Judicial debate: Clark County District Court, Dept. 28: Candidates debate incumbent’s performance

Hoping to keep his seat on the bench, District Judge Ron Israel questioned the fairness of a Las Vegas Review-Journal survey that gave him one of the lowest retention scores in Clark County.

“It’s not a survey, it’s a popularity poll conducted by the Review-Journal,” Israel said during a debate against one of his opponents, attorney Jim Cavanaugh, hosted by the newspaper. “In fact, after almost six weeks, they didn’t even have enough people responding, so they had to extend the time another month.”

Review-Journal Executive Editor Glenn Cook said that the newspaper stands by the results of its survey and that part of Israel’s criticism of the project is completely inaccurate.

“To be clear, the Review-Journal didn’t conduct this survey,” Cook said. “The survey was conducted by expert researchers at UNLV who believe they had more than enough participation from Southern Nevada attorneys to yield scientifically valid results. The Review-Journal has produced ‘Judging the Judges’ for decades as a public service to voters, who have found it especially valuable in identifying the best and the worst judges on the bench.”

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the judicial debate was conducted as a videoconference. The newspaper erroneously left a third candidate, attorney Alexandra McLeod, off a group email invitation to the debate. She participated in a separate conversation with the newspaper’s politics and government editor, Steve Sebelius.

Only 46 percent of lawyers surveyed last year said they thought Israel should keep his seat. Cavanaugh pointed to that score, with the lowest summary score in Clark County District Court for the individual questions regarding performance, as his motivation for trying to unseat Israel in Department 28.

“I think Judge Israel is a good man, but I’m primarily running because I believe he has not (done a good job), sadly,” Cavanaugh said. “When you have over half of the bar rating you as nonretainable and having the lowest summary score, that means something.”

The top two finishers in the June primary will advance to November’s general election. But if the first-place finisher gets more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary, that candidate will win the election.

It was the fifth debate hosted by the Review Journal and the first to be done via videoconference. The newspaper has scheduled 23 events for more than 70 candidates in judicial primary races for the Supreme Court, District Court and Family Court.

In the debate, Israel also suggested that those who gave him a low rating may simply have been attorneys who did not agree with his decisions, noting that the Nevada Supreme Court has not overturned one of his decisions in a personal injury case in his 10 years on the bench.

Cavanaugh touted his 20 years of practice in Las Vegas and seven years in California, primarily as a commercial litigator.

“I think I’ve got a reputation among the people I’ve worked with to be someone who’s fair and forthright,” he said.

In the midst of the coronavirus outbreak, debate moderator Victor Joecks asked whether judges should start releasing nonviolent inmates.

“I would encourage the furtherance of that process,” Israel said, noting that he would favor defendants who are “low risk” to reoffend.

Cavanaugh agreed.

“Especially in these times, taking away somebody’s liberty and exposing them to perhaps life-threatening health conditions just doesn’t seem fair or appropriate at this time,” he said.

Conversation with Alexandra McLeod

McLeod, who specializes in insurance litigation and has been licensed in Nevada since 2002, said she became interested in a judgeship after she took a case to trial before a judge who was later removed from the bench.

She did not give details about the case but referenced “irregularities” that led to an appeal.

“I could see the difference that the judge made on the bench,” she said, “and whether the judge realized it or not, the great amount of influence that comes with wearing that robe.”

McLeod said she would strive to treat litigants fairly, and Sebelius asked how she would handle “difficult people” in her courtroom.

“Ultimately, it’s important not to let that person get under your skin to the point where you lower your standards of how you treat other people, both personally and professionally,” McLeod said. “It’s important to believe that people are always trying their best. … My goal is always to remain professional and not to sink to the level of a difficult person.”

Contact David Ferrara at dferrara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039. Follow @randompoker on Twitter.

This story has been udpated to provide the correct explanation for Alexandra McLeod’s omission from the debate and to include details from a videotaped conversation with her.