The Nevada Department of Sentencing Policy is developing a new online dashboard for inmate data. [TNI]
Man shot by police Monday was ordered out of a courtroom yesterday after shouting expletives. [RJ]
The LSAC is considering a plan to accept coursework in lieu of an LSAT score. [ABA Journal]
Today and tomorrow are two of the least productive days of the year thanks to the NCAA tournament. Does your office do a bracket pool? Do you watch and work? Do you market to out of town clients who conveniently came to town this weekend?
As far as I know she is still running. She will lose in the Republican primary though, so unfortunately I will never have the pleasure of choosing not to vote for her!
Yeah, that's a problem. They're in prison. It's not supposed to be a fun place. They should be limited to a bed and a toilet/sink, access to a shower and 3 meals, and a library. Nothing more.
357 and 915 know ZERO about recidivism and prisons and punishment in general and clearly do not understand the depths of what we are seeing. Again, I point you to the fences and razor wire. Prison (even at a fed camp) is not enjoyable under any circumstances. Tennis to pass the time, in the limited time for rec is not the problem.
And dont pretend to care about rehabilitation.
Guest
Anonymous
March 17, 2022 9:58 pm
Since no one is challenging young attorney Max Berkley for that open JP seat, I assume he is the son of Shelley Berkley and veteran, highly-regarded attorney Fred Berkley.
That type of juice and connections would explain why no one seems to want to challenge him.
I notice Judge Bonaventure has a challenger(from the D.A.'s office) and she already has substantial signage on the street, so it appears she intends to mount a very vigorous challenge and raise and spend some real money.
Now, she is a female, and that is a big factor in judicial elections. And she is a veteran D.A. as well, so presumably has decent connections and support.
However, Bonaventure is a very well-known and well-regarded name in the community, so I assume he might be a real tough incumbent to beat.
That said, the high profile trials that his(now retired) father presided over were 20 or more years ago, so it could be the name recognition factor I point to has really diminished by now.
In another open seat, Bill Gonzalez is the only male of the four candidates. He is Hispanic, is a former judge, and has strong name recognition from running several times. Even when he loses, it is close, like in 2020 when he lost by less than a point. So, he could have a real good chance IMO.
Suzy Baucum has an opponent, who I personally have not heard of(that, of course, does not mean that she may not be strong opponent). I suspect Baucum will be re-elected.
Looks like several other incumbents will remain unopposed(but we will know for certain by tomorrow).
Seriously if you are woman and want a seat, why wouldnt you throw in against Berkley? You dont have to spend hardly any money and have an advantage with 51% of the electorate. Likewise there is a large contingent who think the Berkley name comes with some baggage. I will say the District Court elections and power that Emerge wielded would make at least taking a swing a no brainer.
Guest
Anonymous
March 17, 2022 10:30 pm
I agree with 2:58 that people may be leaving Berkley unopposed for the reasons mentioned(juice, connection, etc.)but I also agree with 3:06 that a female who wishes to take a crack at the situation may have a real chance, for the reasons mentioned.
That said, it's possible 3:06 over-states the mater a little when they say a female could win while spending hardly any money. That may be going a little too far.
But, for the reasons 3:06 mentioned, a female opponent could be real competitive(and perhaps even win the seat) and only raise and spend half of what Berkley spends.
After all, look at 2020. We had a couple sitting, well-funded incumbent males in District Court who lost(and by several points) to female opponents with a lot lower name-recognition and with only a fraction of the money of the incumbents.
So, now that I remember that election and that dynamic, perhaps 3:06 is not really over-stating the matter after all.
This is 3:06. As evidence of spending hardly any money against well-oiled candidates who spent lots of money, I present Kierney, Trujillo, Barisich, Peterson, Spells, Ballou, Craig. You can argue none of them were up against a "Berkley" name. However some of them were up against incumbents, and all of them were outspent exponentially. I don't think you have to spend half as much to be competitive/win.
5:27–The pro-female voting inclination is much stronger in judicial races than other races. What are the reasons? I'm suggesting three possible explanations, each of which may have some validity to an extent:
1. Judicial races are down ballot races, and in many of these races voters don't know anything about the candidates, thus voting based on gender preference may be the only way for certain voters to distinguish the candidates from each other, and aid the voter in how to vote. In other words, in many of these races, for many voters all they know is that one candidate is a male and the other is a female.
