- Quickdraw McLaw
- 17 Comments
- 170 Views
It’s that dreadful weekend where we have to change the clocks again and lose an hour of sleep. This article on Congress hating changing clocks as much as us (but yet to do anything about it) says there is a 24% in heart attacks the week following the spring time change. Take care of yourselves this weekend and make sure you get enough sleep.
What are your thoughts on judicial races at the end of the first week of candidate filing?
Is Danielle Pieper running against Bonaventure? That is a hard choice.
Yeah, a career prosecutor with over a decade of experience in felony jury trials versus a guy who had nearly 18 months of experience as a lawyer before being elected as a judge because voters thought they were voting for his father and not him. Bonaventure Jr. is literally the reason we now require five years of experience as an attorney before becoming a justice court judge.
OK Mr. or mrs. blast from the past: he now has what, 18 years on the bench, are you really arguing he's unqualified?
11:07, yes, that was right before the rule change, and yes, he had very little experience as a licensed practitioner.
And yes, many voters thought they were voting for his dad, who was kind of a local folk hero at the time, as he was assigned to like three really high profile criminal trials over a relatively short span of time, and those trials were broadcast on a local station gavel to gavel, and such broadcast were repeated in the evening, with many watching.
But with that all understood, I strongly agree with 11:55 that how Joe Jr. got to his position should no longer be a major focus. He has now served almost 20 years and seems to be a reasonably well regarded judge, from both sides of the aisle
So, why make a change simply because his opponent admittedly has solid experience as a 10 year prosecutor. After all, this is not an appellate court, or even district court. To be an effective J.P., great intellectual firepower or sterling legal acumen is not necessarily the focus. Instead, with J.P.s the focus is often placed on the issues of are they fair, reasonable, sufficiently patient, move calendar well, etc. Many procedures and rote matters they deal with are incredibly predictable without a great deal of discretion that can be abused. Much tougher evidentiary and witness issues are dealt with on the District Court level.
So, whether he "deserved" to be elected is a fair question, but the main question should now be after almost 20 years does he deserve to retain his job. I believe he does.
I agree with 11:57 that this is not a judge who should be on too many attorneys short list of judges that need to be replaced, and in fact I think he's done fine overall. And yes, 11:57 and 11:15 are right that the focus should be on his performance on the bench, not how he got his job 20 years ago.
But the post of 11:07 does raise a broader issue that needs to be examined.
11:07 compares the judge's very limited experience as a practitioner, before he took the bench, with the 10 years of prosecutorial experience of his opponent, and appears to strongly suggest that the challenger should be elected due to having a significantly greater breadth in attorney experience(both as to quality and quantity) than the sitting judge ever had.
I take issue with that, as do other posters, as it seems the focus should now be on his performance on the bench over the last two decades, as opposed to who had more pre-judicial experience as a practitioner.
But although I don't agree with 11:07's conclusions as to the specific example discussed(Bonaventure vs. his opponent) the post gets me thinking of some legitimate concerns of how we select these judges to begin with.
And whether it be by appointment or election, the person appointed or elected is usually not the most solid and experienced attorney who was vying for the post. Too often , it is someone who profiles a certain way, and/or has the right juice and connections, etc.
And eliminating judicial elections, and converting to a pure appointment system is no panacea either as we still connections and juice, and how someone profiles, often taking precedent over experience, skill and accomplishments.
The majority of judges running for (and winning) lower court seats (muni, justice) are former DAs and PDs that had short and/or lackluster careers. You never see any decent attorneys vying for these seats. I can't understand why more qualified individuals don't run. Low pay? Low esteem?
Surprising we keep voting in these folks given that they aren't particularly solid in the courtroom and most aren't very bright. Seems like the top candidates put in for the District Court seats.
Speaking of lower court seats, do you guys see what is happening in North Las Vegas. Recently appointed Judge Chris Lee has now two attorneys running against him. I have heard that Judge Hoeffgen has decided to retire, but only one person has filed for his seat. Seems to me that if you are an attorney who lives in North Las Vegas, you should at least put your name on the ballot for Hoeffgen's seat so that no one get's his seat by default because only one has put his name on the ballot.
I don't think anyone should get a free pass on this election, especially those who were appointed to vacancies. If no one files against them though, that is basically what they get and maybe that's what the people want?
11:34–A lot of judges being uncontested is not really "what people want".
The voters simply don't care about judicial races, and often skip most of those races on the ballot whether they are contested or not.
And as far as the attorneys are concerned, it is not that they don't care
and therefore allow some even poorly regarded judges to go uncontested. It is simply a matter that no matter how unpopular certain judges may be, it's difficult to recruit and back a viable candidate who can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, attract major endorsements, etc.
There is often a tremendous benefit to incumbency, even if the incumbents are not that great.
But that could be gradually changing as even a couple solid incumbents got defeated in 2020, to candidates with far les money and name recognition.
Honestly if you are a woman, why wouldn't you throw in against Joe Jr. or Berkley. Fundraising? Doesn't matter as District Court 2,3,4,5,23,24,32 showed last election. If I was a woman who wanted a seat, I would throw in and not worry about fundraising.
Have any of the State wide candidates garnered any opposition. Can't find the filing declarations on the Secretary of State website. Is Tao running for retention. He has an opponent if he does. Has anyone had any luck with the State wide races.
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/2022-election-information
Tao has not yet filed but did draw an opponent from Clark County Public Defenders Office.
Good bye, party identity confused Judge Jerome Tao. Is his opponent taking donations?
Yes. Deborah Westbrook, an excellent appellate attorney
Damn, I thought she was running against Gibbons. Please someone run against judge bonnie bulla.
This comment has been removed by the author.