Editorial: ‘Special grand jury’ not needed

Monday, Feb. 27, 2006 | 7:38 a.m.

An initiative petition calling for the creation of a 25-member citizen's panel with enormous power over judges has qualified for the ballot in South Dakota and a group in Las Vegas is working on a similar petition to put before Nevada voters.

If the petition is approved by South Dakota's voters in November, the citizen's panel, or "special grand jury" as it is called on the petition, would be empowered to fine judges or even remove them from the bench.

That power would come into play if a judge committed "any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case or any deliberate violation of the Constitution."

The petition is laughable on its face, as the very first fine it tried to levy would be swatted into a semantic vortex by a defense attorney. What does "deliberate" mean and how can it be proven? The same for "intentional.'' The same for "blocking." And what constitutes a "conspiracy''?

A citizen's watchdog group over judges is not necessary. Yet Redress Inc., a nonprofit group, is working on a similar, but even more encompassing, petition for Nevada. The group, which works with people who say they have been wronged by the legal system, is preparing an initiative petition that would give a special grand jury power over police officers and attorneys as well as judges.

Yet there is already a system in place for overseeing judges, police officers and attorneys. In Nevada, voters put judges in office and can remove them if they choose. Also, there is the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, which takes action if judges or attorneys abuse their powers. The Nevada Bar Association plays a similar role. And of course there is an appeals process if someone wants to question a judge's reasoning or actions in the courtroom.

The actions of police officers in Southern Nevada are monitored by their superiors and watched closely by the Civilian Review Board. And watching all three groups are the press and general public.

Redress Inc. is setting another example of how the initiative process is getting out of hand. We are strongly opposed to any emasculation of the judiciary. It is vital that judges, attorneys and police officers work within the framework of law, and not the quirky concepts of self-appointed guardians of special interests.