- Quickdraw McLaw
- 29 Comments
- 157 Views
- A law grad convinced a bankruptcy judge in New York to discharge his student loan debt. [ABA Journal]
- Bayzle Morgan sentenced to 44 years to life. [RJ]
- Principal told to work at home sues CCSD for slander. [RJ]
- Orrin Johnson opines on the LCB issue. [TNI]
- Time for a better bar exam? [ABA Journal]
- Attorney John Muije is running for District Court judge in Elko. [Elko Daily]
- Here’s the link to who has filed in Clark County. The deadline to file is this Friday.
Just noticed that Barbara Schifalacqua withdrew from the race in Department 2 and now filed for Department 4, from which Kerry Moreo withdrew. Was there not a recent rule change that prevented candidates from filing, withdrawing and then re-filing in different department? I thought this had been addressed to avoid strategical gaming by consultants who run judicial campaigns.
holy beejeesus folks. Read the rules. You can't constrain people from filing in campaigns. It's a constitutional issue. Appointments, on the other hand, do have a rule. If one or more seats is up for appointment and you file for one, you are done. If you withdraw, you can't seek appointment in the other open seat(s). You can find the appointment rules under judicial appointments on the Nevada Judiciary website.
I don't understand why all the judges are elected at the same time. Seems like the terms should be staggered.
I think we should stagger the terms, then have a multi-seat race for the open seats. Ranked choice voting would be a good addition too. No more chicanery in who runs for which seat.
I thought that in past years the terms were staggered. Both LV Municipal and Justice Court terms are staggered.
Random thought – there is an upside — we could sweep all of incumbents out and start with a fresh batch of judges.
They used to be, but in 2007 the legislature passed a bill that had the effect of aligning all district court elections to be at the same time every 6 years.
Kerry Earley withdrew from running for reelection? That's stunning because I was certain that she was running.
I just saw that as well. Very surprised. I wonder what is up with that? She would have cruised to reelection I think.
Maybe she did not want to run an opposed race. My guess she is at least 60 years of age, can retire without penalty and cruise on to sit senior. If there are other issues, good for her for taking advantage to bow out gracefully and obtain the same benefits.
I heard she's up next at Eglet & Prince, I mean Eglet, Mainor, Cottle, oops my bad!… now Eglet & Adams, soon to be Eglet Adams & Early! Lots and lots of favorable rulings on that bench for Eglet. No, I'm not ID counsel, just another private solo PI guy that's referred several cases over to Eglet.
I figure she has the pension locked down and now she's gonna get the big bucks assisting/lobbying on all the Eglet state, county and municipal retainers for opiod litigation.
Anyone else confirm this rumor?
She practiced with Eglet while they both were at Mainor I thought.
9:38–candidates can sign up, or even switch races, up to the Friday the 17th.
After that, there is a brief period, of like a week or so, where one can still withdraw, but they would no longer be able to sign up for a different seat.
There will be so much machinizations by Friday at 5:00–unexpected people signing up in unexpected races, people shifting races, etc.
Yep. Friday will be wild.
Why isn't anyone else running in Dept. 3 yet? There are more people running against Scotti than for an open seat?
District Court 5 is an open seat and only has Terry Coffing running
I think maybe people think Coffing is formidable and deserves a turn?
I'm curious why no one has filed to run against Ron Israel? Isn't he low hanging fruit based on his judging the judges score?
Please someone else run in Dept 15.
Agreed.
Jesus I know his dad was in the Legislature but come on! Even an only half dead candidate would get my financial support to get him off of the Bench.
Will the person who keeps asking for someone to run in Dept 15 please run in Dept 15?
Please run against incumbent Family Court judges… it is shocking that nobody challenged them yet. Only Rena is having opponents and nobody else.
which one need challenging the most?
Most if not all of them, but Hoskin is at the top of the list. Don't forget he ran the out of control guardianship system where wards (now protected persons) had their entire estates stolen from them, required accounting reports were not filed, billing invoices were not reviewed, and any objections to the actions of April Parks (former private guardian, now convicted felon) were overruled by Hoskin.
For more information about this scandal, read The Vegas Voice, or view the film The Guardians (http://www.guardiansdocumentary.com/)
It's easy to say someone should challenge them, and the attorneys who say that are seldom able or willing to donate much in the way of a contribution(if anything).
I'm not suggesting these incumbents are all that great but when people insist they be challenged,they ignore;(a) that it can take a massive amount of money to remove them; and (b) usually the quality of the challengers is hardly an upgrade–often its opportunistic people with little or no meaningful experience.
Plus with about 10 open sets in Family Court(six new seats, and four retiring judges), and these open seats so far being quite light in terms of the number of candidates, and the quality thereof, someone who wants to be a judge is far better taking on two or three marginal challengers than taking on an established, entrenched judge.
Now if 12:13 had identified a specific, horrible low-rated incumbent, then I would understand. But too often when we as attorneys are frustrated and say someone needs an opponent, we are pissed at how a judge handled(or mishandled) a particular matter we had before them. We have all been there. But sometimes the judge that pissed us off in an isolated case or two is very strong and very high rated in general. In those instances, it is not responsible or mature for us to except someone else to fight our fight and spend tons of money and time on a quixotic year-long campaign.
Good point, hope now with no need to collect from attorneys and law firms and spend tons of money on race these incumbents… some of them will start acting as judges and rule according the law and facts and will stop giving favors to attorneys who contributed financially to their campaigns. But never know with Nevada being a small legal community if those favors will ever stop.
Well, whether they improve as judges as to the legal aspects of their work, is one thing.
But at least you won't have to worry about contributing to them, or them doing favors for contributors, as the way it now exists they are precluded from raising money if they have no opponent.
So, if most incumbents go unopposed, that will help us all a lot in the pocket book. We can then decide if there is an open race or two where there is a candidate we feel strongly enough about, we can donate a little. But at least we will not have to worry about two or three dozen incumbents all with their hand out.
There may be much truth in what 12:51 says, but I suspect 12:51 is a judge. Perhaps not, but kind of seems that way at times.
Problem with all this is that the best lawyers don't tend to run, and that holds true of open seats as well as seats with sitting judges. Some of these candidates leave much to be desired, but I try not to complain too much or people say "If you don't like it, and it's that bad, then why don't you run?"
At any rate, Friday from 4:00 to 5:00 will prove most interesting.
Can we please talk about some of these email addresses? MLFJUDGE@aol.com
Is that an abbreviation or intentional?
This.
Heaven help Elko, Muije is a disaster.