- Quickdraw McLaw
- 11 Comments
- 407 Views
- Here’s your obligatory election year story on the DA and other lawyers contributing to judicial campaigns. [I-Team]
- After the evidentiary hearing yesterday, all eyes are on Carson City Judge James Wilson to issue a decision on Trump campaign suit over ballot processing. [TNI]
- Hugh Jackson opines that Nevada is actually good at elections. [Nevada Current]
At first I thought "Hugh Jackman? Wolverine? Why is he a political commenter now?" Then I thought "Hue Jackson? The former NFL coach? Why is he a political commenter now?"
I clearly need more caffeine today.
Bar results released today.
Congratulations to all who pass the bar!
To those who don't, keep your head up. It's a hurdle, it's a grind, and there are many who have taken it more than once. Take a deep breath, have a cry or two or seven (speaking from experience) and knock it out of the park in Feb.
This exam was a gimme. Be highly embarrassed if you fail this one.
And the passage rate is 100 percent with an openk book. Real hard. Thank you says the public for dumbing down the bar.
Open
64% seems low.
Passage rate was 64%
The SCNV pre-sets the passage rate, or at least I have been told they used to. In theory, they all could be perfect exams, and 36% would still fail.
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.
O'Conner had it right: judicial elections suck, but if you are going to have elections, the normal aspects of elections are going to be there and they are protected by the first amendment. Definitely terrible, but its the system the voters want. So here we are.