Difference between revisions of "Nevada 2010 ballot includes amendment to appoint judges"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - '<references/>' to '{{reflist}}')
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
Current Nevada Chief Justice [[judgepedia:James Hardesty|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 [[Democrat|Democratic]] political consultant.<ref name="SunJune">[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/07/proposal-appoint-judges-seen-hot-issue/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Proposal to appoint judges seen as hot issue," July 7, 2009]</ref>
 
Current Nevada Chief Justice [[judgepedia:James Hardesty|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 [[Democrat|Democratic]] political consultant.<ref name="SunJune">[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul/07/proposal-appoint-judges-seen-hot-issue/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Proposal to appoint judges seen as hot issue," July 7, 2009]</ref>
 
The constitutional amendment developed after Judge [[Judgepedia:Elizabeth Halverson|Elizabeth Halverson]] was permanently removed from the bench in 2008. She was suspended in 2007. [[Judgepedia:Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline|The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline]] found her guilty of sleeping during hearings, making improper contact with jurors, mistreating her staff, improperly hiring two bodyguards and making improper and misleading statements to the press.<ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/17/judge-elizabeth-halverson-permanently-removed-benc/ ''Las Vegas Sun'',"Judge Elizabeth Halverson permanently removed from bench," November 17, 2008]</ref>
 
  
 
Currently 16 states are using the appointment process.  
 
Currently 16 states are using the appointment process.  
Line 17: Line 15:
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references/>
+
{{reflist}}
  
 
{{state news}}
 
{{state news}}
Line 24: Line 22:
 
[[Category:2009 ballot news]]
 
[[Category:2009 ballot news]]
 
[[Category:Election law news]]
 
[[Category:Election law news]]
 +
[[Category:July 2009]]
 
__NOEDITSECTION__
 
__NOEDITSECTION__
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__

Revision as of 07:13, 9 June 2011

July 8, 2009

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.[1]

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.[1] “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.[2]

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.[2]

Currently 16 states are using the appointment process.

See also

Ballotpedia News
* Nevada 2010 ballot measures

References