EDITORIAL: Vote yes on Question 1

Justice delayed is justice denied. That cliche rings especially true in Nevada. The Silver State is one of just 10 states that lack an appellate court between their district and supreme courts, a structure that has created an increasing backlog of appeals.

This isn’t serving Nevadans well. The Supreme Court generally needs years to resolve cases on appeal, and while doing so, the court has less time to perform one of its most important tasks: writing precedent-setting opinions to guide district courts in the future. The delays and the lack of published opinions come at a huge cost to individual citizens and Nevada businesses through prolonged litigation and, in some cases, unnecessary litigation. It’s not unusual for District Court judges to issue conflicting rulings on similar issues, or for them to base their decisions on rulings from other states.

Enter Question 1. If passed, it would create a state appellate court. District Court appeals would continue to go directly to the Supreme Court, but justices would determine which cases are potentially precedential and which ones could be pushed down to the appellate court. Iowa and Mississippi have a similar appellate structure.

Supreme Court Justices James Hardesty and Kristina Pickering noted in a meeting with the Review-Journal editorial board that the seven-member court receives more than 350 new appeals per justice per year, the highest caseload in the country. The justices also said more than 65 percent of the cases filed in District Court are Family Court or juvenile matters, but those cases account for only 4 percent of appeals — the vast majority of these litigants do not appeal because the process takes too long.

There are two arguments against the creation of an appellate court. One is that it would be too costly. However, the nominal cost to taxpayers of less than $1.5 million per year — primarily from seating three new judges and hiring their staff, because no new central legal staff or buildings are required — is more than worth the relief it would provide to the Supreme Court and the efficiency and clarity it would bring to Nevada’s justice system. Furthermore, the court’s initial operating costs would be offset by funds returned to the state general fund by the Supreme Court.

The second argument against Question 1: It adds another layer of bureaucracy. Rather than bureaucracy, the appellate court would add efficiency and productivity, a layer of help the Supreme Court clearly needs. A new bureaucracy would extend the amount of time needed to litigate cases, not shorten it. This efficiency ultimately will save taxpayers and litigants time and money.

As voters will see firsthand on next month’s ballot, Nevada has added literally dozens of new District Court departments over the past 20-plus years and no doubt will need to add more in the years ahead as our population grows. More courts means more pressure on the Supreme Court. Imagine the Supreme Court as a trough, with several hoses — representing each District Court department — filling it. Then imagine doubling the number of hoses without enlarging the trough.

This worsening overflow creates delays in adjudication that cost Nevada litigants far too much. The Supreme Court will never erase its case backlog without help. An appellate court is long overdue.

The Review-Journal endorses a yes vote on Question 1.