Judicial Offices Up For Election In 2022

  • Law

It’s an election year, but unlike prior years, judicial candidates don’t have to file months before everyone else. This year judicial candidates file between March 7 and March 18–meaning you have a little extra time to convince yourself or your least favorite coworker to file. There are currently two seats available in the Eighth Judicial District (Depts. 9 and 11); two seats on the Supreme Court (Hardesty and Parraguirre); all three seats on the Court of Appeals; 9 seats in Las Vegas Justice Court (including a vacant, newly created department); and 5 local municipal court judgeships. You can view the judicial candidate filing guide here. Are you ready to step up and announce your candidacy? Which of the incumbents do you want to see retained? Who do you most want to run?

53 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 6:01 pm

I'd like it if intelligent, humble people would run, but it's so bad in family court with tyrants like Forsberg and Mastin that I'd just be happy with someone who is nice. Unfortunately we're stuck with them for a few more years.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 8:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Mastin failed the bar.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 8:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

So did a lot of other judges. Are we going there?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 8:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Doubt she'll ever disclose that little bit of fact in any of her election materials.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 9:06 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

How many times did Harter fail the bar?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 9:46 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

She need not disclose that she failed the bar because (setting aside all of the issues relating to the bar exam) she was obviously competent enough to pass it eventually. Stop being a child

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 10:02 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

10:01, you would like it if "intelligent" and "humble" people ran for judge.

Starting with the "intelligent" part, that is great when that occurs, but it is far more likely that you get someone really driven and politically connected(or who profiles well), rather than some cerebral scholar of the law or accomplished litigator/practitioner.

But,that said, at least some judicial candidates, and some people eventually elected as a judge, can be described as "intelligent."

But the "humble" part is where you are going to run into problems. You are more likely to see a Triceratops elected than a "humble" human being.

The term "humble judicial candidate" is an oxymoron.

If you are able to identify "humble" judicial candidates, they are few and far between, and don't wind up getting elected.

This is not to say that there are not many judges who possess some very positive attributes that are good for a judge to possess. It's simply that deep, sincere "humility" will not be among such positive attributes.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 10:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You need to disclose that you failed the bar in marketing material? Touche douche, a little French for you elitist.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 1:03 am
Reply to  Anonymous

2:05–Agreed that 12:53 seems utterly clueless when they act indignant and morally offended that the judge presumably did not emphasize this (the bar exam failure) front and center in her campaign advertisements and literature.

But it even gets worse, as 12:40 and 12:53 ONLY mention the bar failure, and nothing about her performance on the bench.

But, that said, let' assume they don't like her as a judge. But if we follow their apparent logic , a judge they like should not advertise that the failed the bar exam, but if it's a judge we don't like, why then they better be advertising the bar exam failure, or we can conclude they are unprincipled, sneaky, not transparent, etc.

This is the kind of horrifying logic that we are seeing more and more of in our legal community, and, candidly, we see it most among younger and less experienced attorneys. So perhaps there is some hope that a number of them will evolve beyond such warped logic and distorted principles.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 1:36 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I don't know, I think full disclosure of one's legal career is something the voters should expect.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 2:41 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I like 209. Can we be friends of Facebook?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 2:45 am
Reply to  Anonymous

They should only let people of color run for open positions for the next 50 years, for equity.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 5:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

who is "they"

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 6:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

5:36–But we are not talking about some bar application, or an application to some other official governmental or private agency, like to secure employment within that agency, etc.

We are simply talking about politics where the rules seem to be ignore anything negative about yourself, greatly exaggerate and distort anything positive about yourself, and greatly exaggerate and distort any negatives of your opponent.

So, realistically, I don't expect any candidate, within their campaign materials(which everyone knows is nothing but bullshit puffery), to disclose Bar Exam failures, or even a State Bar reprimand.

But,I guess the transparency issue that 5:36 points out, as to what the public and media can expect, becomes a lot more interesting if, let's say, the candidates are in a video interview with the LVRJ, posted online, or there is a published interview in print material, and they lie and conceal when they are asked directly about Bar discipline, or whether they have failed the Bar Exam.

