A win for accountability

In a free society, secrecy and the judiciary should be mortal enemies.

But it was only recently in Nevada that restrictions were imposed making it more difficult for judges to seal cases from public view.

And just last week, a member of a panel formed by the state Supreme Court to review the state judicial system noted that the resolutions of some complaints against Nevada judges remain confidential.

Thankfully, Nevada’s highest court has been moving to address such issues. The future holds promise.

The same can be said for the federal system.

On Tuesday, federal judges agreed to grant the public better access to discipline taken against their colleagues.

In 2006, a committee headed by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer found problems in the way complaints against federal judges were handled and resolved. Some of those problems stemmed from the fact that much of the process was conducted in secret, leaving the taxpayers and the complainants in the dark.

So this week, the Judicial Conference of the United States agreed to post on appeals court Web sites the final orders stemming from complaints filed against judges. If the judges have been sanctioned, they will be named.

The new rules take effect in 30 days.

The change will affect just a small number of cases because only a handful of complaints advance beyond an initial review to a full-blown investigation. And, as in the state system, it would be best if the entire process were public.

But small victories are still victories. And Tuesday’s announcement is a small victory for accountability and public trust in the federal judiciary.