Congrats to everyone who won in the primary election yesterday. There were some tight races for justice of the peace which will make more some hotly contested battles in the general election. View unofficial Clark County results here and statewide results here.
It looks like Sigal Chattah will face off against Aaron Ford in the attorney general race; Steve Wolfson will face Timothy Treffinger; and two lawyers feature in the Senate race as Catherine Cortez-Masto will go against Adam Laxalt to keep her seat. [TNI]
Research firm sues Metro over (Republican gubernatorial candidate) Joe Lombardo. [News3LV; KTNV]
Feel free to discuss the results, but keep it civil. What else is going on out there today? Is the Federal Reserve meeting weighing on your mind?
Because DA is partisan position, they will have a general election. Also, registered democrats voted for Sisolak because he was the best candidate to have a chance to win in November, not Tom Collins.
I voted for Sisolak primarily because I'm a democrat, but also because the NV republican party seems dominated by conspiracy theorists and trumpers. No thanks. I know that a lot of people are going to slam him for the COVID response, but I think Sisolak actually did a decent job walking the line between shutting down our entire tourism based economy and keeping measures in place that saved lives. It was not an enviable position to be in. We seem to be doing a good job making a come back though.
No, DETR is the resfonI did not vote for him. DETR took a year to verify me. 2.5 years after filing claim,still owed thousands that I was told I was going to be paid. Waiting on appeal
People will vote for someone just because they belong to their party. They would rather vote for someone who claims they are aligned with a party then to choose someone who may be more qualified or do a better job.
I don't know about that 10:25. For part of the population, yes. But Nevada is a purple state. We had a lot of dems vote for Sandoval even though he was a republican. He was a moderate so he had cross party appeal and that plays well with NV voters. I thought Lombardo was going to be the same kind of republican, but he's gone into trumper territory. If he chose to stay moderate I think he'd be more of a threat to Sisolak.
It's weird to blame Sisolak for DETR. He didn't create that system, he didn't staff that system, and he could not have predicted the system being backlogged so badly because of COVID, but somehow that's his fault? I get the frustration, but the anger seems misplaced.
Sisolak could have EASILY predicted the backlog and he is he only person who could've mandated the fix. He did nothing. Blame is irrelevant as to cause. But, he has the power to fix it and refused to do so.
At 9:59 – coming from the party that held this country hostage by peddling false Russia collusion conspiracy hysteria nonsense for nearly four years, accusing the NV GOP of being dominated by "conspiracy theorists" is pretty hypocritical and disingenuous, doncha think?
Yeah, I'd rather support a party that is dominated by conspiracy theorists and trumpers rather than one dominated by corrupt out-of-touch politicians and communists.
@9:59 et al. Sisolak was not, repeat NOT, responsible for the DETR fiasco. He inherited this agency already cut to the bone by anti-government zealots. But Republicans are quick to blame him. Cf. Biden, where there is very little, if anything, the President can do to curb inflation, yet Republicans not only blame Biden but also refuse to assist in what few inflation-fighting measures are available, such as lowering drug prices. I am stunned that people who have attained the educational level of an attorney don't understand this. (I suspect some posters are non-attorney trolls.)
Agreed that its been a mess for decades and agreed that he inherited the mess.
He has had plenty of time to fix it. 18 months before Lockdowns. 27 months since. He lacks either the skill to clean it up or the will to do so. Either way, its his to lie with. He could've cleaned it up in a matter of 6 months if he wanted to.
1:46 has clearly never worked in a govt job. 18 months to fix a dysfunctional govt agency is nothing. We don't even have a full time legislature to pass funding unless they call an emergency session. Moreover, there was no way for Sisolak to foresee COVID and the flood of unemployment claims. Any "fixing" to deal with the COVID claims would be temporary too because ideally life goes back to normal and we all get back to work and stop collecting unemployment. I get it if you don't like Sisolak…he's not a super interesting or charismatic politician, but you could at least pick something he's actually responsible for if you're going to complain about him.
There is a partial fix which could be implemented quickly. Many states require new and used auto dealers to handle DMV paperwork for EVERY vehicle they sell. Dealers are (or quickly become ) very proficient at flawlessly handling DMV work because they process 5 to 200 vehicle transactions each month. Dealers would have special windows at DMV for handling piles of transactions at one time. Many states do this, not just CA, why don't we?
Sending EVERY individual who purchases a new or used vehicle to DMV is insane. SisoLACK is responsible for the successful operation of EVERY NV state agency. And just like DETR, he has done nothing to improve the bureaucracy here . . . other than add bodies to it.
2:03 I did not say you are not an atty because you collected UI. It is apparent from your writing. Also, an attorney doesn't come on a law blog to just keep repeating that he or she did not receive UI benefits timely.
4:05 wouldn't requiring car dealers to do that require legislative action? I thought most dealers already offer this service. Last two cars I bought, the dealer did the registration for me. Also, the DMV's website says you can register new cars online. So not "EVERY" individual who purchases a vehicle has to go to the DMV. The same hurdles that 2:58 mentions about addressing a dysfunctional government agency as to DETR also apply to the DMV. And I wouldn't expect him to accomplish what other governors also failed to accomplish with all the COVID mess going on. I don't like him either but these criticisms are silly.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2022 4:48 pm
A client and I called DETR today to check on status of his claim. Employer did not allege misconduct. Person on the phone said it is in "adjudication" and they are currently working on October 2021 cases so expect a long wait. In other words in Nevada there are no unemployment benefits.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2022 4:48 pm
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2022 4:55 pm
Sadly I think Sigal has a chance. I'm apathetic about Ford, but Sigal is just not a good option. I've litigated against her in the past. She is rude, comes across as slightly unhinged, and is not a great attorney. She also tries to justify her bad behavior as a quirk of being Israeli which is racist and patronizing. It's a no for me.
Aaron Ford is going to look like Steph Curry, this is a finals slam-dunk fest short of him falling completely asleep between now and November. In fact it's not too soon for registered dems to send Sigal a "thank you" card right now!
AF is a go along to get along politician. He supported Sisolak's ridiculous lock downs that closed churches, restaurants and schools but keep Weed & Liquor stores open. This is my line in the sand. Early on it was obvious that a one size fits all lock down policy wasn't justified. Sisolak didn't lift his mask mandate until February 10, 2022! It's criminal what was done to citizens, especially kids. Sadly, we are only scratching the surface at how it will turn out.