If they do not come clean in such a forum, I believe that is a fairly serious ethical violation. But, that aside, I don't think they need to advertise Bar failure, or Bar discipline, within their campaign material.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
January 6, 2022 6:08 pm

Mainly what this means to me is that everyone is going to have their hand out again. I guess I had no idea so many seats were up, and hoped we were done with judicial fundraising season for awhile.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 7:02 pm

Who is up for reelection for the Nevada Supreme Court ?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 7:19 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Parraguirre and Hardesty's seats are up. Hardesty is retiring. Linda Bell is running for that position. My guess is that Parraguirre will run again.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 7:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I like Linda Bell despite her JEA. My concern with her is standing up to the other bullies on the NSC.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 8:50 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The big bully is retiring. Honestly with Bell (Stiglich, Cadish, Pickering) you would have a woman-centered quieter bench. Silver is a disaster so she goes in a separate category

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 9:11 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Silver is good, Repunlican peeps. Home of the Nevada Ourt of Appeals form orders

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 9:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Speaking of Judge Bell reminds me that I was always disappointed that Stew and Betsy never went to Carson City and shielded the rest of us from Hariblesty. Another strong voice on the Court would have made all of the difference over the years, and they would not have been pushed around like he has done.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 1:17 am
Reply to  Anonymous

11:29-I think, on balance, she is a solid Chief Judge.

It may be unfortunate, but realistically speaking, I don't expect a Chief District Judge to assertively attempt to curtail the Nevada Supreme Court, and I can't think of any that ever attempted to do so, on any issue.

You don't climb the ranks of District Court leadership, and achieve and maintain the Chief Judge position, if you are crossing swords with the NSC.

Doing so would not only quickly spell the end of that judge's tenure as Chief Judge, but would greatly increase the likelihood of the recruitment of a viable candidate against that judge in the next election cycle.

So, let's be realistic and not expect these people to be fearless samurai warriors on our behalf, to the detriment of their own careers.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 1:22 am
Reply to  Anonymous

5:17, point well-taken, but I think 11:29 is more focused on how the judge will react if elected to NSC.

I'm not certain 11:29 is suggesting that while she remains District Court Chief Judge that she needs to be picking fights with members of the higher court.

But, dealing with the issue in a much more general sense, it is true that we can all be quite unrealistic as to the supposedly "principled stances" we expect elected officials, including judges, to take on behalf of us or other factions in the community.

The political survival, of these judges and other elected officials, will always be tantamount to them, and is almost always more important to many of them than "doing the right thing."

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 8:16 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Linda Bell is an improvement of the other clowns on the Nevada Supreme Court. I would love to vote out Pickering. That's a good start.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 8:19 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Judge Bell would be a very good NVSC Justice. She seems like she's politically capable, I hope that happens some day. I've had a couple of trials in front of her, and she is very pragmatic, very respectful to counsel and attorneys and extremely intelligent. She is a gifted writer as well.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 2:39 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Pickering is the intellectual force on the Nevada Supreme Court–and the one who truly "follows the law" like people always complain about on here. If you want to vote her out, you are wrong.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 5:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

6:39 am– I concur. Pickering is right on the law and also is willing to not let Hardesty run roughshod over her. Unfortunately she is the only one.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 5:35 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Thanks, Pickering. Too bad you use those "smarts" to screw up rulings. Glad you think you are smarter than Cadish

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 6:19 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

9:35–I hope you don't honestly believe that the justice herself is posting this material. I assume you are in jest, but I can't be certain as I think most posters are quite serious when they indicate that when something vaguely positive is said about someone on this blog, that the person themselves must have posted it

For starters, the justice writes a lot better, and a lot more maturely, that these posted remarks, including mine.

As to my views on the justice, I think she is among the best of them. My only minor quibble is I believe she tends to be too conservative. But she generally prevents it from impacting her decisions as she tends to follow established law–even established law that most conservatives might like to change.

So, she generally prevents her political leanings from entering into decisions. Unfortunately, I am forced to admit that we have had some liberal leaning justices who were not as successful in avoiding their political views influencing decision.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 7:03 pm

Not 10:01 but I second that re Mastin. I have never seen a nastier disposition in Family Court. Potter might have been somewhat comparable as was, can't remember her name, Patricia Donning or something like that – but Mastin …. wow.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 9:10 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You have no idea nasty unless you ever appeared in front of Pomrenze. She was Judge Goldman crazy (to date myself). I would appear in front of her and be reminded of that line from "Good Morning Vietnam": "Dick, I've covered for you a lot of times cause I thought you were a little crazy. But you're not crazy, you're mean. And this is" peoples' families and lives.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 9:22 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Agree with both 11:03 and 1:10. Mastin is horribly mean to people. It is family court…the litigants are in enough hell as it is. They don't need the court making it worse.

