Chomping At The Bit

  • Law

  • A total of 66 candidates (mostly incumbents) filed for the 2014 judicial election yesterday (or in the pre-filing period leading up to yesterday). So far, there is a candidate in every department up for election except Department 10 (Jessie Walsh) and Justice Court Department 11 (Eric Goodman). There are not yet very many challengers. The RJ made a list of everyone that filed or you can go directly to the Clark County candidate filing site to view the registration details.
  • Lisa Willardson’s campaign manager speculates that her death was an accident and says she had been having trouble sleeping. The article’s title says “Colleague files lawsuit to clear late prosecutor’s name,” but offers no details. Anyone know what’s up? [MyNews3]
  • New video has surfaced which attorney Chris Rasmussen says shows that his client was not out of control before receiving a family court marshal beat-down. Not surprisingly, the incident involved Steve Rushfield and from the looks of the video, about 8 or 9 other family court marshals. There is no video of the actual incident–only the before and after since it took place in a private hallway that is a surveillance camera dead spot. [RJ]
  • Justice Sotomayor puts gay marriage in Utah on hold to allow the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the issue. [Fox5Vegas]
  • Another Nevada inmate died over the weekend. Granted, he was 86 years old, but the article says this is at least the seventh death at that prison since October… [Las Vegas Sun]
20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2014 5:30 pm

Seven deaths in one prison would normally be cause for speculation. However, NNCC is what is considered a "medical yard" and has the regional medical facility as well as the close-custody mental health unit. Seven deaths is odd, but not unexpected given the age and medical condition of many of the inmates.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2014 7:31 pm

I'm new to the area and this site. Why are there so few candidates for these elected judicial positions?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2014 7:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

for a couple of reasons. It can be a crappy job. The pay isn't generally as good as what private practice is. Fear. No one wants to spend the time and money to run when they might lose. Even though they would be a great judge and should keep trying (looking at you Phil Dabney). Enough knowledge to know that they don't know enough to be a judge–which is also why we end up with crappy judges.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2014 8:25 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

A lot of lawyers who would make great judges do not want to, and are lousy at, campaigning. They think wringing money out of lawyers is unseemly and spending every night for months at local gatherings is abhorrent.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2014 10:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

With a few exceptions, the people who seek to become judges here do so either because (1) they are not good lawyers, or (2) they are career government employees and being a judge is marginally better than being a DA. Sad, but true.

Getting elected is mostly a matter of how willing the judicial candidate is to court the attorneys and parties who donate big money to judicial campaigns. Then, once elected, the judge must keep those attorneys and parties happy.

If you're new to the area and all of this seems a little dirty to you, you may want to relocate before you get sucked into the system.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 4:25 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I agree with 2:44 — the wrong kind of people are typically drawn to running for judge — too lazy to maintain a practice, and love the power and "glory." it seems to me that judgeship should be a way to give back to the community after your career. If we are going to do elections (which are b.s.) at a minimum 20 years practicing and first chair at least 20 trials.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 5:28 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

quaere 1/7 @ 2:44 – who are the current "exceptions"?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 8:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

not 2:44, but I'd say Judge Cadish is definitely an exception.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 9:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Betsy is an exception

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2014 8:17 pm

The choices to replace Earl so far are Bruce Gale and Bill Kephart? Please, God, don't do this to me.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 5:06 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Have no fear, there will be additional filings in that department. Not sure how you will feel about them, but that department is not done yet.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 9:28 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Cliff Marcek already has signs out for that department. Besides him, who else do you anticipate will run?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 11:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I'm just going to repeat another commentor's wishlish here: Gene Backus. Jeff Garofalo. Eileen Marks. And if Dept. 19 remains a CD court, its gotta be Eileen. There's a reason all CD cases are assigned to one of three judges.

Now, if only someone could convince her to actually run…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 9, 2014 12:48 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I've already tried to convince her to run. She doesn't seem to have any interest in doing so. I wish she would change her mind.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 9, 2014 1:05 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I'd vote for Cliff. I wonder if his involvement with Boyd will help him in terms of name recognition.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2014 10:15 pm

I'm wondering why the marshals are escorting him through a private hallway where there isn't any video surveillance? I don't know anything about the case, but that seems strange to me.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2014 10:34 pm

No one's going to stand up and challenge Judge Jessie?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 1:03 am
Reply to  Anonymous

To challenge Judge Walsh means to be ready to outspend Bob Eglet.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 1:17 am
Reply to  Anonymous

People keep mentioning spending power, but with the uninformed electorate here, how much of a role does all that spending really do?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 8, 2014 6:07 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Not too get to far into it, but all the campaign spending if properly directed, can make a huge difference (in these types of races anyway-down ballot, no party identification). If you concentrate it mostly in billboards, well placed/timed tv/radio ads, a decent website and supplement it with someone who is a decent campaigner you can win the election. Think of most people in the "general public" they don't know the candidates or how to differentiate them, but if candidate A gets their name out there and can get solid name recognition when John Q Public goes to vote and has the imprint/memory of that candidate (but no one else who is running, even the opposing candidate), the candidate with the name recognition will likely win. If you are new-ish to the area, this is how Elizabeth Halverson was elected in 2006.