Method of picking justice of the peace candidates has merit

For 80 minutes of public comment, supporters of Jonathan MacArthur, who is black, and Vincent Ochoa, who is Hispanic, banged the message of the need for more diversity on the bench. Some said it more eloquently than others, but 28 people spoke in favor of MacArthur and nine for Ochoa in a well-orchestrated show of support.

But when the votes were counted, MacArthur was eliminated, while Ochoa and five others advanced to the next stage. In June, the Clark County Commission will choose two new Las Vegas justices of the peace from attorneys Ochoa, Lynn Avants, James Gubler, Lynn Robinson, Joseph Sciscento and Melanie Tobiasson.

MacArthur, Patrick Ferguson and Osvaldo Fumo didn’t make the cut.

The jobs pay $153,500 a year, and 27 people applied for the unexpired terms of Abbi Silver and Doug Smith, who were elected to District Court jobs in November.

As someone who leans toward merit selection panels for judges so they don’t have to go groveling for money for campaigns, I silently made myself the ninth member of the panel, horrified by how some floundered when asked ethics questions that seemed to have such obvious answers.

In the end, I agreed with five of the six choices, but found only five I would have advanced. I reviewed the applications of the original list of 27 applicants and found several I thought far more qualified than MacArthur, the only black applicant.

He is charismatic, but he also was the only candidate who had been found to inadequately represent a client and who as a state public defender had been blasted by one judge as "unprofessional, obnoxious and rude."

MacArthur, a defense attorney, also put on his MySpace page that his general interest was: "Breaking my foot off in a prosecutor’s ass, anything relating to the NFL, video games, sex and improving my ability to break my foot off in a prosecutor’s ass." Sort of speaks for itself as an indicator of bias.

But even if you ignored those comments, MacArthur said some things during his interview that killed his chances. He presented himself as an activist judge who would favor civil rights over law enforcement, another admission of bias.

If faced with concerns about another judge, he would first try to resolve the problem with the judge, then go through channels. But if the problem persisted, "the media remains an option." (I liked that answer better than the committee did.)

When it was over, it was obvious this committee had more thoroughly vetted the judicial contenders than the news media does when judicial candidates are up for election for full terms. The background checks included credit checks, criminal background checks, checks with the State Bar of Nevada for disciplinary actions. Applicants even signed waivers so their health records could be released.

Nevada Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty, who chaired the Judicial Selection Committee but didn’t vote, said afterward he believes this new, more open selection process improves the caliber of the candidates. "I have much greater confidence in the background of the people who applied."

Actually, so do I.

But MacArthur’s supporters were angry. Was his elimination a sign of institutional racism?

"This committee is concerned about diversity," Hardesty said. "But diversity by itself isn’t the only test."

The panel went into closed session to discuss confidential issues before voting by ballot, and to my disgust, there was no discussion by the committee of any of the candidates. (When I complained, I was told in the first screening they discussed the 27 candidates in an open hearing for 90 minutes, but no one attended.)

Advice to any future judicial candidates. Read the Judicial Canons of Ethics and understand them, so you won’t embarrass yourself.

It was painful to watch Patrick Ferguson explain why he didn’t see anything wrong with hiring a relative as a law clerk, or asking another judge to hire his relative. Appearance of impropriety is still a concept not every candidate grasped.

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.