Vol. 3, No. 17
.jpg)
July 1, 2006
Nevada's Online State News Journal
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
 |
Find Out
More About Our Wonderful State. |
COPYWRITING
|
|
Nevada's District Judges Find Themselves On The Hot Seat
One Nevada Federal Judge May Come Under Federal Investigation
by Johnny Gunn
It's too early in the current time-line to know whether changes in the way judges are chosen in Nevada, too early to know whether or not a blistering, brutal series of investigative articles in the Los Angeles Times will have a lasting effect on Nevada's judiciary, but it isn't too early to see official investigations begin to take shape. The articles discussed conflicts of interest, favoritism, violations of judicial ethics, and seriously questioned the ways in which many Nevada judges finance their election campaigns.
District Judges in Nevada are elected in their respective districts and are subject to the same financial disclosure rules as all other elected officials. A trip through the Contributions and Expenses reports on the Secretary of State's website will open your eyes and give a hint as to what the Times reports were all about. Most judges run their campaigns on money donated by attorneys. Many of those attorneys have business before the court.
Outside of politics this could be considered bribery. Coercion at the least. Attorneys in Nevada have complained quietly among themselves for years over the situation, but have not attempted to make any changes in the system. Most will not allow themselves to be interviewed, and demand to be nameless when quoted. The idea is, an angry judge is not good for an attorney's client. One Nevada lawyer told the Nevada Observer that she has refused to play the game. "I won't file papers in Nevada district courts," she said. "Federal court is where I do most of my business."
It was disclosed that attorneys with business before a judge up for election feel an obligation to donate to that judge's campaign just to protect themselves and their clients. In Nevada, a small state population wise by any account judges and attorneys are well acquainted, often belonging to the same organizations, often even having gone to school together. Judicial canons seem to call for some form of disclosure by the presiding officer. It rarely happens, and judges are rarely disciplined for the alleged violations.
Among specific judges in the Times articles are three senior judges, those being appointed to their senior position by the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is believed to be preparing an investigation of those judges. Court officials said since those three were appointed by the Court, it was the Court's responsibility to investigate such serious charges. The three are James A. Brennan, Joseph S. Pavlikowski, and Stephen L. Huffaker.
Campaign finance reform has been at the heart of the Nevada Observer's reason for being for almost three years and changes in how finances are acquired, what can be done with the money, who can contribute to what, and what the candidate's responsibilities toward the contributor are form many of our strongest opinion pieces. During recent congressional attempts at campaign finance reform, it was the First Amendment that got in the way of some of the suggestions. That is something that must be taken into account anytime one wishes to put controls over who can donate.
That being said, when donations are considered bribes, offered in the belief that something specific will be returned because of it, then controls are necessary. Of all the politicians attempting to fill their vaults with coin of the realm, judges should be above any reproach what-so-ever. In Nevada campaign finance laws are virtually exempt from review, politicians and contributors that skirt or break the law are rarely charged more or less fined or jailed.
At least one former Nevada District Judge, James C. Mahan now serving on the federal bench may be investigated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals following disclosures and allegations of conflicts of interest along with lack of disclosure from the bench alleged by the Times articles. Mahan is being investigated for allegedly awarding millions of dollars in judgments and fees without disclosing his ties to those who benefited.
According to the California newspaper's reports and allegations from the Ninth Circuit Mahan may have approved more than $4.8 million in judgments and fees without disclosing his long standing ties to those who benefited from his decisions. Campaign finance reports are extremely difficult to read at best, one reason why so few take the opportunity but they often will tell part of a story. How much money trades pockets without being reported in still another question that will never be answered.
In rural Nevada, District Judges are part and parcel of a small community. It isn't unusual to find the sheriff, district attorney, local justice of the peace, and district judge at the same table having breakfast or lunch, and one hour later, in the same court room trying cases, and rarely with disclosure. Attorneys for both sides have made political contributions to all parties involved. Who gave the most, most often usually comes out on top.
One of the questions that got beat up at the federal level during debate over campaign finance reform was how donations from PACs and political parties should be handled. Many believe that PACs should only be allowed to advocate an issue not stand behind a candidate, but it appears that organizations fall under the protection of the First Amendment the same as individuals. There are other reforms however that should be looked at on the Nevada level starting with full disclosure.
Judges that accept contributions should not be able to sit on a case involving any contributor, nor should any contributor be allowed to act as an attorney in any case before that judge. If recusal does not take place, the judge should be arrested for bribery and sent to the big house. The concept here is to put the burden on the public officer. There should be mandatory prison time for violations of the public trust and that is what campaign finance violations are.
The problem we face in Nevada is that campaign contributions are almost unverifiable by the public. Reports are handwritten most of the time, do not offer information on who the contributor is, who he works for, what his connections to the candidate or other contributors might be. The candidate is never forced to show any bank records of any kind. The candidate is on his own to report what he wishes knowing no one will check, no charges of any kind will be filed, no one will know.
If a candidate accepts a contribution he should not be allowed to conduct any kind of public business with that contributor or anyone associated with that contributor. Think about that at the district judge level of politics in Nevada. There is a set of rules for those involved in the practice of law called canons, and in the case of the judiciary called judicial canons. If a judge breaks a judicial canon he should be removed from office immediately.
Here is a plea to those running for office this year: think about those you are supposed to be representing. When the money for campaigning out weighs the responsibility to the electors, it is you who is wrong. Lying to someone that just cast a ballot in your favor doesn't make you a very nice person. What will happen one day soon will be a statewide referendum demanding changes in the campaign finance law in Nevada, and if we're lucky it won't be written by legislators or attorneys, but by angry citizens not content with the status quo of corruption at the highest levels.
•••