Judge evaluations can help voters make informed decisions

‘Tis the time of year, not of good cheer, but of great fear.

State and local judges know their reputations are on the line, and attorneys are judging them in the 2011 Judicial Performance Evaluation sponsored by the Las Vegas Review-Journal and commonly known as Judging the Judges.

The results can help or hinder a judge’s re-election efforts.

Strong, positive results may chase away potential rivals, discouraging them from filing for office.

Brutal condemnation of a judge by attorneys can end a career. Just ask former Las Vegas Municipal Judge George Assad. His successful challenger, Heidi Almase, pointed out relentlessly that he had the lowest retention rate of any judge in the survey.

The survey has been conducted by the Review-Journal since 1992, and while it has had plenty of vocal critics, this year, two respected Las Vegas attorneys have written colleagues urging them to participate.

Practicing attorney George Bochanis and retired attorney Richard Myers both sent "get out the vote" emails to attorneys they knew, urging them to vote by the midnight Monday deadline.

Bochanis wrote, "I think we have taken these evaluations for granted in the past and have not appreciated the dramatic impact they have on us and our clients. It is extremely important that we voice our opinions in a very loud and strong way."

Bochanis said he was spurred to write his email because of the relatively low level of participation from Clark County attorneys. Only about 800 lawyers participated in 2010. This year, 4,625 attorneys were invited to participate, so clearly the number of lawyers who participate is low.

"Every election, people get their sample ballots, and when they get to the judges, they’ve never heard of anyone. So they call a lawyer they know and ask for advice. I used to get dozens of calls like that," Myers said. "Lawyers are in a better position to judge judges. I think the idea of a poll done right is a good one."

Unlike Bochanis, Myers specifically mentioned in his email that three Nevada Supreme Court judges he thought were excellent and who are all up for re-election —- Nancy Saitta, Michael Cherry and Michael Douglas. "As a retired lawyer, I have no ax to grind in judicial elections," he wrote.

In 2010, the ratings showed that 50 percent of the attorneys thought Saitta should be retained, 74 percent said retain Cherry, and 72 percent said retain Douglas. As chief judge, Saitta also encouraged attorneys to participate.

Attorneys are asked to evaluate only judges they have practiced before, but there’s no way of monitoring that. In the past, some female judges have alleged there is an anti-woman bias among some of the attorneys, yet not all female judges are ranked low. The evaluations are anonymous.

The 2010 results are available at lvrj.com/judges2010.

Judges have enormous impacts on people’s lives, yet many voters know next to nothing about the incumbents. It’s going to be worse in 2012 when almost all judgeships are on the ballot and there will be scores of names on the ballot.

The stories run between Christmas and New Year’s, and filing for judgeships starts Jan. 3 and ends Jan. 13, so there’s not much time for potential candidates to dilly-dally.

Instead of calling one attorney and asking about scores of judges, maybe the combined views of hundreds of attorneys are a fairer evaluation. Attorneys who haven’t received information on how to participate should email Nancy Downey at Nancy@downeyresearch.com

Voters want to know who the lousy judges are, but these same attorneys can also help voters figure out who the top-notch judges are, the ones who deserve our votes. That’s equally important.

Consider this public service the Review-Journal’s Christmas gift to voters who want to know more before they choose a judge.

Jane Ann Morrison’s column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.