Phase 2 (which includes gyms, movie theaters, bars, and gatherings of up to 50 people) starts Friday, gaming is set to reopen June 4, as announced via a release after the Governor canceled a live press conference and had technical difficulties prevent a video announcement. [TNI]
Attorney Bob Zentz explains why businesses can require customers to wear masks. [News3LV]
The Board of Governors election results are in with one new addition in District 1 Clark County:
C'mon Governor. What is the story on moving forward with lifting the stay on state statutes, evictions, statutes of limitation? We can have gaming but real estate has to be stagnated?
Guest
Anonymous
May 27, 2020 4:38 pm
Terry Coffing and Andrea Craner, is this a joke? You people bitch about how you want change and then you vote for the Nevada Supreme Court wonks? Makes sense to me. You will also have a judge and a BOG at the dame time. It is Hardesty time.
I don't know if I agree that "you people bitch about how you want change." There are hundreds upon hundreds of lawyers out there and a handful of complainers on this blog. Just because you hear some bitching on here doesn't mean that bitching represents the opinion of the masses.
Joe, there has been more than a handful of complaints on the blog. Unless you make the ever popular, logical argument that the dame person keeps posting over and over again.
9:56: The answer to your question is "no." An BOG member who is elected (or appointed) to the Bench may not serve simultaneously in both capacities. Thus, when Judge Ochoa was elected to Department S and Judge Scotti was elected to Department II, they each resigned from the BOGs before taking office.
Guest
Anonymous
May 27, 2020 4:42 pm
Who counts the votes? Where are the vote totals listed? Are there any controls over vote collection or tallying? Or does the membership simply rely on Kim Farmer who seems to have her own agenda?
Guest
Anonymous
May 27, 2020 5:52 pm
I'd be interested to know the vote totals and percentage of eligible voters who actually did vote. I concur that those should be published.
Guest
Anonymous
May 27, 2020 8:27 pm
I'm not so concerned about the vote counting. I think the problems occur much earlier in the process.
The ballots are dominated by incumbents, and the few openings usually go to challengers hand-picked by the powers that be, in my view. These challengers, for open seats, usually profile similar to the entrenched incumbents–prominent attorneys or attorneys from larger well-known firms, who wish to maintain the status quo that benefits them(but not you or me or other foot soldiers).
None of these people–the incumbents or the challengers for open seats who profile the same as the incumbents, have much in common with the relatively low profile rank-and-file solo practitioners or small firm attorney.
So, our concerns, as somewhat anonymous foot soldiers,(such as disproportionate bar discipline, etc.) are never addressed.
And when the candidates for openings are recruited by the fat cat incumbent(which is often the case in my view), these incumbents, I believe, often get their entire large firm to support these people and vote for them.
So, it's not, I believe, anything to do with fraudulent counting. That is largely a knee jerk, and sometimes simplistic, sophomoric, conspiracy-theory based reaction to something we don't like. I think what is actually occurring is a little more multi-layered, but nonetheless very problematic.
First, the so-called "agents of change"(who reflect the values and concerns of the average, foot soldier practitioner), seldom appear on the ballot. Secondly, when they do actually appear on the ballot they are crushed as the incumbents use their influence to have all members of their firms(and the firms of their colleagues, etc.) vote for a "business as usual" challenger, who they have recruited for an open seat.
It is no coincidence that when a new member is elected to the BOG, that they are often well-acquainted with existing board members, and are sometimes even from the same firm.
So, I don't think it's fraud in the voting. That would be way too risky, and seems highly unlikely for many reasons, some of which are pretty obvious.
I think, more fundamentally, is that candidates who are more in line with we rank-and-file members, seldom bother to run, and when they do, they are crushed when larger, prominent firms "single-shot" their hand-picked person for an opening.
The single-shot idea is like when it says something like select three names out of the seven, the large firms sometimes advise their members to simply vote for one name of the seven, and it is of course made clear who that candidate is, and it greatly increases his/her chance of winning whenever only one person is selected while a voter was entitled to vote for several.
Guest
Anonymous
May 27, 2020 8:28 pm
I saw Coffing's television commercial for district court judge last night. He told that his wife subjugated her career for his and that he was an involved parent with his children, but gave no information about his professional background. Any thoughts why this information and not his professional background?
