I am writing to partly agree with Tony Terry’s letter of last week regarding Nevada Ballot Question 1 that proposes to change the State Constitution ending the election of state judges. It is true that the authors of the State Constitution did wish to rely on the people of Nevada to take the responsibility in selecting the best people to sit in judgment of them. I completely agree that more democracy is always better than less democracy.
That said, too often there are judges elected in Nevada that tend to have little judicial experience and in some cases little skill at even being lawyers. The ability to run a successful campaign should not be the criteria for sitting in judgment in the courts; too frequently this is what happens. One need only remember the unbelievable State Supreme Court Decision of Guinn v. State Legislature of July 2003 where the Court completely disregarded the State Constitution. On a local level remember Elizabeth Halverson who in her first term after being elected to the 8th District Court was removed from the bench. I remember Halverson ran a very dynamic campaign in 2006, which got her elected but she lacked the skills to be a judge. Considering the power of the courts there is far too much of this kind of thing going on and far too many of these kinds of people sitting in judgment.
I do not mean to say that all elected judges are corrupt and/or incompetent, but when you consider the power that judges wield in the state a layer of scrutiny from the Governor, an elected official would be most welcome. Also, considering Question 1 would still require judges to be put to a vote of the people, I think the idea that Question 1, if passed, would unreasonably limit democracy is not entirely accurate. In the end I believe passing Question 1 will bring a higher caliber of judge to the bench and I would encourage readers to consider well their vote on this initiative.
Tim Robison
