Ramsey v. City of North Las Vegas
 | |
| Ramsey v. City of North Las Vegas et al. | |
| Reference: No. 68450 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Decided: April 13, 2017 | |
| Outcome | |
| Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court reversed and remanded | |
| Vote | |
| 4-2 (1 DNP) | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice Michael Cherry • Mark Gibbons • James Hardesty • Ron Parraguirre | |
| Dissenting | |
| Michael Douglas • Kris Pickering | |
| Did Not Participate | |
| Lidia Stiglich | |
Ramsey v. City of North Las Vegas et al. was decided on April 13, 2017, by the Nevada Supreme Court. In the case, a four-justice majority held that the Nevada Constitution did not confer a right to recall elected judges. The court reversed and remanded a decision of the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court. Associate Chief Justice James Hardesty delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Kris Pickering filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Michael Douglas. Justice Lidia Stiglich did not participate in the decision of the court.[1]
| Question presented: The question in this case was whether elected judges in Nevada could be recalled under the Nevada Constitution. A lower court judge in Nevada said that elected judges could be recalled. Judge Catherine Ramsey appealed that ruling. |
Outcome
The vote was 4-2 in favor of reversing and remanding the lower court judge's decision. This was a victory for Judge Ramsey. The court held that lower court judges could not be recalled under the Nevada Constitution.
| Justices Kris Pickering and Michael Douglas voted in favor of the lower court judge's ruling that the Nevada Constitution allowed elected judges to be recalled. |
| Chief Justice Michael Cherry along with Justices Mark Gibbons, James Hardesty, and Ron Parraguirre voted against the lower court judge's ruling, holding that elected judges in Nevada could not be recalled. |
Justice Lidia Stiglich did not participate in the court's decision.
Case background
In 1976, via constitutional amendment, voters in Nevada approved the creation of the state's Commission on Judicial Discipline along with a new code of judicial conduct. The Commission is granted the exclusive authority to remove a judge from office with the exception of judges who are impeached and convicted under the authority granted to the Nevada State Legislature.[1]
In 2011, voters in the city of North Las Vegas, Nevada, elected Catherine Ramsey to a six-year term as a municipal judge. Prior to the expiration of her term, a group called Remove Ramsey Now created a recall petition that sought to force an election to remove Ramsey from office. "The group alleged that Ramsey improperly used city assets for personal use, was excessively absent from work, and mistreated staff and other people in her courtroom."[1] After gathering a sufficient number of signatures under Nevada law, the group submitted the recall petition for verification to the North Las Vegas city clerk. The signatures were certified and the Nevada Secretary of State deemed that the petition was qualified.[1]
Ramsey filed for an emergency injunction in the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court. She also filed a complaint alleging the recall petition lacked legal sufficiency. Ramsey argued that elected judges were not public officers within the definition of Article II, Section 9, of the Nevada Constitution and, as such, she was not eligible for recall. The district court denied all of Ramsey's claims, asserting that Ramsey was a public officer under the Nevada Constitution. Ramsey appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.[1]
Decision
The judgment of the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court was reversed and remanded. Chief Justice Michael Cherry along with Justices Mark Gibbons, James Hardesty, and Ron Parraguirre voted against the lower court judge's ruling, holding that elected judges in Nevada could not be recalled. Justices Kris Pickering and Michael Douglas voted in favor of the lower court judge's ruling that the Nevada Constitution allowed elected judges to be recalled. Justice Lidia Stiglich did not participate in the court's decision.[1]
Relevant law
The case centered on a provision of the Nevada Constitution, Article II, Section 9, which governs the recall of elected public officers in Nevada. That provision reads,
| “ |
Every public officer in the State of Nevada is subject, as herein provided, to recall from office by the registered voters of the state, or of the county, district, or municipality which he represents. For this purpose, not less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the number who actually voted in the state or in the county, district, or municipality which he represents, at the election in which he was elected, shall file their petition, in the manner herein provided, demanding his recall by the people. They shall set forth in said petition, in not exceeding two hundred (200) words, the reasons why said recall is demanded. If he shall offer his resignation, it shall be accepted and take effect on the day it is offered, and the vacancy thereby caused shall be filled in the manner provided by law. If he shall not resign within five (5) days after the petition is filed, a special election shall be ordered to be held within thirty (30) days after the issuance of the call therefore, in the state, or county, district, or municipality electing said officer, to determine whether the people will recall said officer. On the ballot at said election shall be printed verbatim as set forth in the recall petition, the reasons for demanding the recall of said officer, and in not more than two hundred (200) words, the officer’s justification of his course in office. He shall continue to perform the duties of his office until the result of said election shall be finally declared. Other candidates for the office may be nominated to be voted for at said special election. The candidate who shall receive highest number of votes at said special election shall be deemed elected for the remainder of the term, whether it be the person against whom the recall petition was filed, or another. The recall petition shall be filed with the officer with whom the petition for nomination to such office shall be filed, and the same officer shall order the special election when it is required. No such petition shall be circulated or filed against any officer until he has actually held his office six (6) months, save and except that it may be filed against a senator or assemblyman in the legislature at any time after ten (10) days from the beginning of the first session after his election. After one such petition and special election, no further recall petition shall be filed against the same officer during the term for which he was elected, unless such further petitioners shall pay into the public treasury from which the expenses of said special election have been paid, the whole amount paid out of said public treasury as expenses for the preceding special election. Such additional legislation as may aid the operation of this section shall be provided by law.[2] |
” |
Opinion
Associate Chief Justice James Hardesty delivered the opinion of the court for a four-justice majority. Justice Kris Pickering authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Michael Douglas. Justice Lidia Stiglich did not participate in the decision in the case.
