- law dawg
- 29 Comments
- 2682 Views
- Attorneys (Caston, Petsas) attempt to unseat three-term family court judge (Henderson). [NV Current]
- 2 Las Vegas attorneys will become judges after no one filed against them. [TNI]
Judicial Election #7
- 2026 Judicial Election
- Posted on 1 month ago
“Hordes of Local Attorneys Griping About Bad Judges Fail to Get Off The Couch and Run For Judge.”
Even the low-rated judges did not attract particularly strong or well-funded opponents.
There’s going to be plenty of negative campaigns this cycle. Should make for a good excuse to pull out the old popcorn machine.
I can’t blame anyone for not wanting to run against an incumbent. It’s an uphill battle and you’re risking making an enemy of a judge, which a disservice to your clients. Open seats are another matter.
There was a discussion on this a bit ago, but at this point, beyond the ‘prestige’ of being a judge, it seems that the cons of running far outweigh the pros. If a judge is decent there will be longer hours, likely a cut in pay, the ignominy of running a campaign and the photo ops and groveling for campaign endorsements and funds. Also, in this day and age, the real possibility of opening up you and your family to psychopaths.
I think only in certain govt circles would this be a financial boon.
I haven’t looked at the history of judicial salaries, but I can’t imagine there was ever a time when becoming a judge represented a pay raise for most private sector lawyers. There are still reasons to do it – power, prestige, public service, exit opportunities and a good pension if you stick around. But whether those are worth the pay and hours (not to mention the awfulness of having to run for office) will depend on the person.
I follow a few judges and judicial candidates on social media. You have to show up for and pretend to enjoy yourself at a bunch of parades, ghastly social events and “galas” where the same bunch of self-importnt people sit around and give each other awards year after year. Then you get to post about how “engaging” “uplifiting” and “powerful” it all was. Finally, there’s the group photos, where the candidate always appears to be sort of photo-bombing from the sideline. No thanks.
Agreed with everything in this post except “longer hours.” The hours for a judge are not as onerous as for a private practice commercial litigator before even considering the admin time. But the rest is spot on.
I’m curious though, are there any good attorneys in Nevada that you believe would be a good judge
Yes and very few to none of them will never run.
They did but none of the white males who were good attorneys or judges got elected or were retained in 2020.
Once in a while there are. Jim Crockett was one example. Betsy Gonzalez was another. But the majority of judges and judicial candidates are losers. And look at the example of Trevor Atkin. He was a solid attorney who was well liked with a great reputation. He is a Las Vegas native and wanted to give back. So he sought and earned an appointment. Then a candidate far less qualified in every way threw her hat in the ring and displaced him. Who’d ever want something like that?
Rob Bare as well.
Bare was not that great of a judge.
I disagree. He was, imho, better than at least two-thirds of the judges we have now.
Trevor landed on his feet and is killing it at ARM.
One of the few neutrals that both plaintiff and defense counsel love.
No question. But having him on te Clark County bench was a gift that the community threw away. Is there anyone who really believes that the judge who replaced Trevor is in any way as qualified or as suited to the job?
She has a name.
“She-Who-Will-Not-Be-Named.”
She-who-will-change-the-transcript-to-remove-her-name
I appear in front of her all the time. She is a great judge, one of the hardest working in the 8th.
Remember though, when a far less qualified candidate wins, you can always run against them in the next election.
I get this argument. But the election process is degrading and, for whatever reason, the voters don’t seem to pay attention to theses races and frequently pick the more problematic candidates. For a good lawyer to leave a thriving practice in order to first be subjected to the ugliness of a campaign and then to the whims of a demonstrably uninformed electorate is perhaps too big a risk for a successful lawyer. And how can we blame any good lawyer for not wanting to take such a risk?
There must be some better way to pick judges.
Unfortunately in Nevada having so called “Merit Selection” won’t be merit. Practiced in Arizona where they selected judges that way. Members of pressure groups got selected. Many trial judges had no trial experience. Certain seats were designated as minority seats–Latino, Black and even handicapped. Applicants lobbied and got support. Letter reference drives and lobbying. The selection of judges by election is in the Nevada Constitution. Voters have rejected amending it twice. At least with an elective system you can replace bad judges at the ballot box. It is hard and not fun to run for judge. Plus the gender bias in elections is apparent. Women make up a majority of voters. They vote and vote for female judicial candidates overwhelmingly over male candidates.
You don’t know what you’re talking about re Arizona judges. Arizona merit selection system is vastly superior to the Nevada election system.
Wrong 9:46 AM. Judge Marquardt got busted for smuggling pot at the border. Charges were pending. He got overwhelmingly retained. He got removed only when felony charges were brought. Judges get appointed then have “Communist like retention elections.” Non contested. Judges are always retained. The system is flawed. I practiced there many years. There are so many bad judges. One was just removed for public intoxication. It was posted on the blog.
If the press does its job when relevant issues arise, the judges will NOT be retained. Some places are the wild west (not unlike Pahrump) and again, its not perfect.
But its dramatically superior than electards playing eenie meenie mynee mo with their mail in ballots and calling it “participating in democracy”.
Its supremely better (not perfect) than having the uninformed electorate who have zero knowledge and zero information, just picking the female or the first name in the alphabet.