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

Electing judges offers such potential for scandalous stories.

For example, Channel 8 reports that one of the attorneys under investigation by the FBI for allegedly conspiring to bilk insurance companies has claim, on tape, to have several Nevada judges in his pocket.

The attorney, who has not yet been charged with a crime, was being taped without his knowledge.  Ironically, he was apparently complaining that his colleague was mouthing off about the influence they wielded in return for their judicial campaign contributions.  The attorney reportedly said his friend was

telling everybody he, he was telling people that he had the judges in his pocket. I've heard him say it -- I would deny I've heard him say it -- but I've heard him say, ‘Yeah, I've got five or six judges that will do anything I want.' I want to tell you something, I know all those judges. There's five or six judges that will do anything I want. They don't do it for [my friend], so it's for me. I mean, we've got some great friends over there."

The judges in question are not named in the TV station's report.

Read the story at I-Team: Trading Favors for Campaign Cash?

• 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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks