Wednesday, Jan. 31, 2007 | 7:01 a.m.
At least one small piece of judicial campaign reform appears headed for smooth sailing in the Legislature.
Although a large percentage of judicial candidates in Nevada end up running unopposed, some raise tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for their campaigns to prepare for competition, or to dissuade others from taking them on.
The practice has raised issues of potential conflicts of interest between judges and donors, often lawyers who appear before the judges in court.
The Supreme Court, aware of these conflicts, has decided to try to change the system. It is pushing the Legislature hard this session for reform.
It has proposed a bill that would move up the two-week filing period for Supreme Court, District Court and Justice Court judicial candidates from mid-May in an election year to mid-January. By moving the filing date forward four months, judicial candidates, including incumbent judges, would know whether they had opponents they needed to campaign against.
The bill's passage would then enable the Supreme Court to be able to amend the state's Code of Judicial Conduct to prohibit any fundraising among unopposed judicial candidates.
According to its primary backers, this simple, two-phase approach would go a long way toward taking money out of the mix in Nevada judicial elections.
"The idea is how do you minimize the impact of fundraising?" Supreme Court Justice Mark Gibbons said. "One big way is to lessen fundraising by unopposed judges.
"Instead of campaigning, they can focus on their jobs as judges," Gibbons said. "It's probably the best way to get rid of the perception of conflicts of interest."
The proposed legislation - similar versions of which have failed in two previous legislative sessions - appears to be gaining momentum.
Legislators of both parties contacted by the Sun said that while they haven't seen the bill's specific language yet, they likely will back the measure .
"It is a laudable goal to take the money out of judicial elections," said Assemblywoman Ellen Koivisto, D-Las Vegas, chairwoman of the Assembly Elections, Procedures, Ethics and Constitutional Amendments Committee. "Transparency in all Nevada elections will be one of the goals of the Assembly Democratic Caucus this session."
Sen. Warren Hardy, R-Las Vegas, who serves on the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, said he's in favor "radical" changes in the judicial selection process, including the bill draft, as well as implementation of the "Missouri Plan," which would be a change from contested judicial elections to a system through which judges are selected by a committee and then run unopposed in retention elections.
"I'm wide open to considering several types of reforms," Hardy said. "Our judges need to be in a position to make their rulings based on the law, rather than on any political considerations."
The State Bar of Nevada's Board of Governors last week joined in support of the bill draft.
Rew Goodenow, a Reno attorney who is president of the State Bar, said that because a greater number of press reports over the last year involving money-related conflicts of interest with Nevada judges, "there may be a wider acceptance of change in this area now."
According to Goodenow, the 15-member board voted overwhelmingly in favor of the bill draft during a Jan. 22 meeting. The board also expressed its support for the "Nevada Plan" to select judges, a modified Missouri Plan in which judges, after being appointed by a committee, would run in one contested election before facing retention elections thereafter.
A small sampling of District Court judges in Clark County also support the bill draft.
"I think in principle it's a very good idea," Presiding Civil Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez said. "It's important to renew the public's confidence in the judiciary."
Chief District Judge Kathy Hardcastle agreed. "It's a step in the right direction to try to get money out of the system," she said.
Hardcastle noted, however, that such a law could subject District and Justice Court judges - who would have a more limited ability to build and retain big campaign war chests - to unfair campaigning disadvantages, should Municipal Court judges or other officials unaffected by the legislation decide to run for one of their seats.
"I think most of us would like the idea of not having to raise money, but then there are the political realities," Hardcastle said.
archive
