Bill stumbles, so voters likely to keep picking judges

Sam Skolnik

Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 6:51 a.m.

When the 2007 legislative session began, Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio's vision of ending the system of costly contested state judicial elections appeared to have a good shot at becoming reality.

As of Wednesday, despite the best efforts of Raggio, R-Reno, and Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, the so-called Raggio Plan is facing a tough fight.

Raggio's plan, a revised version of the "Missouri Plan," would end the system of contested elections for District Court judges and Supreme Court justices. That process has been decried by critics because of its reliance on fundraising - often from lawyers and others who then appear before the same judges in court.

The measure would mandate that the state's Judicial Selection Commission choose three candidates for vacant judgeships. The governor would select one of those people to serve a two-year term. The judge would then face voters unopposed in a "retention election," needing to pass by a 60 percent margin to serve another six-year term.

Many reformers support the measure, saying it would go a long way toward taking cash - and the resulting conflicts of interest, both perceived and real - out of the judicial selection process.

In the beginning, the Raggio Plan appeared headed for a smooth ride.

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed the measure last month with a strong bipartisan majority. On April 16 the Senate as a whole concurred, approving the bill by a vote of 15-6.

On Friday, however, Raggio's bill was dealt a crippling setback in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, where it was voted down, 9-5. Five Democrats and four Republicans took issue with several aspects of Senate Joint Resolution 2.

They doubted the wisdom of taking the ability to choose judicial candidates out of the hands of voters, and suggested that putting the initial selection in the hands of a commission and then the governor could open the process to cronyism and political considerations. They said the 60 percent majority threshold would mean that judges would still need to raise at least some money to stay in office.

"My basic philosophy is: 'I trust the people,' " said Assembly Judiciary Committee Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, who voted against the measure. Under the Raggio Plan, he said, "I have a question about whether the public would know who the potential appointees are."

After the committee vote Friday, Raggio and Buckley quietly signed a special waiver allowing the Assembly Judiciary Committee to reconsider SJR2.

Wednesday morning, the committee heard testimony on the bill a third time, including pleas from Raggio and Buckley. Anderson on Wednesday rejected a formal motion for reconsideration by his committee, saying he wanted to give members more time to research the matter and perhaps offer amendments.

Anderson said he may bring the matter up again before the end of this week - the deadline, he said, for passage by the whole Assembly.

The Legislature's rules stipulate that for the bill to pass, a motion for reconsideration has to win at least two-thirds of a committee's votes. In this case, that would be 10 of 14 votes.

If it's going to survive, Raggio's bill could be amended to lower the percentage of the vote judges would need to be retained. If that happens, the amended bill could be passed by a simple majority.

Even if the bill makes it out of the Legislature, it would be the first of many steps needed to turn it into law. Because changing the system would require amending the Nevada Constitution, the Legislature would need to pass the same bill again in 2009. Then, voters would need to approve the change in a referendum.

That means that the soonest the bill could take effect would be 2011. Different versions of the Missouri Plan failed when voters rejected the changes in 1972 and 1988.

Raggio said Wednesday that he remains determined and optimistic.

"I think this is a very important measure," he said. "I don't want to be pejorative about any one judge, but you have an example or two down there that could serve as poster children for this bill."

Raggio declined to say specifically whom he was speaking about, although it appears likely he was talking in part about District Judge Elizabeth Halverson, whose controversial actions recently caused Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle to temporarily bar her from the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas.

Despite resistance in the Assembly, the Raggio Plan has gained wide support ranging from Craig Walton, president of the Nevada Center for Public Ethics to outgoing UNLV Boyd School of Law Dean Richard Morgan, from Buckley to conservative Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno.

"I think it's kind of unseemly for judges to go raise money from people who are going to appear before them," Cobb said. Judges need to be "independent, separate and totally divorced from influence."

In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 8, Morgan was even more direct:

A "fair, impartial, strong and independent judiciary is required. Judges should not be politicians , but they are at the moment. Judges campaign, raise funds, call each other names and cast aspersions. As soon as the campaign is over, they don black robes and have the majesty and dignity of the court after having been called every name in the book by their opponents.

"It will only get worse."