1:28-I haven't seen the ad yet, but the approach you describe appears to make some real sense. If he were running for a positon where only those in the legal community vote, he would presumably focus on his legal experience, accomplishments and professional reputation, with probably little or no mention of his family dynamics.
But he is running for a position where the entire public votes, and the public, generally speaking, is bored with, and not impressed with, an ad focusing on a candidate's accomplishments as an attorney.
In fact, many voters are downright hostile to attorneys,and dislike them vehemently in general. Therefore, it can be quite counterproductive, in a county-wide election, to focus on how successful you are as an attorney, as many voters will think that the more successful you are, then the more corrupt you are.
So, many voters have that mentality. And the voters who do not actually dislike attorneys, are still generally unimpressed with an attorney boring them with their experience and qualifications.
So, it is important to resonate as a human being, and to tap into a theme that may connect with a lot of people.
Therefore, him offering an ad that focuses on his deep involvement with his children, and the sacrifices his wife made for him and the family, may have resonated well with a test audience they showed the ad to before airing it.
That said, he could have offered a blend–discussion of his professional status, and some reference to family. But then again, you only have 30 seconds and can only do so much.
Now if one were to do a blend–focus on family, as well as focus on some professional aspects–it is better if the focus on the professional aspects is not centered around one's supposed accomplishments and reputation as an attorney. Instead, it would be far better to focus on any significant endorsements that may be important to large groups of voters(union endorsements, law enforcement endorsements, etc.)
That may, ideally, have been the best approach–show some shots of him and his family, but with a voice over(and/or print on the screen) that he is endorsed by this or that organization.
That's how I would do it, but what do I know. I bet some posters will have some real spot on reactions to how effective they found the ad., and how it could possibly be changed or improved on for the General Election.
I have seen 3 different ads by Coffing, each seems to have a different emphasis. I suspect that the ads vary based on the demographic of the show's audience.
Terry has all the money, so he'll probably win. I'm sure he'll be fine. I voted for Blair Parker. This was a race with two candidates I could easily support. In other races the choices were all terrible.
3:48. It will be Coffing and the woman. I didn't even bother to check who the woman is because, you're right, it doesn't matter. Judicial Primary with three of more candidates, but only one being a woman, the woman always finishes in the top 2–and usually finishes in first.
Her strength, or lack thereof, in terms of money, name-recognition and endorsements, only determines if she will finish in first or second, and if first then by how much.
But she will always finish in the top 2, even if she has done nothing except paid the filing fee.
There's never been an exception in Clark County.
And this pro-female advantage is far more profound than we think, and even more so in Family Court.
Recall a Family Court election in about 2000 or so, with four candidates, only one of them a female.
She spent only a couple thousand, and the top male candidate spent well north of $100,000. in the Primary, but she beat him by more than 2 to 1 margin in the Primary.
For the General, she again spent only a few thousand, and he again spent well north of $100,000(and I think it exceeded $200,000) and she beat him by more than 20 points.
And lawyers were stunned and were saying "Why did people vote for her? She has very little experience?"–as if the public knows or cares.
It's an open secret that women will just vote for a female candidate because, well, gender. Misandry.
Guest
Anonymous
May 27, 2020 8:32 pm
1:27–I think that's pretty much it. I don't think that the integrity of the vote count is the reason why these "agents of change"(as you call them) are not elected. It is because the agents of change almost never run, and the few times they do run, they have no real chance against someone selected and supported by those in power.
That said, I am always in support of full transparency. I don't believe the precise vote tallies are generally released(I never recall them being released).So, when we have kind of a closed-door process, some people will assume the worst, even when everything is proper.
What percentage of the eligible voters actually vote for the BOG? How many small firm/solo attys give a damn and invest the time to research these candidates? I've been in practice in Clark County for just over a decade, and I still don't know much (if anything) about the various BOG candidates. And the posts on this blog about them are not very helpful. I ask a few friends about them, and let their opinions (if they have any) guide me.
I spend the time to research the judicial candidates, but the BOG?
C'mon Governor. What is the story on moving forward with lifting the stay on state statutes, evictions, statutes of limitation? We can have gaming but real estate has to be stagnated?
