The story, about contributions to judicial races, presents itself as being somewhat ground-breaking and controversial in its supposed reveal that lawyers who contribute to the Supreme Court race, as well as the District Court races, are likely to have future business before such courts.

Granted, such a dynamic raises some disturbing questions and concerns, and always has.

But obviously, this is nothing new and is in fact as old as the hills as we have been having contested judicial races in Nevada for many decades, if not all the way back to us obtaining statehood.

So, although they choose to present this as some real hot newsworthy investigation piece, it is anything but.

It has always been this way and always will be, unless we change the Nevada Constitution to eliminate judicial elections(a proposal which has failed before the voters on several occasions).

Voters wish to retain the right to elect judges even though they know nothing of these races, don't wish to learn anything about these races, and seem quite annoyed by all the judicial election signs and ads.

So, this whole concept of how unsavory it is for attorneys to give money to judges they will appear before, is something the public and media(as well as some in the legal community) complain about, but no one does anything constructive about it.

If we can't eliminate contested judicial elections(which we can't and won't based on the failure of ballot questions designed to do exactly that) is reform of a more limited basis of some value–such as if a judge receives a contribution exceeding a certain amount that he/she must disclose such matter on the record. Then opposing counsel can either waive such potential conflict, or argue for a recusal if they wish.