Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

Halverson defends judicial elections

There was a meeting room full of noticeably uncomfortable lawyers and judges last week when embattled District Judge Elizabeth Halverson grilled a judicial independence expert who spoke at a Clark County Bar Association luncheon.

Doreen Dodson, chairwoman of the American Bar Association Judicial Independence Committee, was in Las Vegas for a Nevada Supreme Court hearing on judicial campaign contributions. The June 21 lunchtime stop at the Golden Nugget was meant to recruit Clark County lawyers for an American Bar Association movement that taps attorneys to educate the public about judicial independence and election issues.

Following her speech and a short DVD presentation, Dodson opened the floor and was asked questions - mostly by Halverson, who could be heard from across the room muttering in response to statements she felt were not accurate.

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

Almost immediately after Halverson first raised her hand, the 60 or so audience members averted their eyes, seemingly enthralled by their silverware.

Halverson questioned ABA information on the Missouri Plan, which she said had only actually been adopted in four counties in Missouri. (It has been adopted in four counties, the state Supreme Court 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 awaits a second legislative approval in 2009 and by voters later that year before it can become law.

Halverson, elected this winter with just less than half the vote , favors Nevada's existing system, in which voters choose judges directly.

Dodson had contended in her presentation that judges are "special" and should be held apart from legislative and executive branches of government, who are elected, because they are bound to uphold the law, not the will of the people.

She said that being directly accountable to voters has frequently led jurists to make decisions based on popular opinion instead of the rule of law and has led to judges' growing dependence on interest groups and big business who can afford to support their increasingly expensive electoral campaigns. She said it has birthed the trend of so-called "activists judges" and has 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."

An unidentified audience member asked about the issue of disciplinary boards' right to remove elected judges from office, another sore topic for Halverson who herself is under scrutiny over alleged incompetence on the bench and accusations of tyranny over staff.

Dodson said judicial disciplinary committees are necessary to ensure judges are accountable for their misdeeds.

Halverson grumbled audibly that perhaps this was only fair if these committees were not made up almost entirely of "people off the street."

In answer to a question from another attendee, Dodson reflected on the difficulty of convincing voters to vote to take away their own ability to select judges at the ballot box. She said that in the past 20 years all attempts to do so have failed. Versions of the Missouri Plan have twice failed on Nevada ballots.

Dodson said this is why it is imperative for lawyers, who are more familiar with the courts than the average American, 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 .

Dodson and her fellow members of the ABA Judicial Independence Committee realize that simply talking to lawyers about the problem has not had an impact. Instead, they are trying to enlist lawyers' help, creating a flashy DVD and two pamphlets on how to best talk to the public about the issue so that the average person can understand it.

"Get over the idea that just because you talk all day that you know how to do it," Dodson said of speaking to community groups. "Think about your core message, fair and impartial is necessary. We know our system has problems, but it's still the best one out there."

Among the top tips: Always assume there is a reporter in the room, even if you have not been forewarned. It also offers tips on answering touchy or leading questions in such a way to get the core message across. She noted that 84 percent of Americans want a court system that is free of political influence. The difficulty is in explaining the reality of the current situation - 2006 saw record high spending on judicial elections across the nation - without sounding arrogant.

"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."

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy