Legislature’s lack of clarity in writing law leads to legal challenge

He didn’t see any merit in her argument that she met a prerequisite — being a licensed Nevada attorney for five years — for seeking a Las Vegas justice of the peace seat just because the State Bar of Nevada charged her dues for five years.

Bixler left some wiggle room, saying there might be some merit in her constitutional challenge to the law requiring five years of legal experience for a justice of the peace in Las Vegas, while in some rural areas you don’t even have to be an attorney.

Candelaria is backed by a couple of constitutional heavyweights — Las Vegas attorneys Alan Lefebvre and Dan Polsenberg — who give her credibility.

They will appeal Bixler’s decision to the Nevada Supreme Court, hoping to put her back on the June 8 ballot to “protect the people’s right to vote for who they want,” Polsenberg said.

They are representing her for free because they believe the law was poorly written. They argue the language in the law is vague and confusing and the Legislature should have defined “years.”

Sort of reminds you of when President Bill Clinton nitpicked about what the definition of “is” is.

Now common sense tells me Candelaria has been licensed since Oct. 17, 2006, when the State Bar of Nevada licensed her and that her opponent Bernie Zadrowski is right when he says on Election Day she won’t have the requisite five years under her belt, she’ll just have four years and a few days.

To rely on a bill from an organization that merely wants to squeeze every last dime of dues out of an attorney is silly.

Presumably, most of the Supreme Court justices count their own years as attorneys starting with when they were licensed, because in the lawyer world that’s a memorable date. However, picky justices might enjoy tweaking the Legislature and telling lawmakers they should have defined what they mean by “year.”

Bixler said the question of whether Candelaria has equal protection, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is “really the biggest wrinkle.” He didn’t seem taken with the argument that her First Amendment right of association was violated.

In Candelaria’s four years of experience, she has never once actually represented a client. She is director of the Clark County Family Law Self-Help Center and is an alternate hearing master in Family Court. In that role, she has presided over about 700 cases since July.

As an attorney for the county, she is paid $94,400 and receives extra pay as a hearing master. She was elected to the Board of Governors of the State Bar in 2009 for a two-year term.

Legislators passed this law in the aftermath of Joe Bonaventure winning a job as justice of the peace in 2004 when he had less than two years of experience as a lawyer. He won by confusing voters who thought they were voting for his father, retired District Judge Joe Bonaventure.

His opponent in 2004? Zadrowski.

Despite just two years of experience, people say the younger Bonaventure is a decent justice of the peace.

Perhaps Candelaria would be, too.

Although the 2005 law said candidates for the Supreme Court must have been licensed attorneys for 15 years and candidates for District Court must have been licensed for 10 years, Candelaria’s challenge only goes to justices of the peace.

Maybe the whole point of this exercise is to send the Legislature the message that it needs to write its laws more clearly and with more definition.

But even if she wins the right to run, I’m not sure Candelaria wins politically. Yes, she’s bright, but her experience is limited, and this case has drawn attention to that.

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.