Terry Coffing and Andrea Craner, is this a joke? You people bitch about how you want change and then you vote for the Nevada Supreme Court wonks? Makes sense to me. You will also have a judge and a BOG at the dame time. It is Hardesty time.
I don't know if I agree that "you people bitch about how you want change." There are hundreds upon hundreds of lawyers out there and a handful of complainers on this blog. Just because you hear some bitching on here doesn't mean that bitching represents the opinion of the masses.
I want a recount.
Joe, there has been more than a handful of complaints on the blog. Unless you make the ever popular, logical argument that the dame person keeps posting over and over again.
So we have a judge and a BOG in one, Coffing? And everyone was re-elected except one. Yeah. and no Lachman? Something stinks.
9:59 AM–Who did not get reelected except one? Not aware. Please provide the name. But surprised at the results.
Goodey?
I want my bar dues back with this crew.
Me, too.
I voted for none of these people.
Can you be a member of the Bar Association Board of Govs, and on the Bench at the same time?
Why not, Bonnie Bulla is presiding over cases in which she heard in the lower court. Welcome to Nevada.
9:56: The answer to your question is "no." An BOG member who is elected (or appointed) to the Bench may not serve simultaneously in both capacities. Thus, when Judge Ochoa was elected to Department S and Judge Scotti was elected to Department II, they each resigned from the BOGs before taking office.
Who counts the votes? Where are the vote totals listed? Are there any controls over vote collection or tallying? Or does the membership simply rely on Kim Farmer who seems to have her own agenda?
I'd be interested to know the vote totals and percentage of eligible voters who actually did vote. I concur that those should be published.
I'm not so concerned about the vote counting. I think the problems occur much earlier in the process.
The ballots are dominated by incumbents, and the few openings usually go to challengers hand-picked by the powers that be, in my view. These challengers, for open seats, usually profile similar to the entrenched incumbents–prominent attorneys or attorneys from larger well-known firms, who wish to maintain the status quo that benefits them(but not you or me or other foot soldiers).
None of these people–the incumbents or the challengers for open seats who profile the same as the incumbents, have much in common with the relatively low profile rank-and-file solo practitioners or small firm attorney.
So, our concerns, as somewhat anonymous foot soldiers,(such as disproportionate bar discipline, etc.) are never addressed.
And when the candidates for openings are recruited by the fat cat incumbent(which is often the case in my view), these incumbents, I believe, often get their entire large firm to support these people and vote for them.
So, it's not, I believe, anything to do with fraudulent counting. That is largely a knee jerk, and sometimes simplistic, sophomoric, conspiracy-theory based reaction to something we don't like. I think what is actually occurring is a little more multi-layered, but nonetheless very problematic.
First, the so-called "agents of change"(who reflect the values and concerns of the average, foot soldier practitioner), seldom appear on the ballot. Secondly, when they do actually appear on the ballot they are crushed as the incumbents use their influence to have all members of their firms(and the firms of their colleagues, etc.) vote for a "business as usual" challenger, who they have recruited for an open seat.
It is no coincidence that when a new member is elected to the BOG, that they are often well-acquainted with existing board members, and are sometimes even from the same firm.
So, I don't think it's fraud in the voting. That would be way too risky, and seems highly unlikely for many reasons, some of which are pretty obvious.
I think, more fundamentally, is that candidates who are more in line with we rank-and-file members, seldom bother to run, and when they do, they are crushed when larger, prominent firms "single-shot" their hand-picked person for an opening.
The single-shot idea is like when it says something like select three names out of the seven, the large firms sometimes advise their members to simply vote for one name of the seven, and it is of course made clear who that candidate is, and it greatly increases his/her chance of winning whenever only one person is selected while a voter was entitled to vote for several.
I saw Coffing's television commercial for district court judge last night. He told that his wife subjugated her career for his and that he was an involved parent with his children, but gave no information about his professional background. Any thoughts why this information and not his professional background?
1:28-I haven't seen the ad yet, but the approach you describe appears to make some real sense. If he were running for a positon where only those in the legal community vote, he would presumably focus on his legal experience, accomplishments and professional reputation, with probably little or no mention of his family dynamics.
