NCPE Town Hall Meeting

Join us on June 28, 2008 for the Third NCPE Town Hall Meeting.

NCPE in the News: 2008

"Court Hopeful Says Consultant Pitched Deal" (Las Vegas Review Journal)

"Given $50,000 He Decides to Run" (Las Vegas Sun)

Acting President Julie Tousa on Jon Ralston's "Face to Face: Ethics Complaint"

Meet the Acting President of NCPE, Julie Tousa

"New Watchdog of Public Ethics Continues Enforcing Vital Unwritten Law" (Las Vegas Review Journal)

"Partying Away As Taxpayers Pay and Pay" (Las Vegas Sun)

Ethics Legislation 2007

NCPE at the 2007 Nevada State Legislature: Summary and Details

"Article 6 Commission" to study and recommend improvements in the Nevada judiciary
See Dr. Craig Walton's summary of May Meeting

NCPE statement about the danger of big donors contributing to Supreme Court justice election campaigns.

Judicial Ethics & the Complaint Processes

Craig Walton's letter, to the Las Vegas Business Journal in favor of the new plan for judicial selection

Candidate Pledge

Email NCPE Treasurer

NCPE at NV Legislature

Letter to Nevada Senate in support of AB 505

As of April 24, AB 505 has cleared the Assembly and is in the hands of the Senate LO&E Committee. Dr. Walton revised the letter of suuport for this bill, and sent it to the Senate committee

Date:               April 24, 2007
TO:                 Chairwoman Senator Barbara Cegavske and Members, Senate Legislative Operations and Election Committee

FROM:           Craig Walton, President, and Members, Nevada Center for Public Ethics

Subject:          Letter in support of AB 505

Dear Chair Cegavske and Members:

            My name is Craig Walton and I speak on my own behalf, but also as a member of the Nevada Supreme Court’s Article 6 Commission considering how to improve Nevada’s Judiciary. The Commission, as a whole, has not taken a position on AB 505 at this time.

            As you know, this bill was presented in 2005, both by the then-Chief Justice, Robert Rose, and also by Jim Hulse of Common Cause. It was not passed.

            Since then, the Los Angeles Times articles on clear-cut or also apparent corruption in the Nevada judiciary, along with other investigations such as P.L.A. N.’s “Supreme Jackpot” and “Supreme Jackpot II” have given the public a sickening sense of the impropriety of our standard practice, by which judges seek election campaign money from lawyers and litigants, and the latter either give the money or fear for their chances in court. This linking of money-gifts to judges sickens our people and undermines our need to believe in the independence of the judge and the fairness of our courts.

            AB 505 takes one step in the right direction - it changes the filing deadlines from May to January, so that if a judge discovers, at the end of the new filing period, that she has no opposition, then she need not go out to raise money for the 5 months until the election.  (At present, since the filing deadline is in May and the election in June, one must raise money from January on, just in case there may be an opponent, even though none is known at the time).    The bill does not stop anyone from opposing a sitting judge, and does not stop judges from asking for money if opposed. But it does slice off from the Money Chase one chunk of cases where no money-raising is needed because there is no opponent.

            In 2005 the objection was raised, ‘why give such a benefit to judges when we in the legislature do not get that benefit?”  To reply, first, if the idea is a good one, and could be copied by the legislature, the best response is to do that, rather than killing this improvement.

But second, and primarily, legislators are meant to be politicized, to take stands in advance of election and be chosen for their politics. But judges must not be politicized, and must not take stances on court cases in advance of court proceedings.  We cannot have an independent judiciary if judges are required to become ‘political’ in order to sit on the bench.  Countries with politicized judges do not give justice to their people.  They dole out verdicts in accord with the wishes of the dominant political power.  We need to move away from that model as fast as we can.  I urge passage of AB 505.  Thank you.

Go to other 2007 testimonies

AB 80, to require Limited Liability Corporations (LLC’s) to report contributions. As to the relationship to NCPE's 11 proposals, AB 80, is close to NCPE's proposal on p. 1 of our doc.

AB 109, - allows leftover campaign monies to go to a public-purpose Trust Fund.

AB 143, - changes the NV. Commission on Ethics deadline for completing an inquiry from 45 days to 1 year, and also allows the complainee to be told what is happening to his or her complaint.

SJR 1 - removes the requirement that affidavits be provided with ballot initiative petitions.

SB 79 - brings our statutes into line with a court ruling that the affidavit requirement for ballot petitions is a violation of the First Amendment.

SB 144, to require Limited Liability Corporations (LLC's) to report contributions.

AB 142, to require ethics instruction and lobbyists to the Executive Dept. to register and report expenditures.

AB 335 - dealing with campaign disclosure

SB 425 - to new detail on political contributions, and to include legal defense funds in that category.