Don’t show her ‘Missouri Plan’

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 | 7:21 a.m.

All eyes were noticeably averted from beleaguered District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson as she grilled an expert on judicial independence who spoke at a Clark County Bar Association luncheon last week.

Doreen D. Dodson, chair woman of the American Bar Association 's Judicial Independence Committee, was in Las Vegas for a Nevada Supreme Court hearing on judicial campaign contributions. The lunchtime stop at the Golden Nugget was meant to rally Clark County lawyers to educate the public about judicial election reform.

Following her presentation, Dodson opened the floor and was asked several questions - mostly by Halverson, who could be heard from across the room mumbling in retort to statements she thought were not entirely accurate.

Since her November election to the bench, Halverson has been shadowed by allegations of incompetence and mired in a feud with fellow judges.

When Halverson raised her hand, the 60 or so audience members suddenly became enthralled by their silverware.

Halverson questioned ABA information on the " Missouri Plan, " which she said had actually been adopted only in four counties in Missouri. (It has been adopted in four large counties around Kansas City and St. Louis and in the state's Supreme and Appellate courts . )

The Nevada Plan - which would change the Nevada Constitution to allow judges to be first appointed by the governor and then approved by citizens in subsequent retention elections - is based largely on the Missouri Plan. It was approved by the Legislature last month and needs a second legislative approval in 2009 and approval by voters later that year before it can become law.

Halverson, elected in November with just shy of half the vote, favors voters choosing judges.

Dodson contended that judges are bound to uphold the law, not the will of the people, and shouldn't be elected like officials in the legislative and executive branches of government.

She said being directly accountable to voters has led jurists to make decisions based on popular opinion instead of the rule of law and to judges' growing dependence on interest groups and big business , which fund increasingly expensive campaigns. She said it has given rise to the trend of "activist judges" and distorted people's expectations of the judiciary.

Halverson scoffed at this notion.

"I think in one sense we do serve the will of the people because when I go out in the community, I hear people say that," Halverson said. "They feel influence rules the day and that's why they don't like the Missouri Plan, because they feel it reinforces the 'old boys' network.' They say it's not about merit, it's about politics, one way or another."

Dodson reflected on the difficulty of persuading voters to give up picking judges at the ballot box. No state has approved these plans in the past 20 years, she said, and variations of the Missouri Plan have twice failed in Nevada elections.

Dodson said this is why lawyers, who are more intimately familiar with the courts than the average American, must speak out. Increasingly, she said, judicial elections are influenced not by the character or qualifications of candidates but by enormous amounts of money donated to campaigns by businesses, law firms and interest groups. This in turn leads to the increased necessity of recusals, disqualifications and in some cases charges of bias on the bench.

"We have to do everything we can to educate the public - if we don't, no one else will," Dodson said. "We're asking you to do this because it's a privilege to be a lawyer in the United States of America and if we don't protect that privilege we're going to lose it."

archive