2. Even though women are now represented in the local judiciary to the point where they dominate the bench in terms of raw numbers, are many voters unaware of that? Do many voters think women are still not proportionately represented on the bench so they wish to help right that supposed wrong?
3. Do they simply trust women more as decision makers?
It's just a bit baffling, and it cannot be sufficiently explained by political leaning or party affiliation as there are many republican voters, and some of them quite conservative in many matters, who also vote straight female in judicial races. So, it cannot be explained as primarily as being a democratic or liberal phenomenon.
If it was pretty much just the democrats voting straight female in these races, we would not have seriously under-funded female challengers, with very little name recognition, beating well-funded, heavily supported male incumbents by 10 percentage points at the ballot.
So, what's the logical explanation(s) for what I, and many others, find to be a most interesting and somewhat perplexing dynamic?
Looks like Amy Wilson picked up the Max Berkeley gauntlet. I know nothing about her except for what's on her website. USU undergrad, BYU law school, practiced in California and Arizona, moved in Las Vegas in 2012, practiced here since 2014. Seams to have adequate experience for a JP. Don't really have a problem with either her or Max getting the seat, just as long as the seat is actually contested.
9:38, well she's female, has a WASPY name, and if she looks good on a political sign, that should be most of what she needs. If she is blonde that will help even more.
It's highly troubling that it could come down to factors like that, but she has those built-in advances, so Berkley will need to spend a lot more than her, which he appears to be in a position to do.
Now, in fairness, the above factors, which of course have nothing to do with performance or qualifications, can help male candidates as well. If you have two male candidates competing and one looks much better in the air-brushed campaign sign photo. than the other, and also has the more easy-to-pronounce All-American name, it's obvious that candidate has some advantages over the other.
But as to this race in question, Berkley appears to be a nice-looking young man, so hopefully he can hold his own in that department.
Again, see how I am thinking like the average voter and how they approach judicial races? Most of them, in exit polls by journalists, when asked about the judicial races, and who they voted for, will reference seeing signs and commercials and how the one candidate looked attractive, nice or whatever. None of these voters ever references legal accomplishments or reputation, or has pursued any individual inquiry about the candidates.
So, 6:30 should add a fourth possible explanation for the pro-female advantage in judicial races. The campaigns of female candidates will often emphasize the physical attractiveness of their female candidates a great deal more than male candidates, and the political signage proves that point. And people are visual so they respond to those cues.
Go check out her resume for yourself at amywilsonforjudge.com. She's not blonde and looks to have the kind of actual qualifications you might want in a judge, and she may even be more qualified than Max. You're not though about the WASPy name and being female advantage. On a related note, Anna ALbertson filed for DC11 against Ellie Roohani. That should be interesting.
9:57–It's great she has those actual qualifications, and I hope some people research those factors. But I'm afraid most voters will vote how 9:53 indicates they vote.
Guest
Anonymous
March 17, 2022 10:48 pm
Classic NVSUP getting involved in legislative policy making. Stiglich, like Hardesty, believes the job is to make policy rather than neutrally interpret law. In the article she is voices her concern for "how or where to direct smart dollars" and "how to really help people". Only surprise is how blatant it is.
Guest
Anonymous
March 17, 2022 11:51 pm
3:48, it's a tough situation, and not an either/or proposition. It's not as simple as saying justices should just rule on the cases before them and not publicly discuss changing the law, or legislative policy, state budgetary matters, etc.
On the NSC level, for good or bad they inevitably become(at least to some extent) a face of the legal community in the eyes of the legislative bodies, the media and the community in general. Also, even if we believe they should not be commenting on existing statutes or whether there should be changes and the like, they do control their own set of extensive codified rules which control the courts, and commenting on such rules seems appropriate.
But that all understood, I agree with you that it may seem they are exceeding the above if they lose some focus and make general comments on state budget matters, where the money should be directed, what agencies or services should be funded and to what extent, etc. Comments,and advocacy, of that sort should be better left to the legislatures to handle, and for the media and the public to comment on and advocate as to how those dollars should be spent.
So, 3:48, I basically agree, but it is not that simple. Sometimes hard to draw that line in the sand.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2022 5:17 pm
Hoeffgen did not run for reelection? I'm surprised. I know he reads this blog (and I think he posts sometimes, although it's just a guess.)
