Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

SUN EDITORIAL:

The ballot questions

At the top of the list is a measure that would change how judges are picked

Clark County voters have five ballot questions to consider this year — the first four are statewide measures and the fifth is a county advisory question that would be sent to the Legislature. Here are the Sun’s recommendations on these questions.

Question 1: This question would create a system of appointing judges to the state District Court and the Supreme Court. Currently, the public elects judges in a popular vote. This question would change the voters’ role — they would vote on whether to retain judges, not vote for them initially in a contested election.

The issue is whether the public vote is the best way to select judges, and in our view, it hasn’t produced the best judges.

We have our reservations about an appointed process because of the issue of politics — a governor, elected in a partisan race, makes the appointments. But at the same point, no contested election is free from politics. Moreover, there is the issue of the conflicts of interest created in the current system due to judges soliciting campaign donations from attorneys who might appear in front of them.

Some excellent judges have been elected, but there are too many who are subpar. Many sitting judges in Nevada were initially appointed to the bench due to vacancies, and in Clark County, those judges have been among the top performers — and we haven’t seen the disappointments that have troubled the judicial elections.

Question 1 tries to balance the public’s role with the appointment process, and we are encouraged by that. First, it would retain the current appointment system, which has worked well. The nonpartisan Judicial Selection Commission screens candidates in a process that is open to the public. The commission submits three people’s names to the governor for appointment.

Then, the voters would have their say. Under this plan, a judge would face a retention election within two years of appointment and would need 55 percent of the vote to win a full six-year term. Judges would then face retention votes every six years.

Question 1 would address what we have seen to be a glaring problem in the public vote — the lack of information about the quality of judges’ work. The initiative would create a separate nonpartisan commission that would rate the judges, using interviews with the judges, attorneys, litigants and others who have seen them work. At least six weeks before the election, the commission would make public its findings and offer recommendations on retention for each judge.

The proposal in Question 1 is modeled after Arizona’s highly regarded system, which has been in place for the past three decades. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor watched the system as a lawyer and state judge as it was implemented, and she told the Sun’s editorial board it has increased the quality of judges significantly — and gives judges more independence. And that’s important.

The judiciary is the last bastion of hope for the people against a tyrannical government, and we owe it to ourselves to get the best people on the bench.

We previously have opposed plans to change the way we currently elect judges because we believe in the wisdom of the voters. But judicial races haven’t received enough attention and there’s rarely enough information for a voter to choose wisely. No system is perfect, but this question offers a better way to pick judges. The Sun recommends yes on Question 1.

Question 2: As the population of Nevada has grown, the caseloads in the state court system have increased as well and the state Supreme Court has become overwhelmed. Under the Nevada Constitution, it is the only appellate court allowed.

If approved, this question would give the Legislature the authority to create an appellate court between the Supreme Court and the state’s District Courts. This is an idea whose time has come, based strictly on the size of the state and the caseloads the courts are facing. Nevada is one of 11 states that do not have appellate courts.

This question would not create another court. It would allow the Legislature to do so if it sees the need, and the Legislature, which represents the people, should have that power. The Sun recommends yes on Question 2.

Question 3: This question would give the Legislature the ability to make technical and administrative changes to the Sales and Use Tax Law of 1955 to help the state keep in accord with a compact with 44 other states. The compact is an agreement to simplify and modernize sales and use taxes, easing the burden of businesses to comply. It is important because it is expected to help states collect sales tax from Internet retailers, which have largely not paid them, putting brick-and-mortar businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

Currently, only voters can make changes to the tax law, and the delay caused by getting questions on the ballot jeopardizes the state’s membership in the coalition. This question would not, however, give the Legislature the ability to change the state’s portion of the sales tax nor would it allow lawmakers to change certain exemptions in the law — those would be retained by the voters.

Doing this will help Nevada, and it should go a long way toward helping small businesses across the state compete with Internet businesses. The Sun recommends yes on Question 3.

Question 4: In 2006, voters approved the People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL), which sought to curb the government’s use of eminent domain, particularly the government’s ability to sell land it obtained. PISTOL was intended to stop what its backers said were government abuses.

The problem, however, is that the initiative has made it too difficult for governments to use eminent domain, which is typically used in public works projects. That threatens to drive up the cost to taxpayers for roads, water projects and other needed infrastructure.

Well-respected former Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury has led the effort to fix the initiative, working with several other community leaders. The question would give government the ability it needs to move ahead, but it keeps untouched the core tenets of PISTOL — particularly the property owner protections that were added. It is notable that the backers of PISTOL have agreed to these changes, and there is no real opposition to it. The Sun recommends yes on Question 4.

Question 5: This question is sponsored by a coalition of local governments across the state, and it is expected to appear on the ballots in most of Nevada’s counties. The question is nonbinding, but it is the local governments’ response to the Legislature taking money from them to balance the state budget. The question calls for the Legislature to get the consent of local governments any time certain funding issues are before lawmakers. That is backwards, and it would be unworkable, completely undermining the concept of representative government.

However, the issue behind this question is real. The Legislature has, too often, balanced the budget on the backs of the local governments, and that should be addressed. But this ballot question is not the way to do it. Ultimately, the state would be better served if it sent people to Carson City who would listen to the concerns of local government. The Sun recommends no on Question 5.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy