Judge to state agency: Remove candidate’s censure order from website

By Steve Green

Friday, Oct. 29, 2010 | 10:18 a.m.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered a Nevada agency to remove from its website an order censuring Las Vegas attorney and Clark County District Court judge candidate Joanna Kishner.

Chief U.S. District Judge for Nevada Roger Hunt granted a restraining order sought by Kishner, who complained her censure by the Nevada Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics and Election Practices violated her right to free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, her right to due process under the 14th Amendment and other rights.

Kishner was censured Monday for comments she made Sept. 13 on the news discussion show "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" about her election opponent, Las Vegas attorney Phil Dabney

The committee, in its censure order, found Kishner didn't provide enough context when she criticized Dabney over a situation in which an elderly client of Dabney's changed her estate plan to benefit Dabney.

Dabney has denied wrongdoing.

The state committee, in siding with Dabney on Monday in an unfair election practice complaint he filed, found Kishner’s statements on Face to Face "were made knowingly or recklessly and omit facts necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially misleading."

Hunt on Thursday ordered that the committee's censure be rescinded and be replaced on the committee's website with his order favoring Kishner.

"The court concludes that the (committee's) rule impermissibly prohibits candidates from conveying true statements to the public simply because the statements could be misconstrued by some part of the general public," Hunt wrote in his order.

"Kishner argues that the balance of equities tips in her favor because continued publication could have disastrous consequences for her campaign and recission of the publication pending a determination of her constitutional claims will not cause any harm to the state’s interest in maintaining the integrity of the electoral process," Hunt's order said. "The court agrees. The balance of equities tips in Kishner’s favor because the consequences of continued publication of the unconstitutional decision greatly outweigh the committee’s interest in leaving the opinion published as is. In fact, the outcome of the election could very well rest on voters’ perception of Kishner as a result of the unconstitutional decision."