As the campaign ads begin to multiply, let the voter beware

Today, judicial candidates engage in the time-honored and often successful campaign practice of denigrating their opponents to elevate themselves. Let the television ads begin.

William "Bill" Kephart will be the target of hard-hitting television ads from Justice Court rival Kristine Kuzemka, one of three of political consultant David Thomas' clients to go up with television ads starting today.

Kephart asked for the opinion about whether the group fundraiser for all 11 of Thomas' judicial clients violated the judicial canons of ethics. (Short version of my Saturday column: Yes, it did.)

Kuzemka's ads criticize Kephart, saying he once faced "potential sanctions" from the Nevada Supreme Court. "He even choked a witness on the stand."

What is missing is that Kephart, a veteran prosecutor with 22 years experience, was not sanctioned by the court. He did choke a witness on the stand ... as a demonstration ... and yes, the Nevada Supreme Court objected saying he shouldn't have used the defendant, he should have used someone else.

None of that is explained, of course.

In a District Court race, Susan Scann's ad will remind voters that based on this newspaper's Judging the Judges poll, "53 percent of the attorneys surveyed think (Family Court Judge Kenneth Pollock) should be removed."

The other issue is that Pollock "knowingly appointed a suspended lawyer who embezzled over $200,000." The ad doesn't mention suspended attorney Jeanne Winkler by name.

Pollock said Scann is "taking things out of context and creating a nonissue." His appointment of Winkler as a parenting coordinator and special master in a child custody case was requested by the attorneys in the case, the judge said. "As soon as somebody raised the issue, she was removed."

He said the Las Vegas Review-Journal poll is "a nonscientific survey that goes against the objective evidence." In 2009, he said, he heard the most motions of any judge in Family Court, and he was the second-highest judge in terms of trials and case management, reducing his caseload by 25 percent. "I tied for the lowest number of appeals and have never been reversed by the Supreme Court," he said.

Jerry Wiese's ads for a District Court judgeship will lambaste former prosecutor Michael Davidson for comments he made on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" where Davidson said he was so experienced he could look at someone and know if that person was a pedophile.

Davidson acknowledged his answer was "a little sloppy" and he didn't fully explain why he thought his experience as a criminal prosecutor would be valuable on the bench.

But now he'll have to live with television ads that will use his own words against him and say North Las Vegas police support Wiese because of Davidson's "questionable judgment ... Davidson can profile you in just 10 minutes."

Meanwhile, the first judicial mailer to land at my house was from Justice of the Peace candidate Jim Gubler.

He wants to "set the record straight" that his opponent, Suzan Baucum, former executive director of the Nevada Law Foundation, is trying to fool voters into thinking she has three endorsements that are his.

Naturally, I checked it out. The website where her endorsements are listed clearly stated that these three groups endorsed her when she ran in 2008. She's not claiming they endorsed her this time.

But voters won't know that from Gubler's indignant mailer.

Half-truths are the name of the game for the next month, so view every mailer, every television ad, every radio ad with skepticism. The First Amendment is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't mean everything in a political ad is true, and half-truths can be more persuasive than a flat-out lie.

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.