I agree that Sigal is rough around the edges. I give her credit as a fighter for individual rights. She successfully challenged some of Sisolak's lock down rules. She's been a public critic with the courage to say what many other think. She's consistent and I'm supporting her.
My understanding of Sigal's "fights" is that she joins her name to high profile cases, but other attorneys do the work. We had a professor like that in law school. He was always associating on high profile cases to get his name in the paper, but other attorneys did the work.
2:59-that's a common dynamic we have all experienced in one form or another. Think back to some of the best written, and best researched briefs, you may have ever prepared. I bet some of those efforts were when many posters were young associates at large and/or prominent firms. And these briefs, which constituted some of our best early career work, were often for very valuable, or unique and/or high profile cases, etc.
And, you readers will well recall, some of those best efforts did in fact result in successful motions, or successful appeals, etc.
But who got to sign the briefs, thus receiving the recognition and credit for such sterling work? Not us. The briefs were signed by a firm partner or senior associate. Sometimes, if the young attorney were quite lucky, they got to sign along with the senior attorney, but usually it was just the senior attorney.
I wrote the successful appellate briefs on two reported NSC decisions, and my name did not appear in the decisions–only the firm name, and name of the firm partner who I worked under.
At the time, I privately complained about that to a couple colleagues, who quickly reminded me that each day in Vegas there are hundreds of far better briefs than I could ever prepare which never get credited to the actual author.
3:35, yes we've all been through that and it is sort of a rite of passage, and expected growing pains, for the first few years of practice.
Fortunately, for the first firm I worked for, after the first couple years, that often was no longer the case and they were often pretty good about letting me sign my own briefs. But while I was cutting my first baby legal teeth for the first couple years, I did not get to sign.
3:35 and 3:40: At the first firm I worked for, other young associates endured what you describe. But I was fortunate in that writing was never my forte, and thus no senior attorney wanted anything to do with claiming credit for my briefs. So, for good or bad, I got to sign them all.
Not getting to sign a brief you wrote is better than the opposite: having to sign a brief when the partner made changes you disagree with. I prefer having the senior attorney sign everything. No need to give the court/OC a peek behind the curtain of who is actually writing what, and the senior attorney probably has "final cut" on all briefs in any event.
Jesus H, we are debating how much work Sigal does or doesn't do on cases, what about the part where she supports lynching black people? Seems infinitely more disqualifying.
3:55-Although I am not interested in defending that particular candidate, I figured your post is a classic case of taking something ill-advised or stupid way out of contest, until it gets distorted into something ultra-malicious, cruel and sick. So, I looked up her quote and, quite sadly and shockingly, context does very little to mitigate the horrors of such remark. She said that (African American) A.G. Ford deserved to be lynched and hanging from a f*****g crane."
Calling Tisha a RINO is unfair. I happily voted for Sigal. But, Tisha's pro business policy (and practice) appeals to me. I would have happily supported Tisha in the General if she had one.
In a climate where a republican-nominated Supreme Court justice was recently targeted by an assassination attempt and the democrat-elected Nevada Governor was threatened while he was having a meal at a restaurant with his family, it is not responsible to elect a chief state lawmaker who suggests that her opponent should hang from a crane. I don't care what "culture" you came from or how you justify those statements. Irresponsible rhetoric like this from would-be public figures is both dangerous and beneath the office, and we have seen far too many consequences from this sort of behavior already. So if you want to speak like that about your opponent and believe you have been culturally misunderstood, then go back to that country and run for public office there. You don't have any business holding public office in my state.
Well its my state too and I disagree. Also, Sisolak was not threatened. He was harassed verbally and name called. Vastly different from an overt attempt on the life of a sitting SCOTUS Justice. Nonetheless, I am no more offended by Sigal's ill-advised comment than I am mean tweets.
1054 here. Well maybe its just that I am generally objective in my views and can identify hyperbole and pomp and give its due weight. I would probably have run for the judiciary, but I am an adult human male.
I am glad you can identify hyperbole. Can you say the same for all of the millions of people in this state who the Attorney General will represent? And shouldn't a candidate for that office be able to recognize the danger of misinterpretation? Calling it a merely "offensive" statement is troubling in its own way. It is offensive, but also deeply concerning given the rise of gun violence and overt threats to elected officials. Laughing it off as hyperbole may work to get her elected now, but no one will be laughing at the consequences later.
I didn't laugh at it or laugh it off. Stop putting words in my mouth to justify your interpretation of my intent.
And I recognize that the crane comment may have been ill-advised hyperbole. I viewed many of the mean tweets the same way. Instead of hyper focusing on a single (or several) hyperbolic silly statements, lets judge on the policies and deeds, which will affect the millions of people who aren't as objective as I am. THEIR perceptions are irrelevant to the job the Sigal will do and are only relevant to whether she gets elected.
So keep focused on this one comment, a red herring at best (because it serves your narrative) and miss the possibility that she might actually kick ass for the State of Nevada, regardless of her ill advised comment or two.
So let's focus on the job she will do, and the perceptions people will have of her based on the office she wants.
Given the number of mass shootings in this country at the moment and the number of guns already in circulation, it appears to be a mathematical certainty that Nevada will experience one or more of these events in the short term. That moment is the closest thing a state attorney general has to a 3 a.m. phone call, where we will look to the chief law enforcement officer of the state for leadership in a time of crisis.
So when we discover that the assailant's online manifesto or online posts say things like, "I wanted [X] to hang from a crane" or similarly charged language, how will Chattah be able to lead in that moment? Will she tell us that that's "just the way high schoolers talk," or will she impose a speech standard on the rest of us that we know she herself cannot measure up to? Either way, she will be unable to show credible leadership in a moment of true crisis. That's one job-related reason why her comments are disqualifying to anyone, of either party, who plans on voting responsibly in November.
Totally irrelevant? For those who believe that Chattah's actual work ethic and legal competence (discussed above) is not really relevant to her performance as attorney general, it must be because the function of the role of attorney general is largely to direct policy and reinforce positive public perceptions of the integrity of the rule of law while the wheels of justice grind beneath them in the lower ranks. In other words, the job is not one for work-horses, but show-horses; and appearance is everything.