Does anyone know who is running for the open seats on the Board of Governors?
Is Sigal still running for AG? I was really looking forward to not voting for her.
As far as I know she is still running. She will lose in the Republican primary though, so unfortunately I will never have the pleasure of choosing not to vote for her!
She's reportedly been seen driving by the AG's office screaming out her window that it is her office. Real classy.
re: Dept of Sentencing
I noticed that the referenced article of The Nevada Independent has a nice picture of inmates playing doubles tennis.
Is that a problem? Did you miss the tall fence with razor wire on top?
Yeah, that's a problem. They're in prison. It's not supposed to be a fun place. They should be limited to a bed and a toilet/sink, access to a shower and 3 meals, and a library. Nothing more.
It is not a problem lol 3:57 is cuckoo
3:57 would execute shoplifters.
Prison is not supposed to be fun morons @4:02 and @5:22
How's the rehabilitation working out? There'd be less recidivism if it wasn't as enjoyable.
357 and 915 know ZERO about recidivism and prisons and punishment in general and clearly do not understand the depths of what we are seeing. Again, I point you to the fences and razor wire. Prison (even at a fed camp) is not enjoyable under any circumstances. Tennis to pass the time, in the limited time for rec is not the problem.
And dont pretend to care about rehabilitation.
Since no one is challenging young attorney Max Berkley for that open JP seat, I assume he is the son of Shelley Berkley and veteran, highly-regarded attorney Fred Berkley.
That type of juice and connections would explain why no one seems to want to challenge him.
I notice Judge Bonaventure has a challenger(from the D.A.'s office) and she already has substantial signage on the street, so it appears she intends to mount a very vigorous challenge and raise and spend some real money.
Now, she is a female, and that is a big factor in judicial elections. And she is a veteran D.A. as well, so presumably has decent connections and support.
However, Bonaventure is a very well-known and well-regarded name in the community, so I assume he might be a real tough incumbent to beat.
That said, the high profile trials that his(now retired) father presided over were 20 or more years ago, so it could be the name recognition factor I point to has really diminished by now.
In another open seat, Bill Gonzalez is the only male of the four candidates. He is Hispanic, is a former judge, and has strong name recognition from running several times. Even when he loses, it is close, like in 2020 when he lost by less than a point. So, he could have a real good chance IMO.
Suzy Baucum has an opponent, who I personally have not heard of(that, of course, does not mean that she may not be strong opponent). I suspect Baucum will be re-elected.
Looks like several other incumbents will remain unopposed(but we will know for certain by tomorrow).
Great insight. Makes a lot of sense about Berkley. That said, I hate to see someone get a seat without any challenge.
Seriously if you are woman and want a seat, why wouldnt you throw in against Berkley? You dont have to spend hardly any money and have an advantage with 51% of the electorate. Likewise there is a large contingent who think the Berkley name comes with some baggage. I will say the District Court elections and power that Emerge wielded would make at least taking a swing a no brainer.
I agree with 2:58 that people may be leaving Berkley unopposed for the reasons mentioned(juice, connection, etc.)but I also agree with 3:06 that a female who wishes to take a crack at the situation may have a real chance, for the reasons mentioned.
That said, it's possible 3:06 over-states the mater a little when they say a female could win while spending hardly any money. That may be going a little too far.
But, for the reasons 3:06 mentioned, a female opponent could be real competitive(and perhaps even win the seat) and only raise and spend half of what Berkley spends.
After all, look at 2020. We had a couple sitting, well-funded incumbent males in District Court who lost(and by several points) to female opponents with a lot lower name-recognition and with only a fraction of the money of the incumbents.
So, now that I remember that election and that dynamic, perhaps 3:06 is not really over-stating the matter after all.
This is 3:06. As evidence of spending hardly any money against well-oiled candidates who spent lots of money, I present Kierney, Trujillo, Barisich, Peterson, Spells, Ballou, Craig. You can argue none of them were up against a "Berkley" name. However some of them were up against incumbents, and all of them were outspent exponentially. I don't think you have to spend half as much to be competitive/win.
5:27–The pro-female voting inclination is much stronger in judicial races than other races. What are the reasons? I'm suggesting three possible explanations, each of which may have some validity to an extent:
1. Judicial races are down ballot races, and in many of these races voters don't know anything about the candidates, thus voting based on gender preference may be the only way for certain voters to distinguish the candidates from each other, and aid the voter in how to vote. In other words, in many of these races, for many voters all they know is that one candidate is a male and the other is a female.
