State judicial system plans under review

CARSON CITY — Advocates of a new Nevada appeals court and appointed judges, requiring constitutional changes previously rejected by the state’s voters, argued Thursday that lawmakers must try again to get the questions on the ballot.

Chief Justice Bill Maupin told the Senate Judiciary Committee that SJR9, creating the appeals court between district courts and the state Supreme Court, is needed because of the increasing litigation that stems from Nevada’s rapid growth.

Maupin said various steps to keep up with the high court’s workload, such as fast-tracking many cases and improving a case settlement process, have helped, but now it’s time to move the court system “up another level.”

While voters have rejected the appeals court plan previously, Maupin added that with a strong, professionally run campaign “now we believe we can make that case.”

SJR9 would have to be approved this session and again in the 2009 session. Voters would have final say in the 2010 elections. The new appeals court judges would be elected in 2012.

The intermediate court plan has come up repeatedly in the Legislature the past 30 years, and made it to the ballot twice, in 1980 and again in 1992, only to be rejected by voters.

Jim Richardson, a University of Nevada, Reno professor and head of UNR’s Sawyer Center for Justice Studies, urged the Judiciary Committee to approve SJR2, which would amend the Nevada Constitution to provide for appointed judges.

Richardson said the plan would “relieve judges of the terrible burden of trying to raise money. The moment they do they are immediately criticized for it.”

Under SJR2, a variation on a plan rejected by voters in 1988, a commission would nominate judges that the governor would then appoint. After one year, a judge would run unopposed for election and would have to get at least 60 percent of the vote to win a 6-year term.

Opponents of SJR2 included Juli Starr-Alexander, who founded a group called Redress Inc., which describes itself as an organization that seeks to combat judicial corruption and help those who have been harmed by judges.

Starr-Alexander called SJR2 “a Band-Aid fix to cover up a disease, a cancerous legal system.” She said her group would do “everything within our power to see that it doesn’t pass.”