Assuming this, as far as appearances go, we all know how this will play out as the temperatures rise this summer. Mass shooting. Thoughts and prayers offered by both candidates. Manifesto discovered. Then, the headline from the national liberal media just below the report of the shooting that says something like, "Republican AG candidate made crane comment about opponent shortly before shooting, refused to walk it back." The national liberal media has a field day; Chattah "fights" back, likely with the help of a small army of online enablers like you who are willing to equivocate her statement into nonexistence. Meanwhile, parents bury their children.
Recent polls show slim majorities of both parties now believe there will be an eventual end to American democracy. It is fairly obvious to anyone not born yesterday, or who believes that the goal of democracy is something other than total victory for one's side all the time regardless of the cost, that this skepticism stems from an eroding faith in our institutions like the judiciary. Felix Frankfurter said that a central component of justice is the appearance of justice. And the appearance of the U.S. Supreme Court today is a building with a chain-link fence around it, which the court did not need for the first 200-odd years of its existence until people began lighting themselves on fire in front of the building, showing up outside judges' homes with an angry mob, and plotting to murder them.
We can see this political asteroid in the sky coming towards us; all the warning signs are there. Do you seriously believe that having someone like Chattah at the center of public scrutiny during a high-visibility moment of violence which we know is coming will improve or harm Nevadans' perception and faith in crime prevention or the rule of law?
I don't really care about peoples perceptions or their feelings about a given candidate or what they once said. I care about facts and what a person can do. The current AG has done nothing for this state. Therefore, I wont support him. The candidate with the best chance of displacing him that purports to espouse policies that I agree with is Sigal.
All of the deflection, smoke screens and red herrings that you continually utilize to make your point might make you feel better in your decision and make you appear intelligent in your analysis, mean exactly squat and have little impact on the job to be done.
I do agree with you that there is a decent chance that there will be civil war (as opposed to an "eventual end to democracy") and it would not surprise me if it happens in our lifetime. However, we are not a democracy. The US is a representative republic, which is a very different thing.
Further, I don't care about the "appearance of justice" and I have had enough of appearances as a whole. I am ready for actual justice and my faith in the judiciary and its interrelated agencies is long since eroded beyond repair. This is another reason the "acting presidential" moniker that was so often painted on Trump is so irrelevant to the job that he did, as I see it.
So, let it be said that I don't give a shit about perceptions. I care about the job being done. I am deeply dissatisfied with the job of our current AG and am more confident that Sigal will do a better job, regardless if she once said something that hurt peoples feelings.
If your faith in the judiciary and its related institutions is damaged beyond repair, how can you be so confident that your preferred candidate will deliver you "justice" or do a good job in a role which requires judicial participation?
Quit throwing softballs and think before you ask a question. The reasonable answer is implicit in my posts.
I am not certain about Sigal or even confident. Like every American, I can only research and make a judgment call. Ford is a waste of air and PERS contributions, thus my decision to NOT support him in his re-election bid. Sigal has "espoused" (there is that term again) policies similar to which I would like to see put into place.
That said, it is possible (even likely) that she will let me down (like most politicians. Much like you were let down by in your vote for JB.
Nonetheless, I can only do what I can do. Support her election bid and if she lets me down, support her opponent in a few years.
The candidate of a major political party for chief law enforcement officer of an American state of millions of people should not be saying that her political opponent should be hanging from a crane, and then act like the comment is no big deal. It is politically misguided, deeply immoral, and shows a complete lack of judgment, awareness, and willingness to take responsibility. Anyone who has any pride in this country and its institutions deserves better than to have a person like this in charge. I don't know what else to tell you. Most politics is subjective and policies can be debated, but occasionally we are faced with a "have you no decency" moment and there is only one right answer. This is one of them.
While I agree with most of what you said 4:25, we survived 4 years of Laxalt. This gives me a false sense of security that we could survive 4 years of pretty much anyone as AG.
Luckily, you have a shot at voting against all three in November.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2022 5:19 pm
Am I the only one to whom it seems silly that so many people are wringing their hands like "OH. NO!! Fiore [Chattah or Marchant] won her primary! What are we going to do?"
Umm. Vote Democrat in the General like you were going to anyway……
Marchant is an election denier who does not want voting machines. He is an election denier who is running for secretary of state. Yeah,don't be nervous
For what it's worth I would have voted for Black or a few of the R candidates for SOS over the Ds. So no, I wasn't going to vote D regardless, but yeah now that's a lock.
You want to know the number of sane Republicans in this state, check the results:
Governor: None of These Candidates came in 8th, with 2,400 votes. Beat 7 candidates.
Lt. Governor. NoTC came in 5/8, 13,600 votes.
Secretary of State: NoTC came 4/8, 13,800 votes.
Treasurer/AG: 15,000 people said "No. Just, no. I'm voting, but not for these people."
Side note: Rob Telles, Public Administrator, got primaried.
Good on Telles losing. He was doing ridiculous things with that office. I have a case against him and just am shaking my head at the positions that he has that office taking. John Cahill was old but sane. (Not even discussing the backseat heavy petting issues).
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2022 8:52 pm
Why is no one talking about the fact that we only have a small fraction of the votes counted in Clark County? Am I missing something? Is this not concerning to anyone?
We don't talk about election irregularities (especially on this blog) at the risk of being called conspiracy theorists and Trumpers. But, we are watching anyway.
2:02: In Nevada, no vote is counted until everyone who was standing in line before poll-close has voted. At 9 p.m. last night, votes were still being cast in person. It is not odd for results to take time. Official election results will be final on June 24, which, again, is not odd. Simply because you remember things happening differently in previous elections does not mean literally anything, aside from contributing to your own confirmation bias.
Mail Ballots were never that big a part of the ballots and most came in early in the past. That's not the case now, and they are very labor intensive to process (especially with observers running to court all the time). That's a big hold up but what is with all those people who wait until literally the last minute to vote? They could have mailed their ballots, voted early, showed up in the middle of the day when it is not busy, etc.
Is Judge Joe Bonaventure sailing to retention without an opponent because he got over 50 per cent? I thought it was ridiculous that a female tried to pick him off playing the gender card. She actually mounted a campaign but did not succeed thankfully.
