Plea for appointment of Nevada judges

Undemocratic? Certainly. Elitist? Probably. But it is far better to have Nevada judges appointed rather than elected.

The main reason: most voters don’t know anything about judicial candidates.

Few need to be told who to vote for in high visibility races: president, U.S. senator and governor. But races of low visibility, like judicial contests, appear at the bottom of the ballot.

Voting dropoff is tremendous in judicial races. Eric Herzik, University of Nevada political science professor, has noted that “judical elections draw few voters and even fewer informed voters.”

Moreover, judicial races get so little media attention beyond biographical stories. People cannot vote intelligently on the basis of skimpy information and scant interpretive reporting of the candidates’ qualifications.

Other reasons abound for appointment of judges.

Running for office can mean justice for sale. As Jim Hulse, vice chairman of Common Cause Nevada, told CityLife of Las Vegas: “When highly funded special interests--gambling, real estate, construction--give money to campaigns, they obviously do that to get something in return.”

Lawyers who contribute to judicial candidates are likely to appear before them in subsequent litigation, undermining judicial independence. Judges are supposed to be impartial. They should not be mere politicians slavishly following public opinion.

A study by the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada showed that the average amount raised to win a seat on the Nevada Supreme Court in 2004 was $500,000. No wonder PLAN titled the study “The Supreme Jackpot II.”

Bill Raggio, state Senate majority leader, rightly argues that the constant need to raise money is corrupting the judiciary, leading to public perception that the judicial system is unfair.

“Too often judicial elections become embroiled in politics,” Raggio notes. Law and justice should not be political matters.

Nevada’s “Missouri plan” calls for a judicial panel to submit the names of three highly qualified people for judgeships. The governor would pick one. The plan is like the Judicial Selection Commission used when a judgeship becomes vacant. On that panel are a state Supreme Court justice, three lawyers picked by the Nevada Bar and three nonlawyers appointed by the governor.

Yes, you cannot remove politics entirely from the judiciary. But the three potential judges would be highly suitable for the bench. Appointment would remove cronyism and end the need to raise absurd amounts of cash.

Then there is the unseemliness of it all. Judicial candidates campaigning like any other politician. Candidates promising to be tougher on crime than their opponents, descending into the maelstrom of dirty-trick politics. Such shabbiness should be beneath the dignity of judges.

Look what happened in Tennessee. Justice Penny White was voted off the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1996 because she was said to be soft on crime. But White was voting to preserve due process as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. She was not voting “to coddle criminals.” The public does not know the crucial difference.

The point was underscored by Edward Bennett Williams in his book, “One Man’s Freedom.” Asked why as an attorney he defended unsavory characters, Williams noted that one person’s guarantee of Bill of Rights protections is everyone’s guarantee. Yet public opinion so often evinces a herd instinct rather than an understanding of the law.

Voters kicked Chief Justice Rose Bird off the California Supreme Court in 1986 because she consistently reversed death penalty convictions. But Bird was a humane justice.

She voted her conscience. She knew that capital punishment is murder by the state. She did not follow the howling of the mob. And it was Bird who led the court in being pro-consumer, pro-environmentalist, pro-women, pro-black and pro-Latino.

Washoe District Judge Bridget Peck said that when she went door to door soliciting votes, many people asked her why judicial candidates are on the ballot.

Why indeed. Thirty-nine states elect judges. Nevada should no longer be one of them.

Yes, appoint Regents too

Another excellent plan in the Legislature is for the Board of Regents, which governs higher education in Nevada, to be appointed rather than elected.

As with the judges, the candidates are largely unknown, get little media coverage and appear on the who-cares bottom of the ballot. Regent races become personality contests rather than an ability-and-issues contest.

Clemenceau, French premier in the first quarter of the 20^th century, is supposed to have said: “Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.”

Similarly, education is too important to be left to politicians.