There’s still hope for merit selection of judges in Nevada

Not every judge is willing to say he or she believes in merit selection of judges rather than electing judges, because it's politically unpopular, especially during campaign season. Polls show voters like electing judges, even when duds show up in the mix, such as Elizabeth Halverson and Nicholas Del Vecchio, both later stripped of their judgeships.

People say they don't want to give up their right to vote a judge in or out and that's why they won't vote for Senate Joint Resolution 2 in November.

"It's a myth that voters will lose their right to vote for judges," said Washoe County Family Court Judge David Hardy. Because in the following election, the appointed judge has to run for re-election and get a minimum of 55 percent of the vote. "That's real accountability," he said.

Hardy went through a merit selection process in 2005 when then-Gov. Kenny Guinn appointed him to the bench. In 2006 and 2008, he received the highest retention rating of all district judges in the Washoe County Bar Survey.

In June, he was on the ballot running for another term. But because no one filed to run against him, he could have been elected if only one vote, his own vote, had been cast for him.

Many Nevada judges do run unopposed. They become so entrenched that they don't draw opponents, partly because it becomes too expensive to challenge an incumbent and lawyers are apprehensive about contributing to someone challenging a judge they appear before.

The most recent Las Vegas Review-Journal and KLAS-TV, Channel 8, poll asked whether likely voters would vote for SJR2 on the Nov. 2 ballot. Only 27 percent said yes, and even if all 19 percent of the undecided voters joined the yes team, it still wouldn't be enough to overcome the 54 percent who oppose the resolution.

Hardy and I are among the minority who favor merit selection. He's lived it. I've observed it.

The panel had access to his tax returns, his credit scores, any disciplinary actions, his writing samples, comments from other people, even his health records. The merit selection committee questioned him and all of the applicants in a forum open to the public, and the public was allowed to make comments. It was a detailed investigation and a thorough vetting, Hardy said.

He's always supported merit selection. "The cost of judicial elections is spiraling out of control. The urban District Court races are expensive. A statewide race for the Supreme Court costs $1 million. Do we want judges raising that kind of money from court participants? The courtroom is a temple of justice. No person should enter a courtroom fearing that political and partisan influences predominate over the rule of law."

Hardy noted merit selection works against his personal interests. "Under SJR2 I will have to receive 55 percent of the vote. That is real voter franchisement . That is real accountability when compared to our current system."

Some judges disagree with Hardy. Some say they would never have gotten the job without running because they weren't politically juiced in.

With the recent polling results, it looks like those who favor merit selection are out of luck.

Maybe not.

A committee called Nevadans for Qualified Judges has organized to urge the public to vote for the resolution. The committee is working to raise as much as $700,000 to get the message across. One of the co-chairmen is Sen. Bill Raggio, a longtime advocate of merit selection, making his third bid to change the way Nevadans choose judges.

On Saturday, I'll explain the strategy to turn those polling numbers upside down, an effort involving one of the big guns in the world of justice -- former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call (702) 383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.