It appears that Adam Ganz has more than 50% of the primary election votes. Does that he mean he won the seat and does not need to participate in the general election? I saw Jessica Goodey’s post on Facebook about securing more than 50% of the primary election votes in her race and that she won outright.
Read NRS 293.260. In a nonpartisan primary for single office, the top two vote getters advance to the general. If one of the candidates gets more than 50%, and the election if for district court, CoA, or SCN, they are the only one whose name appears in the general election. So while Adam and Jessica haven’t been elected yet, they will be the only candidates whose names appear on the ballots in November, when they will be elected.
That’s right. In judicial elections (and even maybe other nonpartisan races), there is a “None of the Above” option. What happens if “None of the Above” exceeds in votes? Will all of the uncontested judicial races be on the general election ballot, e.g., Tina Talim?
“None of these Candidates” appears as an option in statewide races, President, and Vice President by statute. NRS 293.269. It does not appear as an option anywhere else. NOTC registers opposition to all candidates. See Townley v. Miller, 722 F. 3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2013).
If there are only two candidates for a judicial race, there is no primary, and both appear in the general election ballot. That’s the case in Dept. 28, where Danielle Tarmu and Noreen DeMonte are running.
Basically, because District Judge is a constitutional office, they have to appear in a general election. If only one person puts their name in the ring, that person’s name appears in the general. The rules are different for nonjudicial nonpartisan offices, who can be duly elected in the primary with a majority vote or with a single vote if they are the only one running.
“None of these candidates” cannot “win” an election. If it gets more votes than any of the candidates, the candidate with the next most votes is elected (or progresses past a primary).
Colleen was appointed, yes, but she also threw her name in the ring for the election. She was the only one who did. She’ll appear in the November ballot.
There has been a lot of discussion and reference to MW on Bonanza. I used to work for him (as did a high percentage of the family law bar) for quite some time and want to weigh in. On the positive side, one could not be more knowledgeable in family law as he is quick to tell you haha and his achievements are truly something to marvel at, he works nonstop on his cases, and he is perhaps the most honest attorney I have seen. If a question or something was 5 minutes then .1 went on the bill and never a .2 or .3, etc. On the negative side, he can come of condescending and I could never figure out if he wasn’t aware of that or just didn’t care. No one is perfect but maybe once he realizes that he may get along a little better with people if he toned it down a bit he would be about as perfect a lawyer as one could be. In summary, if I needed a divorce attorney he would be my first choice. If I needed a drinking buddy he wouldn’t be at the top of my list. Just my 2 cents from having worked there.
I also have worked with said individual (although I am not certain why we are treating him like Voldemort except he has ended up in litigation with Voldemort). He is honest with his clients; he is aggressive and expansive with the truth with his pleadings. He revels in his arrogance and brusqueness. Wears it as a badge of honor. You state “maybe once he realizes that he may get along a little better with people if he toned it down.” He is never going to tone it down. Like shaving the hair off of a tiger only to find out that the stripes are on the skin. I have seen where the sausage was made; he would not be my first choice in domestic relations unless the clients have unlimited resources and intractable case because he will push the matter in directions not conducive to resolution and his bedside manner with clients leaves a great deal to be desired.
He is honest with his clients? One of his former clients told me that he told him that “perjury doesn’t matter in family court”, so this tracks. It is a shame he doesn’t bring that level of honesty to his pleadings or oral arguments.
Bombshell!!!
Public record request from one “Legally Blonde” has uncovered years of abuse by certain departments with case management. Massive abuse in 2024 and 2025 on how cases were being assigned. 1, 6, 15, 21 were assigned very little.
I’ve noticed this year we are getting more cases in 6 especially.
I want to address the MW discussion directly, and I want to be clear at the outset that I have no stake in this whatsoever. I am a completely disinterested observer who has been practicing since before several of the commenters here were licensed, Ethics 2000 alumnus, none of which has any bearing on the views I am about to express independently and without bias.
