Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Judicial Election Primer 2016- District Court Departments 15 and 20

Early voting starts this Saturday, October 22--meaning it's time to discuss who you think should be elected to the bench.  If you want to see the results of our informal survey, click here.

In the two district court bench seats on the ballot this fall, we have Governor Sandoval's appointed judges seeking retention against a challenger.

Department 15:  Here we have the governor's appointee Joe Hardy, Jr. facing off against Bruce Gale. In our survey, Judge Hardy is the leader, but do you think he should be retained?

Department 20:  In this department, the governor's appointee was Eric Johnson and he is facing off against Anat "Annette" Levy.  Since we know several people have raised the issue of whether Ms. Levy even has an office in Nevada, we reached out to her on 2 separate occasions, but received no response. Who do you think should be elected in this department?

Ed.  Here's the link to the RJ editorial on judicial elections.

57 comments:

  1. RJ editorial endorsed both Johnson and Hardy today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should be smooth sailing and an easy victory for both good judges in those departments.

      Delete
    2. Not so fast, the RJ=Sheldon Adelson, a Trump wannabe. A RJ is a conservative rag.

      Delete
  2. Hardy is like watching paint dry but he's not a bad judge.

    Can we please not elect Harmony "my daddy is buying me an election" Letizia? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Second the Harmony motion. She is an absolute buffoon.

      Delete
    2. And she's got a face like a left foot

      Delete
    3. Anyone but the Letizia little girl. I don't want someone that looks 12 on the bench.

      Delete
    4. I'm guessing 8:35 is a Trumpkin.

      Delete
    5. You guessed wrong; but thanks for playing

      Delete
    6. She looks nothing like a left foot, but okay...

      Delete
    7. Justice. Has a name.
      But not; a proofreader?

      Delete
    8. Justice. Has a Name. A Tower. And a League.

      Delete
    9. There is no reason to replace JP Janiece Marshall with Letizia. Janiece Marshall should be retained. I think she has worked hard and improved on the bench. Letizia has done nothing except be a career Deputy PD. There is more to being a judge than defending criminals. No I am not Janiece, just saying folks.

      Delete
    10. 11:00 is right. I think Marshall is okay all around. But she has pissed off all the defense attorneys because she won't quash arrest warrants without the state's Okay or without defendant's presence. Defense attorneys pretty much make a living in this town on out of state visitors getting in trouble then going home. Then an arrest warrant drops and they need it quashed. etc. Can't piss off defense attorneys if you want to stay on the bench.

      Delete
    11. Since when is someone's appearance relevant to their qualifications for the bench? Sad.

      Delete
    12. 11:59,

      Welcome to Trump's America.

      Delete
    13. 1:01 PM, we have been voting based on appearance well be Donald Trump ran for president. For example, Judge Miley.

      Delete
    14. I get a feeling that some of Harmony's classmates are peanut butter and jealous... She's cool, she knows how to do the job and you're lame.

      Delete
    15. I am one of her classmates from high school. Definitely not jealous, just really concerned that such an unqualified person may actually control the fate of so many.

      Delete
  3. What's wrong with left feet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For that matter, what's wrong with buffoons?

      Look at this bio from her election webpage. It looks like it was written for a 9th grader running for class secretary.

      http://harmonyforjudge.com/about-harmony/

      Delete
    2. I could care less whether her father is paying for her campaign, what body part she resembles, her party affiliation, or even her views on the issues. She should be DQ'ed for using grey text against a grey background on that website. Period.

      Delete
    3. couldN'T care less.

      Delete
  4. That veteran Steve Sanson guy likes Anat Levy. Maybe that is the way to go in that Johnson - Levy race.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have an unofficial rule that we don't type his name! It makes him show up here and derail our discussions. For future reference, simply call him He Who Shall Not Be Named. And if he does show up, please ignore him!

      Delete
  5. I've said it before and I'll say it again: To be judge should require a minimum of 20 years experience, 20 trials, and CANNOT RESULT IN A INCREASE IN PAY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I could not agree more!

      Delete
    2. That is an aggressively impractical, undesirable, and unconstitutional proposal.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. Why is it that so many judicial candidates are public defenders or prosecutors?

      Delete
    4. How is this undesirable?

      Delete
    5. Details, details... you going to let that stand in the way of an idea?

      Delete
    6. 10:49: Because PERS

      Delete
    7. I agree that all Judges should have at least 20 years of experience. I am surprised at some of the results of the survey. Bateman had the most votes in Henderson and Letizia received 38 votes in her race, given their lack of experience.

