Vol. 4, No. 5
.jpg)
January 1, 2007
Nevada's Online State News Journal
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
 |
Find Out
More About Our Wonderful State. |
COPYWRITING
|
|
The Idea Of Judicial Reform In
Campaign Contributions Avoided
Judicial Commission’s First Meeting
Primarily Informational
For the first time in almost ten years a judicial commission is discussing the Nevada court system from top to bottom, at least theoretically. Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose named the commission recently and said the courts have come under strong criticism recently and changes may be called for. Among the topics that should get the most discussion is judicial campaign financing.
Along with the judicial commission there are legislative programs scheduled to be discussed at the behest of some jurists on the top court. Plans to change the laws that make judges politicians are being discussed including putting judgeships on an appointed list or keeping judges from personally accepting campaign donations. Nothing has been finalized and probably won’t be until sometime in 2008. Campaign finance laws are muddied because of two principals of American life. First, making or receiving a donation has become a First Amendment issue and secondly, corporations are to be treated as individuals, and thus also come under the protections of the First Amendment. Telling someone they cannot give or receive is almost out of the question as far as campaign finances go.
Nevada’s judicial system was the focus of a three-part series in the Los Angeles Times in mid-2006, which gave one the impression that the system is filled with corruption and bribery. Rose said he had wanted to create the judicial commission for some time and the Times articles gave him the opportunity to do so.
Discussed most often is the manner in which jurists receive their campaign donations and from whom those donations come. In almost every case, and this can be seen clearly in contributions reports on file with the Secretary of State it is attorneys who give the most. In the courtroom then the law states that the judge should say during court that he had received campaign donations from the attorneys in the case at hand. This is rarely done and becomes perceived as corruption within that court.
A blistering article has been written by Jim Hulse, Chairman of Common Cause/Nevada and is available from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, http://www.planevada.org/. Hulse takes the argument past the district court level and asks “Are the justices of the Nevada Supreme Court truly unbiased when they receive a case for judgment? Can they be trusted to act impartially when some of those who appear in court have contributed generously to their recent election?”
As pointed out by articles in The Nevada Observer, The Los Angeles Times, and several publications in southern Nevada, Hulse says, “Whatever the facts may be, the public perception is that:
• Not only can the presidency of the United States be bought;
• And not only can the legislators be purchased by those who fund their campaigns;
• But even seats on the Nevada Supreme Court are for sale.
“That notion may be false,” Hulse continues but the citizenry share this idea that money flows toward power. It is the perception of money purchasing its own brand of justice that must be changed in Nevada. The Hulse booklet “Is Justice For Sale?” is in pdf file at the PLAN web site.
A plan has come forth that seems to be favored by both retiring Chief Justice Rose and his replacement Justice Bill Maupin in which judges would be selected by a panel of judges and then appointed by the governor. They would not run for reelection but rather would then regularly be on the ballot as being retained or replaced. Apparently there would be no campaign financing under that plan.
Changes of this sort will probably have to originate in the legislature and many feel this would help eliminate the perception of corruption in the judiciary. Judges at every level would be open to the possibility of being replaced during a general election. Nevada counties large and small have the same problems with judges receiving donations from attorneys that appear before their court. Along with what is called the selection plan is another that has had some discussion called follow the law in which a judge would be charged with felony bribery if donations were not noted at trial.
If a trial is underway and only one of the attorneys has donated to that judge’s campaign, the other attorney would appear to have reason to request another court. The problem is that attorneys are all but required, underhandedly of course to donate to all campaigns. Attorneys contacted for this story all said they hated the situation, want it changed, but would not allow themselves to be quoted or to have their name associated with this article.
At the first meeting of the judicial review commission more time was spent on changes to the court itself than to campaign finance reform. There is no appellate court in Nevada and an appeal goes from district court direct to Supreme Court. Many feel that there is a need for a middle stop along the way and there are indications that the issue may surface in the upcoming legislative session.
•••