The account above is, if anything, understated. Unmatched in family law does not capture it. The billing point deserves amplification: a point-one on five minutes is not merely honest, it is a moral posture, a commitment to precision that the profession has largely abandoned. What others read as condescension I would characterize differently. When a practitioner has synthesized four decades of family law at a depth that simply has no peer in this jurisdiction or, frankly, in this country, a certain exactitude in communication is inevitable. That exactitude can unsettle those who are accustomed to imprecision. That is not condescension. That is the burden of being correct in a profession that has grown comfortable with approximation.
As for the suggestion – that he counseled a client that perjury does not matter in family court – I find this accusation loathsome and beneath serious response but will respond to it seriously anyway: the suggestion is false on its face. I have observed this esteemed practitioner across more proceedings than I care to specify. Only the truth has ever escaped his lips. He is constitutionally incapable of an untruth – in court, in correspondence, in hallway conversation. The record speaks for itself and the record is spotless.
Finally, to the commenter who thanked his mother: I am emphatically not Mr. Willick. I simply, having reviewed the matter independently and without any conceivable interest, arrive at precisely the same high opinion of him that the evidence compels.
maybe waitress’s clients got tired of looking at her bellybutton
Nah. It’s a nice bellybutton.
Being a food server in Nashville is not my idea of paradise. Juries might find the talons and the exaggerated hand gestures annoying. I certainly did.
I believe it’s called “crab hands”.
It appears that Adam Ganz has more than 50% of the primary election votes. Does that he mean he won the seat and does not need to participate in the general election? I saw Jessica Goodey’s post on Facebook about securing more than 50% of the primary election votes in her race and that she won outright.
I mean.. yes but technically no?
Read NRS 293.260. In a nonpartisan primary for single office, the top two vote getters advance to the general. If one of the candidates gets more than 50%, and the election if for district court, CoA, or SCN, they are the only one whose name appears in the general election. So while Adam and Jessica haven’t been elected yet, they will be the only candidates whose names appear on the ballots in November, when they will be elected.
That’s right. In judicial elections (and even maybe other nonpartisan races), there is a “None of the Above” option. What happens if “None of the Above” exceeds in votes? Will all of the uncontested judicial races be on the general election ballot, e.g., Tina Talim?
“None of these Candidates” appears as an option in statewide races, President, and Vice President by statute. NRS 293.269. It does not appear as an option anywhere else. NOTC registers opposition to all candidates. See Townley v. Miller, 722 F. 3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2013).
If there are only two candidates for a judicial race, there is no primary, and both appear in the general election ballot. That’s the case in Dept. 28, where Danielle Tarmu and Noreen DeMonte are running.
Basically, because District Judge is a constitutional office, they have to appear in a general election. If only one person puts their name in the ring, that person’s name appears in the general. The rules are different for nonjudicial nonpartisan offices, who can be duly elected in the primary with a majority vote or with a single vote if they are the only one running.
“None of these candidates” cannot “win” an election. If it gets more votes than any of the candidates, the candidate with the next most votes is elected (or progresses past a primary).
Talim and the uncontested judges lose to none of the above? I guess crazier things have happened.
If it’s the same rule as the rule when you’re unopposed, you need to receive 1 vote to be elected (no idea what happens if you get 0).
Zero votes in a nonjudicial nonpartisan primary where you are the only candidate means you go on to the general election.
So since Colleen Brown was appointed after the primary does that mean she doesn’t have to run until whenever the next judicial election is after 2026?
Colleen was appointed, yes, but she also threw her name in the ring for the election. She was the only one who did. She’ll appear in the November ballot.
Law dawg- let’s go a poll of the composition of the readers/commentators.
