Nevada 2010 ballot includes amendment to appoint judges
Nevada: Last month the Nevada Legislature approved a plan to appoint rather than elect state judges for the 2010 November ballot and already the measure has become a hot button issue for the state. The proposed constitutional amendment calls for the creation of a selection panel that would recommend candidates to the governor for appointment. After the judges' first term, voters will decide whether to allow the appointed judges to retain their positions. They would have to garner approximately 55% of the vote to stay in office.
Amendment supporters argue that the appointment process would result in more qualified judges and remove the influence of campaign money. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sent Nevada officials a letter in support of the proposal. She wrote, “Citizens can be confident that appointed judges are insulated from special interests who would seek to buy justice through campaign donations.” Opponents, on the other hand, said that the amendment removes voting rights and places the decision only in the hands of a few - the selection panel. “I’m against anything that alters the voters’ rights to pick judges. Judges should be held as accountable as any other public official,” said Republican political consultant Sig Rogich. The Nevada Eagle Forum also opposes the change.
Current Nevada Chief Justice James Hardesty said that while he does not necessarily support the proposed amendment, he does support the move to an appointment process. Others said that while the appointment issue will be a hot point of discussion next year, it will also play a role for those running for political office in 2010. The issue will force candidates to pick a side, said Dan Hart, a Democratic political consultant.
Currently 16 states are using the appointment process.