Editorial: Judicial commission wins praise, criticism

Like a box of mixed chocolates, there are some things to cheer and others to detest about recommendations from the Judicial Assessment Commission headed by Nevada Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Rose.

One recommendation we applaud is to encourage Gov. Kenny Guinn to support increased funding for mental health programs. As noted by Sun reporter Cy Ryan in a story about the judicial commission, mentally ill people clog our courts largely because Nevada has not put enough money into its mental health system.

Other recommendations need far more discussion, such as establishment of a state appellate court to review District Court decisions before they go to the Supreme Court. Adding another layer of government will not wash with many Nevadans. We would be wise to explore other options before establishing an appellate court.

The commission also wants a Supreme Court committee to define what constitutes a public document. We urge adoption of the broadest definitions possible. Certain personnel records should remain private if public services are not affected. Otherwise the public is best served by having maximum access to government records.

We also strongly oppose a commission recommendation to reduce certain traffic violations from misdemeanors to civil offenses if they do not involve traffic accidents. This means a driver who runs a red light, speeds or impedes traffic by going too slow would get a mere slap on the wrist. But it would be foolhardy to tolerate bad habits because that certainly would lead to more traffic accidents.

archive