Judge Halverson suspended with pay

It’s been more than two months since the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline determined that District Judge Elizabeth Halverson “poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the public” and a “substantial threat to the administration of justice.” The commission first ordered an interim suspension of the judge on May 10.

Yet Judge Halverson was finally barred from the bench only this past Wednesday, a week after a closed hearing on various allegations about her competency and character.

It’s hard to decide what should outrage the taxpaying public more: that the Commission on Judicial Discipline needed 11 weeks to finally punish a jurist its members deemed capable of compromising every case before her, or that this 11-week delay represented warp speed for a bureaucracy that usually takes years to wrap up the simplest cases of judicial misconduct.

Judge Halverson’s suspension with pay less than seven months after taking office is without precedent in recent Nevada history, a testament to how badly she handled her docket and how poorly she treated people, from her subordinates to her fellow judges.

The commission’s decision was based not only on the judge’s improper contact with jurors in at least two criminal cases, which resulted in two mistrials, but allegations that she made staff work as her personal servants.

Gossip about Judge Halverson ran from the top floors of the Clark County Regional Justice Center to the lobby — none of it kind, all of it unbecoming of the judiciary.

However, consider the commission’s lack of urgency in dealing with other judges in recent years. Last year, Family Court Hearing Master Sylvia Beller was reprimanded for ordering a 16-year-old boy’s shirt and belt removed during sentencing. That sentencing had taken place two years earlier, in 2004.

In March 2003, the commission reprimanded Las Vegas Municipal Judge George Assad for detaining a woman, the girlfriend of a defendant who wasn’t present, for no legally justifiable reason. That reprimand was issued in February, nearly four years after Judge Assad violated the woman’s rights.

And Family Court Judge Fran Fine was removed from office by the commission in 1998 for improper communications with attorneys that took place between 1993 and 1996.

Would the commission have acted as quickly on the complaints against Judge Halverson if she were well-regarded within the legal community? Certainly not.

But when most every attorney files a peremptory challenge against Judge Halverson — in May and June alone, 151 wanted their cases transferred to another courtroom — it’s safe to say no one with any standing has sufficient confidence in Judge Halverson’s abilities, a crisis in itself.

Judge Halverson’s case isn’t over by any stretch. Her attorney says she will appeal the suspension, and the commission is still investigating complaints against her. If commissioners decide they have probable cause to file formal charges — a near-certainty at this point — then a public hearing will be scheduled.

That portion of these proceedings won’t come soon enough. When an appointed body has the authority to suspend an elected official through a process that’s closed to public scrutiny, it’s easy for voters to question whether their candidate of choice is merely on the wrong end of a popularity contest. That the evidence against Judge Halverson piles higher and is being reported by the media is no excuse for the commission to continue to operate in secrecy.

The Commission on Judicial Discipline must schedule a public hearing for Judge Halverson’s case forthwith, then rededicate itself to old judicial principle: justice delayed is justice denied.