Judges file to restrict politicking

Justices filed a petition with the court on Thursday that calls for blocking Supreme Court justice candidates, along with candidates for District Court and most lower court judicial positions from seeking contributions unless they draw challengers.

During hearings in the Legislature, Justice Mark Gibbons said the court would pass a rule preventing unopposed judges from seeking contributions if legislators passed the court-backed Assembly Bill 505. Gov. Jim Gibbons signed the bill into law May 18 following unanimous approval in both houses of the Legislature.

The new law moves up the time in which people can file for judicial seats to the first two weeks of January.

Under the previous law, judge candidates, like most other office holders, filed their candidacies during the first two weeks of May.

Because of the May filing period, Mark Gibbons said judges now must begin asking for contributions early in the year on the assumption they will draw opponents. But in last year’s election, 60 percent of judicial candidates ran without opposition.

District Judge Michael Cherry, for example, raised $500,000 in contributions last year, although he did not draw any opposition in his run for the Supreme Court.

"This bill was promoted by the Supreme Court and the judiciary throughout Nevada as a proactive way of helping to ensure that our judges are fair and impartial," Mark Gibbons said. "As long as judges are publicly elected, judicial candidates will have to raise campaign funds, but AB505 will take much of the campaign money out of judicial elections."

Because unchallenged judges won’t have to solicit contributions, they can spend their days on the bench conducting business, he added.

The Los Angeles Times ran a series of stories last summer that were critical of Nevada judges for taking campaign contributions from lawyers who had cases before their courts.

The Legislature also was considering a constitutional amendment to end the current system of electing judges. Supporters believe the amendment also will reduce the need for judges to seek contributions.

The Assembly voted 30-11 late Friday for an amended version of SJR2. Under the proposal, judges initially would be appointed.

But to remain in office they would have to stand for re-election at a retention election. Fifty-five percent of voters would have to support their remaining in office, or a new judge would be appointed.

SJR2 must be approved by both houses of the Legislature again in 2009 and then backed by citizens in 2010.