Appeals court backers move for reconsideration

The proponents of an appellate court in Nevada will surely face one criticism above all others if the plan makes the 2014 ballot: Didn’t the voters just say no to this idea?

Indeed, they did: An appellate court was rejected in 2010 by a margin of 53 percent to 47 percent.

Lawmakers turned around the following year — just months after the voters said no — and passed Senate Joint Resolution 14, which if approved by the current Legislature will once more ask voters in 2014 to endorse the creation of an appellate court.

So, why ask the question again so soon after voters said no?

Frankly, because the voters made a mistake in 2010, and unwisely turned down a concept that Nevada badly needs if it’s going to have a functioning business environment and ensure speedy access to justice for all.

You won’t find proponents saying that, of course. It never helps to tell the voters they were wrong. But, in this case, they were.

Consider the fact that Nevada’s Supreme Court justices have one of the largest caseloads of any Supreme Court in the United States. Why? Because every appeal from every one of the 82 District Court judges in the state is heard by the Supreme Court. Not only that, but the court hears appeals of agency decisions and emergency writs, too.

That list can include mundane items such as drivers license revocations, all the way up to arguments over ballot initiatives that affect every resident of the state.

The number of cases filed has been steadily rising, as Nevada has grown more populous. There were 2,500 new cases filed with the Supreme Court in 2012, and the number of backlogged cases has climbed to 1,919.

So what? If you’re a party in one of those backlogged cases, it’s a big deal.

And consider that 10.7 percent of all backlogged civil appeal cases have been pending for between 1-1/2 and two years. Those include many business cases, the outcome of which could involve millions of dollars. For a state trying to attract new business, that’s a sobering statistic that would surely give an entrepreneur considering Nevada a moment of pause.

And consider that, even if an appeals court is created, Nevada’s Supreme Court justices will still have one of the biggest workloads in the nation (about 800 cases out of the 2,500 filed in 2012 could have been directed to the appellate court).

The plan is not audacious: It would consist of adding three justices and their staffs. They’d use existing space in facilities already assigned to the Supreme Court. They’d hear cases including administrative reviews (that’s your drivers license revocations), criminal writ petitions and some civil cases, allowing the Supreme Court to focus on cases in which they can write precedent-setting opinions.

And the cost? It’s estimated to be about $3 million over the two-year biennium. Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Kristina Pickering and Justice James Hardesty point out that — by carefully watching the budget — the court didn’t spend between $2.5 million and $872,000 of the money it was allocated in each of the last three fiscal years. That could go a long way toward funding the operations of a new appellate court.

Most Nevadans have probably never thought about an appellate court, which all but 10 states have. Most will never have a legal matter go before such a court. But an appellate court is badly needed in Nevada, to mitigate the caseload, improve the business climate and ensure everybody who needs it gets speedy access to the courts. And for the price, it’s an unbeatable deal.

Let’s not make another mistake: Let’s vote yes this time. 

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.