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

April 30, 2007

Dear Chairman Anderson and Members, Assembly Judiciary Committee,

I just learned that tomorrow you will hear SJR 2, concerning changing our method of judicial selection.

I write as an individual, and a member of the Article 6 Commission, though our Nevada Center for Public Ethics has worked since the Fall of 2005 toward reforms of this kind (no vote on exactly this bill, however).

Some discussion claims this bill takes judges away from the people who elect, the citizens, and gives their nomination to a small group and the Governor. This objection seems to say that SJR2 is bad law because it makes something "politicized" when right now it is not.

That is not true. Right now, as the Supreme Court justices have said, and the President of the Nevada State Bar have said, judges must go to lawyers and litigants for campaign contributions in order to campaign for elections. The American Bar Association's Committee on Judicial Independence, "Justice in Jeopardy", sees this so-called election system, involving a serious money chase, as corrupting our courts: lawyers and litigants must either give money to a certain judge, or perhaps fear the court will not be fair to them. Judges must either ask lawyers and litigants for money, or fear not being able to pay campaign advertising costs. All that fear is corrupting the expectations we should have -- that our judges are NOT political, are NOT committed to one side before hearing the facts and judging the law in the case, and that we citizens can get a fair shake whether we have money to give, or not.

SJR2 does not remove the people from the process. It does 2 things - [1] when an opening occurs in a court, the Comm. on Judicial Selection seeks nominations, including self-nominations, and reviews the experience, education and record of each applicant, sending 3 names to the Governor. The Governor chooses one, who serves for apprx. a year, and then seeks a popular vote to retain the office. If fewer than 60% agree, the person is removed. [2] Every justice and judge must have his or her performance in office reviewed by a new Comm. on Judicial Performance, which considers the requirements of judicial competence and ethics, and votes to recommend continuation or replacement.

Both these steps replace money and politics with professional standards of judicial qualification, and performance. (I think that the Article 6 Commission is also inclined to look at judicial discipline, because all 3 areas [qualification, performance and discipline] hinge on the ethics of judicial practice, what makes for good standards of practice).

At present, we the people have no way of knowing what are the good standards of practice for judges, nor of knowing what is the record of this or that current judge or of his or her opponent. On the Friday before the April primary here in Las Vegas, the RJ published short pieces about each of 7 candidates for Dept. 6 of the Municipal Court. All early voters missed this story. There was not time or enough coverage for anyone to vote intelligently for anyone. The only thing that was out there , in a few cases, was money for signs and mailers. Voting based on signs or mailers is not wise or well-informed voting -- it is just voting bases on campaign money.

I ask that you vote in support of SJR2. It gives the people the chance to oust any judge who performs badly, but it takes the money and politicization out of the judicial selection process. And it provides for performance evaluation - something very long overdue.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

Craig Walton

Go to the 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.