2:05–it may not have been so ridiculous a strategy had she been the only female in the race, but that is not how it turned out. Once the second female joined the race, any gender advantage is being split between the two females and it winds up benefitting the male incumbent.
A male judicial incumbent, if they are not blessed by running unopposed, would much rather have two female opponents rather than just one
2:15, that's somewhat cynical, as well as a little convoluted, but based on how a lot of these judicial races have turned out over the last few years, I cannot say that you are wrong.
2:17PM–There has been a concerted effort to pick off white male incumbent judges by female. Does EMERGE sound familiar. Can't say the new female judges that beat some good male incumbents are better judges that is for sure.
Agree with 2:31 that it is not right or fair for 2:25 to make this about race. It is, to a large extent, simply a gender advantage. A minority male incumbent would often be just as vulnerable to a female challenger. After all, in many judicial races all the voters can tell, in many races, is which name on the ballot is male, and which is female. They often know nothing beyond that, and can't even recall what each candidate looked like on their signs and ads.
But, 3:48, please read more carefully. 2:31 is not complaining about the earlier poster mentioning race, but is instead complaining they mentioned gender.
But I agree with you that there is clearly a gender advantage in local judicial races. Also, it's in no way sexist to observe such. But once someone complains too much about such dynamic, or claims or implies that female judicial candidates are often less deserving and less qualified, such generalities can raise legitimate claims of sexism.
But taking in on a case-by-case basis, there will be times when solid male incumbents are vulnerable to less qualified challengers–which happened in a few of the District Court races in 2020.
There is no gender bias against males by the general public. EMERGE sends out voting blocks. I wonder if they ballot harvest too? I will not vote for any judge associated with that group.
the PD office, specifically their lobbyist, put up a candidate to make sure the DA running against Joe Jr had another female in the race to contend with…mission accomplished I guess.
Anyone who has been watching for decades cannot deny the trend favoring females for the bench. The women that run know it and acknowledge it. We cant explain it and its unfair, but it exists.
I think looking at the results of judicial elections these past few cycles you can assume that there is an advantage towards female candidates. But we cannot know how much of an advantage. I always remind myself that just 40 years ago all candidates were male, so I am fine with the majority of the Nevada judiciary being female. On a side not, Courtney Ketter won his judicial election in NLV Municipal Court, having spent a fourth of the money campaigning as his opponent. I just wonder if people thought they were voting for a woman. Funny.
@8:29 even if that is true, it would not have mattered in this race as 50% is 50% whether it is one female against you or two. The only thing it did was give Joe B a primary so he doesn't have to wait until November to get his 50% plus 1 vote. The gap is narrowing, and he is just barely over 50%, but that is enough.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2022 9:10 pm
Justice Court results: Not only does Joe B come in first, but he wins re-election outright by cracking the 50% threshold.
Bill Gonzalez comes in first, albeit narrowly, in a four person race. Max Berkley and Amy Wilson both take about 40% in that race and will square off in the General.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2022 9:11 pm
2:10, I'm not surprised that Joe Jr. did well, but I expected it to be a lot more competitive, and that it would need to proceed to the General Election.
Damn,no Joe,Jr. Almost got a chance to get rid of him.
Guest
Anonymous
June 15, 2022 9:21 pm
What do folks think of Amy Wilson v. Max Berkley for Justice Court I like Amy–met her on the campaign trail. A lot of folks think Max has it in the bag being from a political dynasty family. Would not have had a chance in that race without name recognition.
I don't have strong feelings about either candidate. I voted for Amy Wilson in the primary and will likely do so again in the general. I don't give a sh*t if she took a contribution from Crawford or took a photo with him.
It's too easy to indulge in Monday night quarterbacking on this issue.
That said, if someone truly, and heavily, aligned themselves with someone of real questionable character, that is a problem. Thus it is a question of extent. If they are merely a Facebook "friend" and/or are seen in a photo with such person before the controversy broke, or accepted a political contribution, it may not be the best judgement, but it may not necessarily be outrageous.
But, if after the controversy breaks in the public realm, if they double down on their support, and make such support public, that really raises serious questions IMO. Also, even before the controversy becomes public, if the candidate is "liking" or lending approval to real scuzzy, degrading photos or images, that likewise is a real problem.
4:47–Yes, agreed. But as 4:06 suggests we have to look at questions of what, when and to what extent. If before his arrest, a judge or lawyer had merely been a Facebook friend, that's not remotely as bad as someone lending public support following the arrest, or approving("liking") of vile, degrading photos, etc.
Best remedy for all this, wherein we never even have to discuss or debate it, or concern ourselves with the extent, context and proportionality? Judges should stay off Facebook. Many attorneys would be well-served to take the same advice.
@4:47 give me a break. At a fundraiser, you take a check from anyone handing you one. and a photo too. you aren't endorsing the lifestyle of that person. This is a stupid game of gotcha. No matter if it is the Clintons or Trump or a lowly judicial officer
Agreed. I am of the opinion that Wilson will make a good judge. Berkeley is a hard pass, just because of his connection to the political establishment and his acting as if he is entitled to the position. I have personally witnessed this attitude. His Mommy and his last name are liabilities, not assets.
Yes, agreed on Amy Wilson. Berkley acts like a "made man". Amy is level headed and hard working. She will make a good justice of the peace. She has sat as a pro tem jp too.
To be fair to Max, he's had that attitude since high school, not only since he threw his name in the ring. It's just who he is. But he's also worked damn hard for everything, so I don't begrudge him.
Guest
Anonymous
June 19, 2022 1:30 am
Is anyone else watching the Justice Court 9 and 16 races? They are going up and down and while it looked like Bonaventure won in the primary, he now has to go to the general.
Cool,I thought Wolfson won outright. Cannot believe people voted for Sisolak
These are the same people who are convinced Sisolak saved thousands of lives with his Covid response… lol
Because DA is partisan position, they will have a general election. Also, registered democrats voted for Sisolak because he was the best candidate to have a chance to win in November, not Tom Collins.
I voted for Tom Collins because he is not Sisolak
Sisolak has still not taken control of DETR. There has been no improvement at all.