Pomrenze was a different beast. She had no idea what she was talking about. She routinely made up things up and claimed it was the law when she was objectively wrong. She would give clients the same lecture over and over, every hearing, about the kids growing up and not inviting the parents to holidays if they didn't get along with their ex. I had a client who was convinced she was senile because she repeated the same story every time we went in front of her. She would also randomly try to sanction attorneys for little nonsense things in court. I saw her sanction someone once (pre-COVID) for asking a question that annoyed her.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 1:33 am
Reply to  Anonymous

1:22,as far as the judge offering the same lecture over and over, I agree that judge, with her demeanor and approach, was not necessarily the proper messenger for that message.

But I believe the message itself can be of value, as some of these litigants are not learning of such restraint, or taking of accountability, from their attorneys.

There are some attorneys who, as long as they are getting paid, have no practicality, have no interest in discussing any resolutions, and not even any interest in de-escalating matters. Some of these attorneys,(who style themselves as warriors an in fact use war metaphors to describe their litigation approach), simply take a polarized position(the other side is 100% wrong and we are 100% right) and keep that approach throughout the entire case or until their client runs out of money(at which point such attorney either withdraws or starts becoming a lot more reasonable).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 7:26 pm

Would I have to get the shot to take the bench? I would be a great judge.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 11:01 pm

Terry Coffing just left MAC?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 11:25 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

As of know, he is still on their website. Do you have some inside information?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 6, 2022 11:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

How can you leave a firm that is already decimated>

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 1:07 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Not gonna lie, that press release looks like it's real, but is also odd enough that it could be a spoof? lol. FaceTec?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 2:45 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Good for him. Probably comes with a great salary and big stock options/equity. Working with cool tech.

Go get it Terry!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 3:58 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I am still very sad we don't have his prodigious talents serving us from the bench, but I am happy for him. He will prove to be a major asset to the company.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 8:22 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I only had one case with Terry, but I really liked the guy. He would have been a great judge. He is even keeled, efficient and I am confident he would have been respectful to counsel and parties. His error rate would have been low, his hearings would have started on time and his minute orders would have all been above average.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 11:24 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Minute orders are a Court Clerk's job. In other words if you have an issue with minutes talk to the Court Clerk's office. The clerks are not employed by the Judge or the department but by the County.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 5:00 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Coffing confirmed he is out of MAC on the NJA listserv. I looked at the company he is going to, pretty interesting stuff.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 5:10 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

not really news, he has been telling people and prepping his clients for a couple of months. I understand that he got a very sweet deal, and no more billable hours!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 5:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

He'd have been a very good judge. Too bad.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 6:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

When people talk about being a good judge, this is very illustrative. He is making a MULTIPLE as in-house counsel of what he would have made on the bench with no fundraising, no political pressure and no politics. I am sorry that he did not make the Court but am glad he found a soft place to land.

Hopefully he will not take some of that extra time and actually reform the State Bar of Nevada because I have not seen any impact on the BoG.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 6:46 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The sad thing about this is the voters of this County haven't the faintest clue about what they missed out on because Judge Coffing never happened. I blame CCSD for churning out dumb voters. (TIC)

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 7:00 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

10:46-Worse than Coffing never happening is solid judges like Bare and Atkin turned out by the voters in favor of opponents who did not appear to be of the same caliber.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 3:06 am

Probate peeps – is anyone actually showing up in-person for contested matters? I'd prefer to continue attending from my office with Bluejeans, especially with omicron running rampant, but wanted to know what my colleagues were doing.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 8:15 am
Reply to  Anonymous

It has been about 1/4 to 1/3 appearing in person. If you have a substantive matter, I highly recommend that you attend in person. This has been a big deal to Justice Becker. If it is a status check, sale or simple matter, I suggest that you show deference to Justice Becker and email and ask if it's ok to just appear by BlueJeans. When I have asked, she has been very gracious. If you matter is this week it's too late and you should probably head down to the RJC.

My person opinion is that about all sales and 1/3 of the contested matters can be done by BlueJeans. The half dozen matters that go 15+ minutes each week should probably be in person.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 6:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The new probate order specifies that sales, even those with overbidders, are only on Bluejeans, but that contested matters are required to be in person. The good news on sales is that you can do a 4.08 request to transfer to the probate judge's next calendar, so hopefully heard in less than the present ~3 months waiting period from filing the motion until the hearing is held.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
January 7, 2022 8:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

10:09,

The new probate order doesn't mention in-person versus Bluejeans appearances. Check it out: the most recent probate order is 21-08: http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/general/court-rules-and-administrative-orders/