      Delete
    8. It's undesirable because it ensures that the higher appellate courts will only be home to the oldest jurists. If you require 20 years to be a judge at all, that's--at the very least--a 45-50 year old first year judge. Add the 20 trial requirement, which is insane, and you've got 58 year old criminal lawyers and nobody else. Then some time on the bench before thinking about appellate court, and you're left with 65 year olds heading to NVSCt. That's just plain stupid. Start again.

      Delete
  6. Don't you move from PERS to the judicial retirement system if elected or appointed to the bench? Either way I'm not sure the retirement systems alone are determinative. It's not all that often that you see a really highly regarded private sector attorney put their name in the hat for a state court judicial position, so I think there is a lot of selection at play here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will never understand all the bile thrown at PERS. You work 20 or 30 years and you earn a pension. "Earn" being the operable word. There are three types of PERS in Nevada: regular, law enforcement and judicial. Last legislative session, judicial PERS was revised and stripped of the majority of benefits. Under the former version, a JPERS retiree could continue to work without restriction and not impact the pension amount. Regardless, you have to opt into JPERS.

      Delete
    2. Reason for the bile - it's a 100% taxpayer funded pension account that typically pays out at age 55 at 75% salary. Name one private section job that comes close to this type of retirement benefit. And don't give me that crap about gov't employees making less than private sector. Private sector wages are at all time lows, while the gov't unions have been able to keep wages steadily increasing for their members. And, keep in mind, gov't workers get a 6%ish bonus every paycheck because they aren't paying social security tax.

      Delete
    3. Where do I sign up for this version of PERS? I pay 1/2 of my PERS premiums. I didn't join the public sector at age 25, so there's no way that I'll be retiring at 55. When I do retire, my social security benefits, which I paid into for many years, will be reduced because of my PERS benefits. I didn't receive a single pay raise in 6 years and I'm still far behind where I was in private practice. PERS is great, but there are other benefits that I don't get - like earning extra when I work late and on weekends, taking cell phones, cars, laptops, and CLE trips to Hawaii as tax deductions, etc.

      Delete
    4. Quit and hang out a shingle. Quit complaining. See how tough it is out in the private sector.

      Delete
    5. On top of the retirement benefits, what is the health insurance like? As a solo attorney, I'm paying $950 a month for shitty health insurance with a high deductible. I'd gladly give up my tax deductible cell phone bill and CLE trips to have my retirement and health insurance paid for. Maybe I should go into government work.

      Delete
    6. 5:06 asked what is the health insurance like in the public sector. Judges get the State health insurance. It used to be good but they keep raising the deductible and the amount the participant pays. Judges get retiree medical before medicare after 5 years and can retire at age 60 with 10 years of service. The health insurance is outstanding if you unfortunately get major health problems like a heart attack or cancer. It also covers the spouse and children without costing you a small fortune. The state insurance stops when you go on medicare but they put you in supplemental plans.

      Delete
    7. I am in PERS and pay $650 a month for HPN PPO for myself and my two children. Vision and dental (top tier) are and additiona $50 per month.

      Delete
    8. Here's an interesting WSJ article on the guy who manages PERS funds. http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-does-nevadas-35-billion-fund-manager-do-all-day-nothing-1476887420

      Delete
  7. Supreme Court final three: Cadish, Denton, and Stiglich.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prediction or fact?

      Delete
    2. Fact. Announced by the committee about 10-15 minutes ago.

      Delete
    3. Stiglich matches the Governor's political leanings more than Cadish (great Judge but disqualified from Federal appointment for her 2nd Amendment answer in a year that Question 1 is on the ballot) and Denton (Business Court yes but quite the Democratic stalwart).

      Delete
    4. Cadish's DQ sure looked like political nonsense. Any Trumplovers care to explain how it wasn't?

      Delete
    5. Don't talk shit about the 2nd Amendment if you have any hope of a federal judicial appointment in a state that universally always has a Republican senator.

      Delete
    6. While I agree with 3:38 generally regarding the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment as a hot button issue in this state, Nevada had 2 Democratic senators from 1959-1974 and 1989-2001.

      Delete
    7. Stiglich will get it. Cadish is not as great as everyone thinks.

      Delete
  8. Stiglich for the win.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I certainly hope Mark Denton is the final choice. Wonderful person and he has always offered reasonable and practical rulings.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Happy to see 3 well-qualified individuals have made the cut. Can support any one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with 8:59. All 3 of the judges are excellent writers with good demeanor and hard-working. Good work, selection committee.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't understand how Levy thinks she can be a good trial court judge when she has never done a trial. Evidentiary issues are tough enough when you practice it daily, but can you imagine ruling on things you never dealt with and the last time it was relevant to you was in law school.

    ReplyDelete