Judges take their shot

By Sam Skolnik

Thursday, March 22, 2007 | 7:08 a.m.

In the face of heated resistance to their hopes for a 30 percent salary hike, Nevada judges are scrambling to make sure they receive some increase in pay before the Legislature wraps up business.

Two weeks ago, legislators from both sides of the aisle slapped down the proposed pay raises for Nevada District Court judges and Supreme Court justices, which are included in the Supreme Court's overall request for a 38 percent increase in funding.

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, D-Las Vegas, went so far as to say that if every agency got such an increase, the state would be bankrupt. She told Supreme Court Chief Justice Bill Maupin to come back to her subcommittee with a more modest proposal.

Judges are anxiously arguing that this session is their only shot - for the next six years, anyway - for needed raises that keep pace with inflation and their rapidly growing workloads.

Unlike most other states, the Nevada Constitution prohibits state judges and justices from receiving any salary increases during their term of office. If the judges succeed, raises would take effect in the beginning of 2009. If they fail, no salary increase could be implemented until 2015.

Nevada's 64 District Court judges earn $130,000 annually, and the state's seven Supreme Court justices make $140,000. A 30 percent raise would boost those salaries to $169,000 and $182,000, respectively.

The national median for District or Superior Court judge is $120,000.

In fiscal 2006, judges' salaries accounted for 36 percent of the judicial system's overall budget.

"Here's the thing: We're an island in many ways," said Jennifer Togliatti, incoming president of the Nevada District Judges Association. Unlike most other states, Nevada has no mechanism to allow judges to receive smaller, incremental pay increases, she said.

To bolster her argument, Togliatti referred to a report issued late last year by a task force appointed by then-Gov. Kenny Guinn. The five-member task force, composed of prominent Nevada business executives, recommended that the full 30 percent raises for District Court judges and Supreme Court justices be implemented.

The task force argued that the constitutional ban on midterm salary increases has resulted in significant disparities in compensation among judges, depending on when they were elected.

Recently elected judges and justices would not see any change in their pay for their six-year terms, the report noted, while judges who are elected after the pay increase would most benefit by it.

Togliatti, a District Court judge in Clark County, acknowledged that the judges might settle for smaller raises. "It doesn't have to be ' X' amount," she said. "It just has to be what's just and fair."

Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, was highly critical of Maupin's proposal at the March 7 hearing of the Senate-Assembly subcommittee on general government. But he also said in a recent interview that some sort of negotiated settlement was likely.

Beers said the judiciary has enjoyed four years of above-average budget increases, and that judicial salaries have risen at double the rate of inflation for the past 15 years.

According to Beers, the Legislature's initial rejection of the 30 percent pay boost proposal was typical of the give-and-take when judicial branch budgets come before the Legislature. Unlike with executive branch budgets, which also have to be vetted by the state's budget office, the Legislature is the sole agency responsible for overseeing judicial budgets, so prudence is required, he said, instead of a blank check.

"There's an atmosphere of negotiation that pervades the budgeting process, especially the judicial branch budget," he said. "Compromise is probable."

McClain said she understood about the six-year window, but also noted that on top of their base salaries, judges get, for their first 11 years of service, annual pay raises - called "longevity increases" - of 2 percent of their base pay.

Ultimately, McClain said, the judiciary needs to understand that its requests, including demands for new judges and for increased funding for specialty drug and mental health courts, are part of a larger picture.

The Legislature, she said, is facing a severe budgetary squeeze because of limited revenue , the state's growing prison population and K-12 educational needs. "All of this adds up," she said.

Maupin said he's aware of this, and has made his priorities clear to the Legislature in preparation for the next subcommittee hearing, on April 5.

Funding for about two dozen new court employees, for bolstered specialty courts and for improved technology, such as a Web-based filing system for Supreme Court cases, is to take priority over raises for judges, he said.

After all, judges don't run for office for the pay: "We want the job first, and pay considerations are secondary."

That said, Maupin said he expected a fair increase, one that "respects the professional capacities of judges, and is in line with what judges do."