I voted for Sisolak primarily because I'm a democrat, but also because the NV republican party seems dominated by conspiracy theorists and trumpers. No thanks. I know that a lot of people are going to slam him for the COVID response, but I think Sisolak actually did a decent job walking the line between shutting down our entire tourism based economy and keeping measures in place that saved lives. It was not an enviable position to be in. We seem to be doing a good job making a come back though.
No, DETR is the resfonI did not vote for him. DETR took a year to verify me. 2.5 years after filing claim,still owed thousands that I was told I was going to be paid. Waiting on appeal
Reason I
People will vote for someone just because they belong to their party. They would rather vote for someone who claims they are aligned with a party then to choose someone who may be more qualified or do a better job.
I don't know about that 10:25. For part of the population, yes. But Nevada is a purple state. We had a lot of dems vote for Sandoval even though he was a republican. He was a moderate so he had cross party appeal and that plays well with NV voters. I thought Lombardo was going to be the same kind of republican, but he's gone into trumper territory. If he chose to stay moderate I think he'd be more of a threat to Sisolak.
Ditto what 9:59 said
It's weird to blame Sisolak for DETR. He didn't create that system, he didn't staff that system, and he could not have predicted the system being backlogged so badly because of COVID, but somehow that's his fault? I get the frustration, but the anger seems misplaced.
Sorry 1147. Calling BS.
Sisolak could have EASILY predicted the backlog and he is he only person who could've mandated the fix. He did nothing. Blame is irrelevant as to cause. But, he has the power to fix it and refused to do so.
At 9:59 – coming from the party that held this country hostage by peddling false Russia collusion conspiracy hysteria nonsense for nearly four years, accusing the NV GOP of being dominated by "conspiracy theorists" is pretty hypocritical and disingenuous, doncha think?
Yes, it is weird to blame Sisolak for DETR when he oversees them.
Yeah, I'd rather support a party that is dominated by conspiracy theorists and trumpers rather than one dominated by corrupt out-of-touch politicians and communists.
@9:59 et al. Sisolak was not, repeat NOT, responsible for the DETR fiasco. He inherited this agency already cut to the bone by anti-government zealots. But Republicans are quick to blame him. Cf. Biden, where there is very little, if anything, the President can do to curb inflation, yet Republicans not only blame Biden but also refuse to assist in what few inflation-fighting measures are available, such as lowering drug prices. I am stunned that people who have attained the educational level of an attorney don't understand this. (I suspect some posters are non-attorney trolls.)
only some?
12:30, Sisolak is Detr. I repeat,DETR is Sisolak
The non-atty person who didn’t get their payments timely is just going to keep obsessing on this and blaming Sisolak.
Agreed that its been a mess for decades and agreed that he inherited the mess.
He has had plenty of time to fix it. 18 months before Lockdowns. 27 months since. He lacks either the skill to clean it up or the will to do so. Either way, its his to lie with. He could've cleaned it up in a matter of 6 months if he wanted to.
You are getting judgy on Detr benefits? My firm paid those benefits for me. So I am not an attorney bc I collect ui benefits? You are schmuck
1:46 has clearly never worked in a govt job. 18 months to fix a dysfunctional govt agency is nothing. We don't even have a full time legislature to pass funding unless they call an emergency session. Moreover, there was no way for Sisolak to foresee COVID and the flood of unemployment claims. Any "fixing" to deal with the COVID claims would be temporary too because ideally life goes back to normal and we all get back to work and stop collecting unemployment. I get it if you don't like Sisolak…he's not a super interesting or charismatic politician, but you could at least pick something he's actually responsible for if you're going to complain about him.
*snaps for 2:58* *big snaps*
OK, Well SisoLACK has done NOTHING to fix DMV.
There is a partial fix which could be implemented quickly. Many states require new and used auto dealers to handle DMV paperwork for EVERY vehicle they sell. Dealers are (or quickly become ) very proficient at flawlessly handling DMV work because they process 5 to 200 vehicle transactions each month. Dealers would have special windows at DMV for handling piles of transactions at one time. Many states do this, not just CA, why don't we?
Sending EVERY individual who purchases a new or used vehicle to DMV is insane. SisoLACK is responsible for the successful operation of EVERY NV state agency. And just like DETR, he has done nothing to improve the bureaucracy here . . . other than add bodies to it.
2:03 I did not say you are not an atty because you collected UI. It is apparent from your writing. Also, an attorney doesn't come on a law blog to just keep repeating that he or she did not receive UI benefits timely.
4:05 wouldn't requiring car dealers to do that require legislative action? I thought most dealers already offer this service. Last two cars I bought, the dealer did the registration for me. Also, the DMV's website says you can register new cars online. So not "EVERY" individual who purchases a vehicle has to go to the DMV. The same hurdles that 2:58 mentions about addressing a dysfunctional government agency as to DETR also apply to the DMV. And I wouldn't expect him to accomplish what other governors also failed to accomplish with all the COVID mess going on. I don't like him either but these criticisms are silly.
A client and I called DETR today to check on status of his claim. Employer did not allege misconduct. Person on the phone said it is in "adjudication" and they are currently working on October 2021 cases so expect a long wait. In other words in Nevada there are no unemployment benefits.
Sadly I think Sigal has a chance. I'm apathetic about Ford, but Sigal is just not a good option. I've litigated against her in the past. She is rude, comes across as slightly unhinged, and is not a great attorney. She also tries to justify her bad behavior as a quirk of being Israeli which is racist and patronizing. It's a no for me.
Absolutely agree 9:55a
I agree as well.
And yet 9tj Circuit loves her. Says slot.
9th
Aaron Ford is going to look like Steph Curry, this is a finals slam-dunk fest short of him falling completely asleep between now and November. In fact it's not too soon for registered dems to send Sigal a "thank you" card right now!
AF is a go along to get along politician. He supported Sisolak's ridiculous lock downs that closed churches, restaurants and schools but keep Weed & Liquor stores open. This is my line in the sand. Early on it was obvious that a one size fits all lock down policy wasn't justified. Sisolak didn't lift his mask mandate until February 10, 2022! It's criminal what was done to citizens, especially kids. Sadly, we are only scratching the surface at how it will turn out.
I agree that Sigal is rough around the edges. I give her credit as a fighter for individual rights. She successfully challenged some of Sisolak's lock down rules. She's been a public critic with the courage to say what many other think. She's consistent and I'm supporting her.
