Nevada to vote on appointment of top judges

One judge fell asleep during trials, berated her staff and forced her bailiff to massage her feet. Another hurled racial slurs at employees and admitted to sexual trysts with his assistant during working hours.

Nevada has suffered a string of judicial embarrassments in recent years, including a 2006 Los Angeles Times investigation that showed some jurists routinely ruled in favor of friends and business partners and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds from attorneys and companies with cases pending before them.

That prompted Nevada lawmakers to call for the appointment of state Supreme Court and District Court jurists, who would be subject to performance evaluations and retention elections. On Tuesday, voters will be asked to approve a constitutional amendment to establish such a “merit selection” plan, which mirrors how Californians choose their appellate court justices.

Advocates say the proposal would ensure the state’s jurists were capable and dilute the influence of judicial campaign donors. Fundraising for state high court races between 2000 and 2009 topped $200 million nationwide, according to the nonpartisan group Justice at Stake. Nevada ranked eighth in money collected, with much of the nearly $10 million coming from law firms and casino companies.

“Just because you run a good political campaign doesn’t mean you’re a good judge,” said Nicole Willis-Grimes, a spokeswoman for Nevadans for Qualified Judges, the group backing Question 1.

The measure, which state lawmakers approved in 2007 and 2009, has wide backing among political and business tastemakers and a strong advocate in retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has barnstormed on its behalf.

O’Connor, motivated by one judge who called her female client a “heifer” and another who campaigned as a one-man band, pushed Arizona to adopt merit selection while serving as a state lawmaker. She told attorneys here last month the system improved Arizona’s judicial quality and helped diversify its bench.

O’Connor’s campaigning, which included starring in TV ads, has kindled criticism from some judicial watchers because she still hears federal appeals cases as a visiting judge.

Polls have shown the proposal fizzling with voters, who’ve rejected similar measures twice. “You’re essentially asking people to give up their right to vote,” said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.

That’s a tough sell, he said, in a libertarian-leaning state that’s embraced a part-time “citizen Legislature” and rejected an attempt to appoint some of the regents overseeing the university system.

“You’d have a bunch of judges selected by an elite group of lawyers,” said Carrie Severino, policy director for Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative group critical of the measure and O’Connor’s role in promoting it. “You want judges accountable to the people.”

The proposal’s backers, however, say the state’s reputation has been scarred by the Times series and recent high-profile judicial shenanigans: Both Elizabeth Halverson, who dozed off during trials, and Nicholas Del Vecchio, who admitted to various sexual improprieties, were stripped of their judgeships.

The merit system, supporters say, might restore confidence in Nevada’s courts while still allowing voters to weigh in. An appointed committee would send the governor a slate of candidates, which is how Nevada currently fills judicial vacancies. Within two years, another group would evaluate the appointed jurist and make its findings public before a retention election.

If the judge won 55% of votes, that jurist would face voters again every six years.

ashley.powers@latimes.com