Friday, Sept. 17, 1999 | 10:19 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- A judicial rule prohibiting judges from using leftover campaign funds in future campaigns is under fire from Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose.
A likely candidate for re-election next year to a third and final term, Rose told an administrative hearing of the Nevada Supreme Court that no other state in the nation imposes such a stringent condition on judicial candidates.
Under the Nevada Judicial Code of Conduct, a judge cannot retain funds raised in one campaign to spend in a future political race.
A judge may, however, keep up to $30,000 to augment office expenses not covered in the state budget or for authorized donations. The money cannot be used for personal expenses and anything over $30,000 must be returned to contributors.
Rose suggested that judges be allowed to retain $60,000 but hastened to add that he doesn't have any money remaining from his campaign of five years ago.
Justice Miriam Shearing questioned why there should be any limit on the amount of money that can be retained.
"I don't see why we should have any restriction on what can be held over," she said.
The judicial rules say a judge can only start raising money in January of the election year. By that time politicians have gathered up a good part of the available campaign money, Rose said, referring to the fact that Senate candidate John Ensign already has $1.2 million and former candidate Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa collected more than $300,000 before she dropped out of the race.
The court met Thursday for more than three hours on this and other proposals to change the code of conduct of judges but didn't take any action.
The court was asked by a group headed by District Judge Mike Griffin of Carson City to relax the rules in allowing judges to solicit money for legal or charitable causes. Judges in rural counties have helped raise money for juvenile detention facilities and for pro bono programs for legal help to the poor, he said.
Many of these projects would never have materialized if the judges were not involved, Griffin said. A number of lawyers from Northern Nevada supported the effort to allow judges to personally solicit money from lawyers or get them to volunteer their time in legal aid programs for the indigent.
But District Judges Brent Adams and Jim Hardesty, both of Reno, opposed the plan to allow judges to solicit money from lawyers for any purpose. They said there are other ways judges can show leadership in these projects.
Adams said he has raised $1 million for various legal purposes, such as creating a drug court and adding security to the courthouse. He said he has never run afoul of the regulation.
As an example, Adams said, he and others are working on a program for law students at UNLV to work in the judicial system in Reno. It's permissible for judges to do these things as long as they don't directly solicit money, he said.
Leonard Gang, executive director of the state Judicial Selection Commission, said the prohibition against raising money for charity has been in effect since 1924. If that is allowed, there's the possibility of coercion or "implied promise of reward," by a judge seeking the money, Gang said in opposing a change in the rules.
The issue arose when five district judges in western Nevada signed a letter to attorneys asking them to attend an event to raise money to pay for legal help for poor people. A complaint was filed with the Judicial Discipline Commission. It dismissed the complaint but cautioned judges to read the code of conduct.
Ann Bersi, president of the Nevada Bar Association, offered a compromise to allow a judge to make a pitch to a general audience but not in private to attorneys. Rose said that suggestion bears some consideration and the court will take a look at it.
Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Nancy Oesterle urged the court to clarify the rules when the names of judges can be included on the host committees of dinners and other functions. She said she doesn't allow her name to be used on any type of charity but other judges do.
Another problem, she said, is that these groups use a judge's name on the invitations without permission. And that could subject the judge to disciplinary action.
There was discussion on whether a judicial candidate ought to be able to tell an audience if he was a Democrat or Republican. Justices said a judge can tell a person privately his party but not announce it at a public gathering.
archive
