell short of a two-thirds majority. Under a voter-approved constitutional amendment, the Legislature needs a two-thirds majority to pass new taxes.
In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the state constitution also requires that the Legislature fund public education, and the budget impasse was holding up funding for schools that were about to open.
The court ruled that the school funding should take precedence, meaning legislators could pass tax increases without a two-thirds majority. The Legislature, however, did get a two-thirds majority on the new tax panel.
Response to the decision was largely critical, and anti-tax advocates vowed a recall effort against the six judges who voted for it, including Agosti.
Those recall flames appeared to have died down, but Agosti is the one judge who ruled in favor of the opinion who is up for re-election this year. She said she expects her opponents to focus mainly on the one issue.
"To hear my opponents talk, they're not going to let it die down," she said of the tax decision. "They want the public whipped up and angry because they think that this will increase their chances of being elected."
While Agosti defends the merits of the ruling, there is some question over how much she and her opponents can say about the specifics of the case.
Previously, candidates had been prohibited from talking about issues that could go before the court, and the tax decision still could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But in a separate ruling last year, the U.S. Supreme Court said that judges shouldn't have their freedom of speech violated in campaigns.
"This will be an area that will probably not be well-defined for several years to come," said Bill Dressel, president of the Reno-based National Judicial College.
"We need to go through several elections, get examples of speech and come up with guidelines on what types of speech are permitted or not permitted."
Some candidates appear ready to feel it out. Mason has already called the Nevada Supreme Court tax decision "a blatant disregard of the will of 71 percent of the people," referring to the constitutional amendment passed by voters that requires a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to increase taxes.
The focus on the tax decision could make this race one of the most politicized among recent state supreme court elections, which typically focus on experience and personality, Dressel said.
"One of the biggest problems that's going to arise is there will be an attempt to polarize this election down to that issue," Dressel said.
How much that will translate into dollars remains to be seen. Mason said he hasn't been approached by tax interest groups yet, but he hopes he will be.
"I think the taxpayer organizations will be very interested in this race, and I intend to talk to them and solicit their support," he said.
That support will be badly needed in this election, which could prove the costliest judicial race in state history.
Hardesty said he plans to spend $750,000; Mason said he expects to spend $650,000. Even Michael Douglas, who hopes to win Guinn's nomination to temporarily fill Leavitt's post, probably needs $500,000 to win a seat in November, said Dan Hart, his campaign consultant.
"The more interest there is in the races, the better chances you have of fund-raising," Hart said. "You would think that this year because of the interest in the races, you would have more money to spend on the campaigns."
archive
