Nevada judge in trouble again with 9th Circuit

It looks like the workload of U.S. District Judge Robert C. Jones will be a little lighter than it was last week.

That's because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reassigned a voting-rights case to a different judge because of mistakes Jones made.

"The errors made by the district judge [Jones] may suggest to a reasonable outside observer that reassignment 'to maintain the appearance of justice' is necessary," a three-judge panel wrote.

And this isn't the first time Jones' conduct has come up for scrutiny before the 9th Circuit, either. In cases covering issues from gay marriage to election law, he's behaved in a way to suggest "the appearance of justice" is imperiled in his courtroom.

This time around, the National Council of La Raza and two branches of the NAACP sued Nevada, claiming social welfare agencies were not signing up clients to vote as required by federal law.

Jones initially balked at allowing non-Nevada attorneys to practice in his courtroom, although the state didn't raise any objections. Instead, he said the lawyers were representing their own interests rather than their clients' interests.

Then Jones ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing without allowing them to amend the original complaint. "Such an action by the district court, it hardly needs saying, was unusual," the 9th Circuit concluded.

Oh, it needs saying, your honors.

Finally, Jones ruled the plaintiffs failed to provide adequate notice to the state before filing the lawsuit. The 9th Circuit said this didn't even make sense: "It hardly serves plaintiffs' voter-registration purpose to delay notification of the state, for the sooner the state comes into compliance, the more voters will be registered."

Exactly.

Although the 9th Circuit acknowledged cases are only reassigned in "rare and extraordinary circumstances," judges concluded this was one.

But is it rare or extraordinary, really?

In 2012, Jones handled the case of Sevick v. Sandoval, in which several same-sex couples challenged Nevada's constitutional ban on gay marriage. Jones had no problem hearing the case, or signing his name to a ruling that rebuffed the plaintiffs and upheld Nevada's constitution.

Of course, the 9th Circuit overturned his ruling and sent the case back, with orders to Jones to allow same-sex couples to marry in Nevada. But instead of following the law, instead of fulfilling the duty of his office, Jones chose that moment to recuse himself.

Robert Jones was Kim Davis before it was cool, apparently.

Jones is also the judge who engaged in a war of words with 9th Circuit judges over a case involving Nevada's unique ballot option, "none of these candidates." Republicans sued to remove that choice from the 2012 ballot, fearing disaffected members of the GOP would choose "none" over real person Mitt Romney.

Jones ruled in favor of removing "none" and ordered the state not to print ballots with that option on them. The state was ready to appeal, but with the printing deadline fast approaching, Jones still hadn't entered his order.

Jones had "deliberately attempted to avoid entering any order that would allow an appeal before that [ballot printing deadline]," wrote 9th Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt. "His dilatory tactics appear to serve no purpose other than to prevent the state from taking an appeal of his decision before it must print the ballots."

Once Jones entered his order, the 9th Circuit quickly reversed, but not before Jones in writing objected to Reinhardt's characterization of his actions. It was — what's the phrase? — rare and extraordinary.

So perhaps it's not such a bad thing that Jones' docket is a bit lighter these days. At least, to maintain the appearance of justice.

— Steve Sebelius is a Las Vegas Review-Journal political columnist. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.