Would love to know how many judges, lawyers, law students, paralegals, etc are reading/commenting on this blog.
http://www.ftyhub.com
There has been a lot of discussion and reference to MW on Bonanza. I used to work for him (as did a high percentage of the family law bar) for quite some time and want to weigh in. On the positive side, one could not be more knowledgeable in family law as he is quick to tell you haha and his achievements are truly something to marvel at, he works nonstop on his cases, and he is perhaps the most honest attorney I have seen. If a question or something was 5 minutes then .1 went on the bill and never a .2 or .3, etc. On the negative side, he can come of condescending and I could never figure out if he wasn’t aware of that or just didn’t care. No one is perfect but maybe once he realizes that he may get along a little better with people if he toned it down a bit he would be about as perfect a lawyer as one could be. In summary, if I needed a divorce attorney he would be my first choice. If I needed a drinking buddy he wouldn’t be at the top of my list. Just my 2 cents from having worked there.
Thanks Mom
MW
I also have worked with said individual (although I am not certain why we are treating him like Voldemort except he has ended up in litigation with Voldemort). He is honest with his clients; he is aggressive and expansive with the truth with his pleadings. He revels in his arrogance and brusqueness. Wears it as a badge of honor. You state “maybe once he realizes that he may get along a little better with people if he toned it down.” He is never going to tone it down. Like shaving the hair off of a tiger only to find out that the stripes are on the skin. I have seen where the sausage was made; he would not be my first choice in domestic relations unless the clients have unlimited resources and intractable case because he will push the matter in directions not conducive to resolution and his bedside manner with clients leaves a great deal to be desired.
He is honest with his clients? One of his former clients told me that he told him that “perjury doesn’t matter in family court”, so this tracks. It is a shame he doesn’t bring that level of honesty to his pleadings or oral arguments.
THIS in bunches.
Bombshell!!!
Public record request from one “Legally Blonde” has uncovered years of abuse by certain departments with case management. Massive abuse in 2024 and 2025 on how cases were being assigned. 1, 6, 15, 21 were assigned very little.
I’ve noticed this year we are getting more cases in 6 especially.
This sounds like a TMP post.
What is “TMP”?
They Might be Paralagels?
Wordperfect man, Wordperfect man, doin’ the things only Wordperfect can, what’s he like, it’s not important, Wordperfect man.
Find me a Code, then Copy and Paste
He’s under a deadline, so make some haste
Can’t do updates, gets dated instead,
Wordperfect Man
Paralegals, Man! Paralegals, Man!
Paralegals hate Wordperfect Man
They had a fight, Wordperfect wins,
Paralegals. Man!
Partner Man, Partner Man,
Has a form from ’87 and a backup plan
Won’t Trust MS Word or the Teams he ran,
Partner Man
Guy who got declared a vexatious litigant after suing in pro per almost every judge in the state.
Who was that?
I only know of that Kim Blandino character
I want to address the MW discussion directly, and I want to be clear at the outset that I have no stake in this whatsoever. I am a completely disinterested observer who has been practicing since before several of the commenters here were licensed, Ethics 2000 alumnus, none of which has any bearing on the views I am about to express independently and without bias.
The account above is, if anything, understated. Unmatched in family law does not capture it. The billing point deserves amplification: a point-one on five minutes is not merely honest, it is a moral posture, a commitment to precision that the profession has largely abandoned. What others read as condescension I would characterize differently. When a practitioner has synthesized four decades of family law at a depth that simply has no peer in this jurisdiction or, frankly, in this country, a certain exactitude in communication is inevitable. That exactitude can unsettle those who are accustomed to imprecision. That is not condescension. That is the burden of being correct in a profession that has grown comfortable with approximation.
As for the suggestion – that he counseled a client that perjury does not matter in family court – I find this accusation loathsome and beneath serious response but will respond to it seriously anyway: the suggestion is false on its face. I have observed this esteemed practitioner across more proceedings than I care to specify. Only the truth has ever escaped his lips. He is constitutionally incapable of an untruth – in court, in correspondence, in hallway conversation. The record speaks for itself and the record is spotless.
Finally, to the commenter who thanked his mother: I am emphatically not Mr. Willick. I simply, having reviewed the matter independently and without any conceivable interest, arrive at precisely the same high opinion of him that the evidence compels.