Schoolmate’s slow response to ‘None’ a bid to help Romney
"None of these candidates" will appear on Nevada ballots as a protest option after all, but only after two federal judges sniped at each other in court orders, challenging each other's integrity and professionalism.
Mind you, that's not normal for federal judges.
The stakes are high because the duo fought over a legal question that could potentially determine whether President Barack Obama or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney wins Nevada on Nov. 6.
One judge was Robert "Clive" Jones, the chief judge in Nevada, appointed to the bench by a Republican president. Jones and Romney both graduated from Brigham Young University in 1971.
The other was U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt, appointed by a Democratic president. He looked at the delays in the time-sensitive case and concluded Jones was deliberately trying to run the time out on the case so it couldn't be appealed and overturned before Friday's deadline to begin printing ballots.
Because Nevada is one of eight states both parties believe is winnable, the legal issue stretched beyond the constitutionality of Nevada's quirky 1975 law allowing "None" on the ballot in all statewide races.
A case filed June 8, facing a time-sensitive deadline of Sept. 7 to get ballots printed and mailed to military and overseas Nevada voters, didn't get a hearing until Aug. 22.
At that hearing, Jones said that the "None" option was unconstitutional and that he would grant a preliminary injunction removing it from the ballot. Then he failed to write the order.
Reinhardt actually took the unusual step of telling Jones to submit a written order so it could then be appealed.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel stayed Jones' Aug. 22 preliminary injunction, moving "None" back on the ballot. The panel included two appointees by Democratic presidents, Reinhardt and Kim Wardlaw, and one appointed by a Republican president, Carlos Bea.
Republican National Committee officials had hoped to gain a political advantage for Romney and Sen. Dean Heller by stripping "None" from the ballot, believing that more voters would vote for them if the protest option were gone.
Romney and Heller were not plaintiffs in the case, and Heller's spokeswoman said the former secretary of state supports the "None" option.
The RNC must think it's going to be close in Nevada. "None" came in with 0.65 percent, 6,251 votes, in the 2008 presidential race. "None" actually ranked higher than four minor candidates.
As I pointed out last Saturday, Jones was slow in assigning himself to the case and slow in setting hearings despite efforts by attorneys from the RNC and Secretary of State Ross Miller's office to expedite the case and despite looming deadlines.
The record showed it was plain that Jones was making a "deliberate attempt to evade review by the higher courts," Reinhardt wrote.
Reinhardt was harsh in his condemnation of Jones' delays: "Such arrogance and assumption of power by one individual is not acceptable in our judicial system."
Jones responded the next day: "Judge Reinhardt's suggestion of a nefarious motivation is false." Jones also didn't care much for Reinhardt's impugning his integrity and motivation.
In fact, he counter-charged that Reinhardt's actions to take the case out of Jones' hands and move it to the appellate court was "an inappropriate judicial activity."
Jones had between Aug. 22 and Sept. 5 to write a decision, but he didn't. One was even proposed and submitted Aug. 28, but he didn't sign it.
If Jones had moved this case along in a timely fashion instead of using his rope-a-dope strategy, no one would be suggesting he was trying to improperly influence a presidential election.
But his sluggish management of this case clearly favored his schoolmate Romney, before the 9th Circuit took action.
By his own hand, Jones has tarnished his reputation.
Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call her at (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/Morrison