2. Even though women are now represented in the local judiciary to the point where they dominate the bench in terms of raw numbers, are many voters unaware of that? Do many voters think women are still not proportionately represented on the bench so they wish to help right that supposed wrong?
3. Do they simply trust women more as decision makers?
It's just a bit baffling, and it cannot be sufficiently explained by political leaning or party affiliation as there are many republican voters, and some of them quite conservative in many matters, who also vote straight female in judicial races. So, it cannot be explained as primarily as being a democratic or liberal phenomenon.
If it was pretty much just the democrats voting straight female in these races, we would not have seriously under-funded female challengers, with very little name recognition, beating well-funded, heavily supported male incumbents by 10 percentage points at the ballot.
So, what's the logical explanation(s) for what I, and many others, find to be a most interesting and somewhat perplexing dynamic?
Looks like Amy Wilson picked up the Max Berkeley gauntlet. I know nothing about her except for what's on her website. USU undergrad, BYU law school, practiced in California and Arizona, moved in Las Vegas in 2012, practiced here since 2014. Seams to have adequate experience for a JP. Don't really have a problem with either her or Max getting the seat, just as long as the seat is actually contested.
9:38, well she's female, has a WASPY name, and if she looks good on a political sign, that should be most of what she needs. If she is blonde that will help even more.
It's highly troubling that it could come down to factors like that, but she has those built-in advances, so Berkley will need to spend a lot more than her, which he appears to be in a position to do.
Now, in fairness, the above factors, which of course have nothing to do with performance or qualifications, can help male candidates as well. If you have two male candidates competing and one looks much better in the air-brushed campaign sign photo. than the other, and also has the more easy-to-pronounce All-American name, it's obvious that candidate has some advantages over the other.
But as to this race in question, Berkley appears to be a nice-looking young man, so hopefully he can hold his own in that department.
Again, see how I am thinking like the average voter and how they approach judicial races? Most of them, in exit polls by journalists, when asked about the judicial races, and who they voted for, will reference seeing signs and commercials and how the one candidate looked attractive, nice or whatever. None of these voters ever references legal accomplishments or reputation, or has pursued any individual inquiry about the candidates.
So, 6:30 should add a fourth possible explanation for the pro-female advantage in judicial races. The campaigns of female candidates will often emphasize the physical attractiveness of their female candidates a great deal more than male candidates, and the political signage proves that point. And people are visual so they respond to those cues.
Go check out her resume for yourself at amywilsonforjudge.com. She's not blonde and looks to have the kind of actual qualifications you might want in a judge, and she may even be more qualified than Max. You're not though about the WASPy name and being female advantage. On a related note, Anna ALbertson filed for DC11 against Ellie Roohani. That should be interesting.
9:57–It's great she has those actual qualifications, and I hope some people research those factors. But I'm afraid most voters will vote how 9:53 indicates they vote.
Classic NVSUP getting involved in legislative policy making. Stiglich, like Hardesty, believes the job is to make policy rather than neutrally interpret law. In the article she is voices her concern for "how or where to direct smart dollars" and "how to really help people". Only surprise is how blatant it is.
3:48, it's a tough situation, and not an either/or proposition. It's not as simple as saying justices should just rule on the cases before them and not publicly discuss changing the law, or legislative policy, state budgetary matters, etc.
On the NSC level, for good or bad they inevitably become(at least to some extent) a face of the legal community in the eyes of the legislative bodies, the media and the community in general. Also, even if we believe they should not be commenting on existing statutes or whether there should be changes and the like, they do control their own set of extensive codified rules which control the courts, and commenting on such rules seems appropriate.
But that all understood, I agree with you that it may seem they are exceeding the above if they lose some focus and make general comments on state budget matters, where the money should be directed, what agencies or services should be funded and to what extent, etc. Comments,and advocacy, of that sort should be better left to the legislatures to handle, and for the media and the public to comment on and advocate as to how those dollars should be spent.
So, 3:48, I basically agree, but it is not that simple. Sometimes hard to draw that line in the sand.
Hoeffgen did not run for reelection? I'm surprised. I know he reads this blog (and I think he posts sometimes, although it's just a guess.)