Nevada Appellate Lawyer & Attorney : Tami D. Cowden : Nevada Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

OK – so some charges were dropped, and the hearing continues today on the remainder.  If there is no time for closing arguments today, then the final arguments will be briefed. 

That could take awhile.   And so it goes.

At some point, this story just got old to me. And pointless.   The contest ancillary arguments, the media sideshow, and the mean-spirited jokes transformed what could have been a serious issue involving judicial competence into a tabloid event. Frankly, I lost interest.  

The judicial disciplinary process has taken so long that it has very nearly been mooted by the election process.  Since Halverson was not among the top two finishers in the primary, her term of service does have a clear end, regardless of the outcome here.  The few months remaining in Halverson’s term are all that is at stake now. 

What has been lost in this story is the impact on litigants with cases in Dept. 23.  Those cases have been handled by senior judges.  That service is important and I am not knocking the judges who have stepped in to help during this difficult time.  But strategy in a case often involves taking the temperment/attitude/viewpoint of the judge assigned in the case into consideration.   That ability has been hampered in Dept. 23 while this matter has  lingered.

 Fortunately, thanks to the election, there IS an end in sight. This is the first time I’ve been grateful for the judicial election process.  

For those who care, the charges that were dropped were creation of a hostile work environment, improperly contacting a Family Court hearing master and failing to explain written order procedures to her clerks.

See the RJ article: Some Halverson charges dismissed

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The R-J’s latest input on the continuing saga:

Jane Anne Morrison comments: Judicial commission might have a say on Halverson controversy

and an update on another of Judge Halverson’s legal pending legal matters: Deadline nears in judge's yard battle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Halverson v. Hardcastle dispute provides wonderful ammunition for supporters of merit selection of judges. John C. Smith at the R-J weighs in again today with “As justice center rumbles, the case for appointing judges grows by the day.”

 The Sun offers this editorial: Turmoil in the Courthouse.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This morning, the Las Vegas Sun chimes into the discussion with "Judges step up feud, courthouse cringes."  Unlike most reports, this article looks beyond the allegation sof outrageously inappropriate conduct to the actual legal issue underlying the case: the power of a chief judge.

Over the holiday weekend, the R-J had the following reports related to this ongoing saga:

Morrison: Judge just doesn't see failure to treat people with dignity, respect.

Judge's husband has long rap sheet.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks