Halverson's challenge to election answered - but not on the merits
The Supreme Court directed that an answer be filed in Halverson's challenge to being required to run for reelection. see Order Directing Answer and Setting Oral Argument
That answer was filed last week. See Answer of Harvard L. Lomax, Clark County Registrar of Voters, to Original Petition.
Lomax argues that Halverson 1) named the wrong parties and failed to include necessary parties (including candidates for all the other two year terms created at hte same time as Halverson's)positions created , 2) waited too long to challenge the validity of her two year term; and 3) requests relief that is not appropriate.
Conspicuously absent was anything refuting the merits of Halverson's contention regarding the infirmity of the two year positions.
The last argument refers to Halverson's request that her term be extended for another four years. Lomax argues that it was clear that Legislature wanted judges elected on the same cycle, and accordingly, if unable to create a two year terms for the new judges, might have made the the new judicial positions effective in 2008. Lomax asserts that this is the status quo, and therefore, no relief is required. However, unspoken in Lomax's argument is the problem of what to do with all the decisions made by judges who, if Halverson's argument were accepted, were in consitutionally infirm positions.
Dare we put our hopes in the success of a laches argument? Hmm. When would laches attach for other potential challengers to decisions made by any of these judges?
This is becoming very interesting. And even a little scary.
