Editorial: A plan to stop the ‘begging’

Saturday, Aug. 26, 2006 | 7:28 a.m.

District Judge Brent Adams of Reno has asked the Nevada Supreme Court to change court rules in the state so that judicial candidates would be prohibited from directly soliciting donations for their election campaigns. Under Adams' plan - similar to restrictions in Georgia and North Carolina - only a judicial candidate's political action committee could solicit or accept campaign contributions.

"It's long past time to get judges out of the political money game," Adams told the Reno Gazette-Journal. "A judge must be independent. It is an extremely dangerous practice for judges to be personally begging for money during the election season, and this rule will prevent it."

Adams' request comes in the wake of a damaging Los Angeles Times investigative series earlier this year on the conduct of judges in Nevada. The stories reported that judges here don't always disclose conflicts of interest they have in cases involving friends and former clients and business associates. And, as it relates to Adams' interest in limiting judges from directly seeking contributions, the Times reported that judicial candidates depend heavily upon contributions from the gaming industry and lawyers, many of whom appear before them if they are elected.

In response to Adams' request, the Nevada Supreme Court last week asked the Reno judge, the Nevada Bar Association, the Judicial Discipline Commission, the attorney general, the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the Nevada District Judges Association and the Nevada Judges Association to weigh in on the proposal. Specifically, the Supreme Court wants Adams and these groups to address some of the constitutional issues it would raise.

The Supreme Court said two federal appellate courts, in cases involving Minnesota and Alabama, have ruled that bans on judges directly collecting campaign contributions are unconstitutional because they chill a candidate's speech, violating the First Amendment.

The Nevada Supreme Court quoted from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' 2002 decision in Weaver v. Bonner: "The impartiality concerns, if any, are created by the state's decision to elect judges publicly. Campaigning for elected office necessarily entails raising campaign funds and seeking endorsements from prominent figures and groups in the community. The fact that judicial candidates require financial support and public endorsements to run successful campaigns does not suggest that they will be partial if they are elected.

"Furthermore, even if there is a risk that judges will be tempted to rule a particular way because of contributions or endorsements, this risk is not significantly reduced by allowing the candidates' agent to seek these contributions and endorsements on the candidates' behalf rather than the candidate seeking them himself."

It is true that a judge on the take probably would not be affected at all as to whether he was getting his contributions in person or through a political action committee. Nevertheless, as many judicial candidates have acknowledged previously, they find it uncomfortable and sometimes unseemly to have to seek money from the same people who would appear before them later in court.

A buffer between the candidates and the donors, in the form of a political action committee, might give those seeking a seat on the court more of a comfort level. It also could increase the sentiment among the public that judges aren't being unduly swayed by having to personally solicit campaign contributions.

We look forward to reading the comments from Adams and other legal groups about this proposal and what constitutional ramifications it might have.

In the end, Adams' proposal might be deemed unworkable, but it is imperative for maintaining the public's faith in an impartial judicial system that proposals like his be given the thoughtful consideration they are due.