After a review of the factual and procedural history of the case, Justice Hardesty noted that the term public officer was not expressly defined in the Nevada Constitution and that no prior decision of the Nevada Supreme Court had addressed whether elected judges were public officers under Article II, Section 9. Justice Hardesty noted that some neighboring states, such as Idaho and Washington, included specific language in their constitutions that public officers, except for judicial officers, were subject to recall. The justice also referenced that Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon provided for judicial officers to be included as public officers in their respective state constitutions for the purposes of recall. Justice Hardesty concluded that elected judges in Nevada were public officers within the meaning of the Nevada Constitution, but held that elected judges could not be removed by recall.[1]
In Justice Hardesty's view, incorporating the arguments that Ramsey made on appeal, the creation of the state's Commission on Judicial Discipline, codified in Article VI, Section 21, of the Nevada Constitution, exclusively granted that body with the authority to remove judges with the exception of the power of impeachment granted to the Nevada State Legislature. The justice cited a legal maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, when examining the text and legislative history behind the creation of the Commission in support of the court's conclusion that elected judges cannot be impeached. In his words,[1]
| “ |
On its face, Article 6, Section 21 expressly retains legislative impeachment as a means of removal but does not mention the Article 2, Section 9 recall provision. We are compelled to conclude that Article 6, Section 21 can be read no way other than as providing the exclusive means for judicial removal except for impeachment without defeating the very reasons for its adoption. As noted above, Article 6, Section 21 provides for a comprehensive, standardized system for removing judges who violate their ethical and judicial performance duties, while expressly maintaining a singular exception for the Legislature to remove a judge from office through impeachment proceedings. No other method of removal is retained. As a result, the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius ('the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another'), long adhered to in this state, instructs us to view the failure to acknowledge any other existing method of removal as intent to allow no other method.[2] |
” |
While acknowledging that Nevada judges were subject to recall at an earlier point in Nevada's history under Article II, Section 9, the court viewed the creation of the Commission through Article VI, Section 21, as superseding that earlier interpretation. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the decision of the district court.[1]
Dissenting opinion
Justice Kris Pickering authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Michael Douglas. In Justice Pickering's view, the court erred in reviewing the statutory text and ordinary meaning of the words of Article II, Section 9. In her view,[1]
| “ |
Giving its words their normal and ordinary meaning, Article 2, Section 9 includes judges among the public officers it subjects to recall. The majority does not analyze Article 2, Section 9's text, or explain how its words can fairly be read to exclude judges. Instead, it concedes that, as originally enacted, Article 2, Section 9 may have applied to judges ... then hedges its concession by disparaging this reading as 'only a potential but uncertain interpretation of Article 2, Section 9.' ... But history demonstrates no uncertainty: The Nevadans who adopted Article 2, Section 9 knew that it subjected judges to recall and adopted it with that express understanding in mind. ... No matter how strong the policy argument for exempting judges from citizen recall, unless and until the voters amend the Constitution, the text of Article 2, Section 9 remains as written when it was adopted in 1912. By its terms, Article 2, Section 9 , subjects judges, as public officers, to citizen recall. Public policy considerations do not and should not override clear constitutional text.[2] |
” |
Case notes
- Justice Lidia Stiglich did not participate in the decision in the case.
- In Justice Hardesty's opinion for the court, in footnote 3, the justice acknowledged that the Commission had taken disciplinary action against Judge Ramsey. He wrote, "The Commission formally charged Ramsey with judicial misconduct in February 2016. On August 23, 2016, Ramsey and the Commission filed a Stipulation and Order in which Ramsey admitted to various violations of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct and consented to discipline including a three-month suspension from office without pay commencing three months prior to the expiration of her current term of office and a bar against seeking reelection to the North Las Vegas Municipal Court in 2017."
- A claim made by Ramsey in her district court filings, that the signature verification process for the recall itself was unconstitutional, was not addressed by the court's opinion.[1]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, Catherine Ramsey v. City of North Las Vegas et al., decided April 13, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
Federal courts:
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: District of Nevada • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: District of Nevada
State courts:
Nevada Supreme Court • Nevada Court of Appeals • Nevada District Courts • Nevada Justice Courts • Nevada Municipal Courts • Clark County Family Court, Nevada
State resources:
Courts in Nevada • Nevada judicial elections • Judicial selection in Nevada
