November 2005, NCPE statement about the danger of big donors contributing to Supreme Court justice election campaigns.
The Nevada Center for Public Ethics joins with Common Cause and the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada in asking Gov. Kenny Guinn to appoint a Commission on Judicial Selection. As "The Supreme Jackpot II" study shows, we have raised the ante on the cost of one Supreme Court seat 300% since 1998 - from over $174,000 to over $543,000.
The laws on campaign contributions are skirted repeatedly, by casinos, businesses, home builders and others, by bundling or re-directing monies.
There may be some cases, Nevada companies, lawyers and citizens who believe their money will get them a favorable ruling in the Nevada Supreme Court. In most cases, however, they seem to give money so as NOT to be seen by our highest judges as UNwilling to give money and thereby look UNsupportive. Either case is corrupting to all of us and to our need for a government of just laws and courts.
This is not a partisan issue. The justices themselves asked the 2003 and 2005 Nevada legislatures to change the filing deadlines to halt part of this corrupt practice by letting unopposed judges refrain from the Money Chase. The President of the Nevada State Bar expressed his profession's support of this measure.
It needs to be emphasized that attorneys as well as judges are uncomfortable with the present system - it seems to politicize and bias them even when they have no desire to weaken our courts.
The legislators (of both parties) rejected this appeal for reform, saying that judges should not have any different situation than legislators - go raise the money and face the voters. But this misses the key point, that the Supreme Court is not partisan. Our judges are not pushing policy alternatives, they are charged with the duty of fairness under law, not advocacy.
Our entire system of government is based on the separation of powers - that the judiciary, the legislative and executive branches would all have limited powers, no one of them able to take over the powers of the other two. This separation was to create a system of checks and balances so that mistakes or failures in one branch could be admitted and changed, if not by that branch, then by one or both of the other two.
But what we see here is that our Nevada judiciary loses its independence under the current system. The same large donors are giving monies to our judges as are giving to partisan and policy-advocacy races. We need a Commission on Judicial Selection to investigate the public's perception of the fairness of our judges, and alternatives to the current system.
Both our justices and leadership among our lawyers are embarrassed and opposed to this system because it at least seems to strip judges of the independence of judgment vital to a true judiciary.
Gov. Guinn has the respect, the clout and the authority to appoint a Commission on Judicial Selection which can work on how we could re-create a truly independent judiciary in Nevada. The Nevada Center for Public Ethics urges him to establish and charge such a Commission to tackle this need. We must change to a judiciary with judges who do not have to go to plaintiffs, defendants and their attorneys for campaign money, and in which attorneys do not have to contribute monies to a judge in order to hope for a fair day in court.
/s/ Craig Walton
President, Nevada Center for Public Ethics
