2024 Judicial Election #2

  • County erred in letting candidates file for District Court seat. [RJ]
  • NV Supreme Court seats uncontested in 2024; judicial filing brings expanded info on candidates. [TNI]
  • Nevada judicial campaign filings close, many unopposed. [RJ]
  • Races develop for 2 Carson City seats. [Nevada Appeal]
administrator
17 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 19, 2024 8:38 am

The First JD race is a shame, Luis is competent and experienced, there was no reason for her to draw an opponent.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 19, 2024 9:36 am
Reply to  Anonymous

She is brand new on the District Court bench. Of course she is going to draw opponents, not least of which are the people who were finalists for the same seat. Same thing will happen in District Court 27.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 20, 2024 8:44 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Krueger didn’t make the final three this time around when he applied for the open seat. I wouldn’t say he was a finalist.

Lord Mansfield
Guest
Lord Mansfield
January 19, 2024 9:46 am

Electing judges is utterly daft.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 19, 2024 9:51 am
Reply to  Lord Mansfield

Based

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 19, 2024 10:41 am

What does the RJ article say? Who claims the county erred?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 19, 2024 11:43 am
Reply to  Anonymous

The county says that.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 19, 2024 11:04 am

I’m getting a distinct mental image of Governor Lombardo standing on a desk and shouting, “I DECLARE VACANCY!”

Anon Please
Guest
Anon Please
January 19, 2024 11:58 am
Reply to  Anonymous

What I don’t understand is that the applications were already being accepted for the appointment. How could they accept applications if the Governor had yet to declare the vacancy?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 19, 2024 9:34 pm
Reply to  Anon Please

So, two candidates who otherwise (likely) would have run against incumbents appointed by Lombardo instead saw an open seat and filed there. Then, after the filing was closed and those appointed incumbents got by without drawing an opponent, the government says, “whoops, there was a vacancy, and we were accepting applications for a vacancy, but it wasn’t DECLARED a vacancy, so actually you can’t run here. Oh, and filing is closed, so you can’t run against those incumbents. Here is your filing fee back.”

That seems problematic.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 20, 2024 12:45 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Or despite Allf giving plenty of notice and actually vacating before the close of judicial filing so that the normal process could be followed, someone decided to help out the applicants for appointment who missed the fact that they had to file like everyone else

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 20, 2024 10:57 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Yep. That’s exactly what happened. This state is always a shit show. Always has been and obviously always will be. Completely untrustworthy and frankly, in this political environment, I cannot fathom why the clowns at the governor’s office and the county would think this is an ok look. Idiots.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 20, 2024 9:57 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I hope the two candidates who filed in Dept. 27 do something.

Would a Writ of Prohibition against the election department be the proper vehicle?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 21, 2024 9:14 am
Reply to  Anonymous

My understanding is that the Committee on Judicial Selection told the applicants they didn’t have to file until a later period. Seems like whatever happens will be unfair to some group of people.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 21, 2024 10:35 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Correct the application for appointment states that there is a later filing period to defend the seat. The greater problem I have is that there are no good candidates who applied for Department 27.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 24, 2024 6:43 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I tried to post a comment 2-3 days ago about the statutory interpretation of the NRS. It said it was being “approved” before posting. Still not here. There was nothing rude or insulting to anyone in the comment, although I certainly did suggest that AOC got the law wrong and it was actually Clark County that got it right. I even asked if there was something I was missing in the NRS that would change my reading.

Fascinating that it still isn’t up. Is the blog censoring opinions now?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 24, 2024 6:49 am
Reply to  Anonymous

6:43 again here. That comment went up without any “approval” message. So for the sake of fairness, I’m following up to say the prior “approval required” message and comment never posting may have been a technical glitch since it doesn’t appear there is a general review process for comments on this thread.