My understanding of Sigal's "fights" is that she joins her name to high profile cases, but other attorneys do the work. We had a professor like that in law school. He was always associating on high profile cases to get his name in the paper, but other attorneys did the work.
FYI taking credit for the hard work of others is the MO of Aaron Ford.
2:59-that's a common dynamic we have all experienced in one form or another. Think back to some of the best written, and best researched briefs, you may have ever prepared. I bet some of those efforts were when many posters were young associates at large and/or prominent firms. And these briefs, which constituted some of our best early career work, were often for very valuable, or unique and/or high profile cases, etc.
And, you readers will well recall, some of those best efforts did in fact result in successful motions, or successful appeals, etc.
But who got to sign the briefs, thus receiving the recognition and credit for such sterling work? Not us. The briefs were signed by a firm partner or senior associate. Sometimes, if the young attorney were quite lucky, they got to sign along with the senior attorney, but usually it was just the senior attorney.
I wrote the successful appellate briefs on two reported NSC decisions, and my name did not appear in the decisions–only the firm name, and name of the firm partner who I worked under.
At the time, I privately complained about that to a couple colleagues, who quickly reminded me that each day in Vegas there are hundreds of far better briefs than I could ever prepare which never get credited to the actual author.
3:35, yes we've all been through that and it is sort of a rite of passage, and expected growing pains, for the first few years of practice.
Fortunately, for the first firm I worked for, after the first couple years, that often was no longer the case and they were often pretty good about letting me sign my own briefs. But while I was cutting my first baby legal teeth for the first couple years, I did not get to sign.
3:35 and 3:40: At the first firm I worked for, other young associates endured what you describe. But I was fortunate in that writing was never my forte, and thus no senior attorney wanted anything to do with claiming credit for my briefs. So, for good or bad, I got to sign them all.
Not getting to sign a brief you wrote is better than the opposite: having to sign a brief when the partner made changes you disagree with. I prefer having the senior attorney sign everything. No need to give the court/OC a peek behind the curtain of who is actually writing what, and the senior attorney probably has "final cut" on all briefs in any event.
Jesus H, we are debating how much work Sigal does or doesn't do on cases, what about the part where she supports lynching black people? Seems infinitely more disqualifying.
She's Israeli. Stop,Rhino,Tisha.
3:55-Although I am not interested in defending that particular candidate, I figured your post is a classic case of taking something ill-advised or stupid way out of contest, until it gets distorted into something ultra-malicious, cruel and sick. So, I looked up her quote and, quite sadly and shockingly, context does very little to mitigate the horrors of such remark. She said that (African American) A.G. Ford deserved to be lynched and hanging from a f*****g crane."
Calling Tisha a RINO is unfair. I happily voted for Sigal. But, Tisha's pro business policy (and practice) appeals to me. I would have happily supported Tisha in the General if she had one.
In a climate where a republican-nominated Supreme Court justice was recently targeted by an assassination attempt and the democrat-elected Nevada Governor was threatened while he was having a meal at a restaurant with his family, it is not responsible to elect a chief state lawmaker who suggests that her opponent should hang from a crane. I don't care what "culture" you came from or how you justify those statements. Irresponsible rhetoric like this from would-be public figures is both dangerous and beneath the office, and we have seen far too many consequences from this sort of behavior already. So if you want to speak like that about your opponent and believe you have been culturally misunderstood, then go back to that country and run for public office there. You don't have any business holding public office in my state.
Well its my state too and I disagree. Also, Sisolak was not threatened. He was harassed verbally and name called. Vastly different from an overt attempt on the life of a sitting SCOTUS Justice. Nonetheless, I am no more offended by Sigal's ill-advised comment than I am mean tweets.
Of course you are not offended because she never proposed that it be you hanging from a crane.
If you are not concerned when a public office seeker characterizes her opponent the way she did, then you are part of the problem.
1054 here. Well maybe its just that I am generally objective in my views and can identify hyperbole and pomp and give its due weight. I would probably have run for the judiciary, but I am an adult human male.
I am glad you can identify hyperbole. Can you say the same for all of the millions of people in this state who the Attorney General will represent? And shouldn't a candidate for that office be able to recognize the danger of misinterpretation? Calling it a merely "offensive" statement is troubling in its own way. It is offensive, but also deeply concerning given the rise of gun violence and overt threats to elected officials. Laughing it off as hyperbole may work to get her elected now, but no one will be laughing at the consequences later.
I didn't laugh at it or laugh it off. Stop putting words in my mouth to justify your interpretation of my intent.
And I recognize that the crane comment may have been ill-advised hyperbole. I viewed many of the mean tweets the same way. Instead of hyper focusing on a single (or several) hyperbolic silly statements, lets judge on the policies and deeds, which will affect the millions of people who aren't as objective as I am. THEIR perceptions are irrelevant to the job the Sigal will do and are only relevant to whether she gets elected.
So keep focused on this one comment, a red herring at best (because it serves your narrative) and miss the possibility that she might actually kick ass for the State of Nevada, regardless of her ill advised comment or two.
So let's focus on the job she will do, and the perceptions people will have of her based on the office she wants.
Given the number of mass shootings in this country at the moment and the number of guns already in circulation, it appears to be a mathematical certainty that Nevada will experience one or more of these events in the short term. That moment is the closest thing a state attorney general has to a 3 a.m. phone call, where we will look to the chief law enforcement officer of the state for leadership in a time of crisis.
So when we discover that the assailant's online manifesto or online posts say things like, "I wanted [X] to hang from a crane" or similarly charged language, how will Chattah be able to lead in that moment? Will she tell us that that's "just the way high schoolers talk," or will she impose a speech standard on the rest of us that we know she herself cannot measure up to? Either way, she will be unable to show credible leadership in a moment of true crisis. That's one job-related reason why her comments are disqualifying to anyone, of either party, who plans on voting responsibly in November.
Totally irrelevant? For those who believe that Chattah's actual work ethic and legal competence (discussed above) is not really relevant to her performance as attorney general, it must be because the function of the role of attorney general is largely to direct policy and reinforce positive public perceptions of the integrity of the rule of law while the wheels of justice grind beneath them in the lower ranks. In other words, the job is not one for work-horses, but show-horses; and appearance is everything.