But he is running for a position where the entire public votes, and the public, generally speaking, is bored with, and not impressed with, an ad focusing on a candidate's accomplishments as an attorney.
In fact, many voters are downright hostile to attorneys,and dislike them vehemently in general. Therefore, it can be quite counterproductive, in a county-wide election, to focus on how successful you are as an attorney, as many voters will think that the more successful you are, then the more corrupt you are.
So, many voters have that mentality. And the voters who do not actually dislike attorneys, are still generally unimpressed with an attorney boring them with their experience and qualifications.
So, it is important to resonate as a human being, and to tap into a theme that may connect with a lot of people.
Therefore, him offering an ad that focuses on his deep involvement with his children, and the sacrifices his wife made for him and the family, may have resonated well with a test audience they showed the ad to before airing it.
That said, he could have offered a blend–discussion of his professional status, and some reference to family. But then again, you only have 30 seconds and can only do so much.
Now if one were to do a blend–focus on family, as well as focus on some professional aspects–it is better if the focus on the professional aspects is not centered around one's supposed accomplishments and reputation as an attorney. Instead, it would be far better to focus on any significant endorsements that may be important to large groups of voters(union endorsements, law enforcement endorsements, etc.)
That may, ideally, have been the best approach–show some shots of him and his family, but with a voice over(and/or print on the screen) that he is endorsed by this or that organization.
That's how I would do it, but what do I know. I bet some posters will have some real spot on reactions to how effective they found the ad., and how it could possibly be changed or improved on for the General Election.
I have seen 3 different ads by Coffing, each seems to have a different emphasis. I suspect that the ads vary based on the demographic of the show's audience.
Terry has all the money, so he'll probably win. I'm sure he'll be fine. I voted for Blair Parker. This was a race with two candidates I could easily support. In other races the choices were all terrible.
No way both Parker and Coffing get out of the primary. There is a woman in the race.
3:48. It will be Coffing and the woman. I didn't even bother to check who the woman is because, you're right, it doesn't matter. Judicial Primary with three of more candidates, but only one being a woman, the woman always finishes in the top 2–and usually finishes in first.
Her strength, or lack thereof, in terms of money, name-recognition and endorsements, only determines if she will finish in first or second, and if first then by how much.
But she will always finish in the top 2, even if she has done nothing except paid the filing fee.
There's never been an exception in Clark County.
And this pro-female advantage is far more profound than we think, and even more so in Family Court.
Recall a Family Court election in about 2000 or so, with four candidates, only one of them a female.
She spent only a couple thousand, and the top male candidate spent well north of $100,000. in the Primary, but she beat him by more than 2 to 1 margin in the Primary.
For the General, she again spent only a few thousand, and he again spent well north of $100,000(and I think it exceeded $200,000) and she beat him by more than 20 points.
And lawyers were stunned and were saying "Why did people vote for her? She has very little experience?"–as if the public knows or cares.
It's an open secret that women will just vote for a female candidate because, well, gender. Misandry.
1:27–I think that's pretty much it. I don't think that the integrity of the vote count is the reason why these "agents of change"(as you call them) are not elected. It is because the agents of change almost never run, and the few times they do run, they have no real chance against someone selected and supported by those in power.
That said, I am always in support of full transparency. I don't believe the precise vote tallies are generally released(I never recall them being released).So, when we have kind of a closed-door process, some people will assume the worst, even when everything is proper.
So, I say release the full results.
I would like to see the results out of curiosity, I think this was raised during the last round and the results did appear on the SBN website.
I scoured the State Bar website. I could not find any instance where the actual results with vote tallies are revealed. How is this possible?
It is a secret cabal. You are not politically connected so you are excluded.
Totally. I hear the Rothschilds pull the strings on the Nevada BOGs.
Anyone else still working from home?
Yes.
Through next week. then we will see.
What percentage of the eligible voters actually vote for the BOG? How many small firm/solo attys give a damn and invest the time to research these candidates? I've been in practice in Clark County for just over a decade, and I still don't know much (if anything) about the various BOG candidates. And the posts on this blog about them are not very helpful. I ask a few friends about them, and let their opinions (if they have any) guide me.
I spend the time to research the judicial candidates, but the BOG?