Assuming this, as far as appearances go, we all know how this will play out as the temperatures rise this summer. Mass shooting. Thoughts and prayers offered by both candidates. Manifesto discovered. Then, the headline from the national liberal media just below the report of the shooting that says something like, "Republican AG candidate made crane comment about opponent shortly before shooting, refused to walk it back." The national liberal media has a field day; Chattah "fights" back, likely with the help of a small army of online enablers like you who are willing to equivocate her statement into nonexistence. Meanwhile, parents bury their children.
Recent polls show slim majorities of both parties now believe there will be an eventual end to American democracy. It is fairly obvious to anyone not born yesterday, or who believes that the goal of democracy is something other than total victory for one's side all the time regardless of the cost, that this skepticism stems from an eroding faith in our institutions like the judiciary. Felix Frankfurter said that a central component of justice is the appearance of justice. And the appearance of the U.S. Supreme Court today is a building with a chain-link fence around it, which the court did not need for the first 200-odd years of its existence until people began lighting themselves on fire in front of the building, showing up outside judges' homes with an angry mob, and plotting to murder them.
We can see this political asteroid in the sky coming towards us; all the warning signs are there. Do you seriously believe that having someone like Chattah at the center of public scrutiny during a high-visibility moment of violence which we know is coming will improve or harm Nevadans' perception and faith in crime prevention or the rule of law?
I don't really care about peoples perceptions or their feelings about a given candidate or what they once said. I care about facts and what a person can do. The current AG has done nothing for this state. Therefore, I wont support him. The candidate with the best chance of displacing him that purports to espouse policies that I agree with is Sigal.
All of the deflection, smoke screens and red herrings that you continually utilize to make your point might make you feel better in your decision and make you appear intelligent in your analysis, mean exactly squat and have little impact on the job to be done.
I do agree with you that there is a decent chance that there will be civil war (as opposed to an "eventual end to democracy") and it would not surprise me if it happens in our lifetime. However, we are not a democracy. The US is a representative republic, which is a very different thing.
Further, I don't care about the "appearance of justice" and I have had enough of appearances as a whole. I am ready for actual justice and my faith in the judiciary and its interrelated agencies is long since eroded beyond repair. This is another reason the "acting presidential" moniker that was so often painted on Trump is so irrelevant to the job that he did, as I see it.
So, let it be said that I don't give a shit about perceptions. I care about the job being done. I am deeply dissatisfied with the job of our current AG and am more confident that Sigal will do a better job, regardless if she once said something that hurt peoples feelings.
If your faith in the judiciary and its related institutions is damaged beyond repair, how can you be so confident that your preferred candidate will deliver you "justice" or do a good job in a role which requires judicial participation?
Quit throwing softballs and think before you ask a question. The reasonable answer is implicit in my posts.
I am not certain about Sigal or even confident. Like every American, I can only research and make a judgment call. Ford is a waste of air and PERS contributions, thus my decision to NOT support him in his re-election bid. Sigal has "espoused" (there is that term again) policies similar to which I would like to see put into place.
That said, it is possible (even likely) that she will let me down (like most politicians. Much like you were let down by in your vote for JB.
Nonetheless, I can only do what I can do. Support her election bid and if she lets me down, support her opponent in a few years.
The candidate of a major political party for chief law enforcement officer of an American state of millions of people should not be saying that her political opponent should be hanging from a crane, and then act like the comment is no big deal. It is politically misguided, deeply immoral, and shows a complete lack of judgment, awareness, and willingness to take responsibility. Anyone who has any pride in this country and its institutions deserves better than to have a person like this in charge. I don't know what else to tell you. Most politics is subjective and policies can be debated, but occasionally we are faced with a "have you no decency" moment and there is only one right answer. This is one of them.
While I agree with most of what you said 4:25, we survived 4 years of Laxalt. This gives me a false sense of security that we could survive 4 years of pretty much anyone as AG.
Fiore,Chattah,Marchant,ah no.
Luckily, you have a shot at voting against all three in November.
Am I the only one to whom it seems silly that so many people are wringing their hands like "OH. NO!! Fiore [Chattah or Marchant] won her primary! What are we going to do?"
Umm. Vote Democrat in the General like you were going to anyway……
Marchant is an election denier who does not want voting machines. He is an election denier who is running for secretary of state. Yeah,don't be nervous
And when all 3 win please feel free to move to California to live happily in your liberal paradise 🙂
Yes believing in true election results is being liberal
For what it's worth I would have voted for Black or a few of the R candidates for SOS over the Ds. So no, I wasn't going to vote D regardless, but yeah now that's a lock.
The GOP done lost its mind.
You want to know the number of sane Republicans in this state, check the results:
Governor: None of These Candidates came in 8th, with 2,400 votes. Beat 7 candidates.
Lt. Governor. NoTC came in 5/8, 13,600 votes.
Secretary of State: NoTC came 4/8, 13,800 votes.
Treasurer/AG: 15,000 people said "No. Just, no. I'm voting, but not for these people."
Side note: Rob Telles, Public Administrator, got primaried.
Good on Telles losing. He was doing ridiculous things with that office. I have a case against him and just am shaking my head at the positions that he has that office taking. John Cahill was old but sane. (Not even discussing the backseat heavy petting issues).
Why is no one talking about the fact that we only have a small fraction of the votes counted in Clark County? Am I missing something? Is this not concerning to anyone?
82-ish percent is not a small fraction?
We don't talk about election irregularities (especially on this blog) at the risk of being called conspiracy theorists and Trumpers. But, we are watching anyway.
Funny, it used to be all finished up by 9-10 pm.
2:02: In Nevada, no vote is counted until everyone who was standing in line before poll-close has voted. At 9 p.m. last night, votes were still being cast in person. It is not odd for results to take time. Official election results will be final on June 24, which, again, is not odd. Simply because you remember things happening differently in previous elections does not mean literally anything, aside from contributing to your own confirmation bias.
"There is no 'there' there."
Mail Ballots were never that big a part of the ballots and most came in early in the past. That's not the case now, and they are very labor intensive to process (especially with observers running to court all the time). That's a big hold up but what is with all those people who wait until literally the last minute to vote? They could have mailed their ballots, voted early, showed up in the middle of the day when it is not busy, etc.
@231
2000 Mules
Is Judge Joe Bonaventure sailing to retention without an opponent because he got over 50 per cent? I thought it was ridiculous that a female tried to pick him off playing the gender card. She actually mounted a campaign but did not succeed thankfully.
2:05–it may not have been so ridiculous a strategy had she been the only female in the race, but that is not how it turned out. Once the second female joined the race, any gender advantage is being split between the two females and it winds up benefitting the male incumbent.
A male judicial incumbent, if they are not blessed by running unopposed, would much rather have two female opponents rather than just one
A female running for judge is playing the gender card? Is this Dave Thomas?
2:15, that's somewhat cynical, as well as a little convoluted, but based on how a lot of these judicial races have turned out over the last few years, I cannot say that you are wrong.
2:17PM–There has been a concerted effort to pick off white male incumbent judges by female. Does EMERGE sound familiar. Can't say the new female judges that beat some good male incumbents are better judges that is for sure.
Wow,sexist comments much,?
Agree with 2:31 that it is not right or fair for 2:25 to make this about race. It is, to a large extent, simply a gender advantage. A minority male incumbent would often be just as vulnerable to a female challenger. After all, in many judicial races all the voters can tell, in many races, is which name on the ballot is male, and which is female. They often know nothing beyond that, and can't even recall what each candidate looked like on their signs and ads.
But, 3:48, please read more carefully. 2:31 is not complaining about the earlier poster mentioning race, but is instead complaining they mentioned gender.
But I agree with you that there is clearly a gender advantage in local judicial races. Also, it's in no way sexist to observe such. But once someone complains too much about such dynamic, or claims or implies that female judicial candidates are often less deserving and less qualified, such generalities can raise legitimate claims of sexism.
But taking in on a case-by-case basis, there will be times when solid male incumbents are vulnerable to less qualified challengers–which happened in a few of the District Court races in 2020.
There is no gender bias against males by the general public. EMERGE sends out voting blocks. I wonder if they ballot harvest too? I will not vote for any judge associated with that group.
the PD office, specifically their lobbyist, put up a candidate to make sure the DA running against Joe Jr had another female in the race to contend with…mission accomplished I guess.
Anyone who has been watching for decades cannot deny the trend favoring females for the bench. The women that run know it and acknowledge it. We cant explain it and its unfair, but it exists.
I think looking at the results of judicial elections these past few cycles you can assume that there is an advantage towards female candidates. But we cannot know how much of an advantage. I always remind myself that just 40 years ago all candidates were male, so I am fine with the majority of the Nevada judiciary being female. On a side not, Courtney Ketter won his judicial election in NLV Municipal Court, having spent a fourth of the money campaigning as his opponent. I just wonder if people thought they were voting for a woman. Funny.
Poor poor,Ken.
@8:29 even if that is true, it would not have mattered in this race as 50% is 50% whether it is one female against you or two. The only thing it did was give Joe B a primary so he doesn't have to wait until November to get his 50% plus 1 vote. The gap is narrowing, and he is just barely over 50%, but that is enough.
Justice Court results: Not only does Joe B come in first, but he wins re-election outright by cracking the 50% threshold.
Bill Gonzalez comes in first, albeit narrowly, in a four person race. Max Berkley and Amy Wilson both take about 40% in that race and will square off in the General.
2:10, I'm not surprised that Joe Jr. did well, but I expected it to be a lot more competitive, and that it would need to proceed to the General Election.
Damn,no Joe,Jr. Almost got a chance to get rid of him.
What do folks think of Amy Wilson v. Max Berkley for Justice Court I like Amy–met her on the campaign trail. A lot of folks think Max has it in the bag being from a political dynasty family. Would not have had a chance in that race without name recognition.
She aligns herself with Dog Crawford fuck to the no
Dog and Doug
I don't have strong feelings about either candidate. I voted for Amy Wilson in the primary and will likely do so again in the general. I don't give a sh*t if she took a contribution from Crawford or took a photo with him.
I do give a shit
It's too easy to indulge in Monday night quarterbacking on this issue.
That said, if someone truly, and heavily, aligned themselves with someone of real questionable character, that is a problem. Thus it is a question of extent. If they are merely a Facebook "friend" and/or are seen in a photo with such person before the controversy broke, or accepted a political contribution, it may not be the best judgement, but it may not necessarily be outrageous.
But, if after the controversy breaks in the public realm, if they double down on their support, and make such support public, that really raises serious questions IMO. Also, even before the controversy becomes public, if the candidate is "liking" or lending approval to real scuzzy, degrading photos or images, that likewise is a real problem.
This is a question of a felon and a pervert. It is a question of judges bring of questionable judgment.
Being
4:47–Yes, agreed. But as 4:06 suggests we have to look at questions of what, when and to what extent. If before his arrest, a judge or lawyer had merely been a Facebook friend, that's not remotely as bad as someone lending public support following the arrest, or approving("liking") of vile, degrading photos, etc.
Best remedy for all this, wherein we never even have to discuss or debate it, or concern ourselves with the extent, context and proportionality? Judges should stay off Facebook. Many attorneys would be well-served to take the same advice.
Plenty of judges in the lap of 2time convicted Doug Crawford. Another Doug,a Sunny,a an Alf,and the Bullas.
Felon
@4:47 give me a break. At a fundraiser, you take a check from anyone handing you one. and a photo too. you aren't endorsing the lifestyle of that person. This is a stupid game of gotcha. No matter if it is the Clintons or Trump or a lowly judicial officer
Agreed. I am of the opinion that Wilson will make a good judge. Berkeley is a hard pass, just because of his connection to the political establishment and his acting as if he is entitled to the position. I have personally witnessed this attitude. His Mommy and his last name are liabilities, not assets.
Yes, agreed on Amy Wilson. Berkley acts like a "made man". Amy is level headed and hard working. She will make a good justice of the peace. She has sat as a pro tem jp too.
To be fair to Max, he's had that attitude since high school, not only since he threw his name in the ring. It's just who he is. But he's also worked damn hard for everything, so I don't begrudge him.
Is anyone else watching the Justice Court 9 and 16 races? They are going up and down and while it looked like Bonaventure won in the primary, he now has to go to the general.
Bonaventure and Chio in the general and Nadia Wood wins JC 16 with over 50% in the primary