• About Us
  • Activity
  • Advertising
  • Books
  • Business
  • Contact
  • Dashboard
  • EB5
  • Entertainment
  • feedback
  • Forgot Your Password?
  • Government
  • Home
  • Interviews
  • Login
  • Members
  • Meme generator
  • National
  • Nevada
  • Nevada News and Views
  • Newsmax
  • NN&V Ads
  • Opinion
  • Pick a New Password
  • Politics
  • Polls
  • Privacy Policy
  • Profile
  • Recent comments by me
  • Recent comments on my posts
  • Register
  • Submit post
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Confirmation
  • Survey
  • Survey
  • Terms of Service
  • Today’s Top 10
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Travel
  • Welcome!
  • Yop Poll Archive
Nevada News and Views
  • About Us
  • Contact
  • More
    • Nevada
    • Opinion
    • Business
    • Travel
    • News
    • Sports
  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Pinterest

  • RSS

Government

Judging the Judges: Newspaper Swings for the Benches One More Time

Judging the Judges: Newspaper Swings for the Benches One More Time
Chuck Muth
January 1, 2012

(Thomas Mitchell/4thst8.wordpress.com/) I’m glad to see the Review-Journal continued the biennial judicial survey, even though the paper apparently is so understaffed (or underexpertised) they had to contract with a reporter/editor they let go this past year in order to pull it off.

But A.D. Hopkins, who has been the ramrod for probably a majority of these survey projects since the paper began them in 1992, did his usual thorough and fair job with the capable assistance of several other reporters and the Cannon Survey Center at UNLV and Downey Research Associates. (A.D. and his entire special projects team was let go by the new management in 2011.)

A.D. Hopkins

The publication of the Judging the Judges results was moved earlier in the year — the paper used to publish close to May 1, Law Day, in each even-numbered election year, but the judges moved up the election filing date to January. It made sense to let voters and potential candidates know prior to filing which judges were deemed the best and worst by the attorneys who appear before them.

It is fairly uncommon for newspapers to be the driving force behind judicial evaluations, I first started doing such evaluations in the 1980s in Shreveport, La., for the afternoon Shreveport Journal, long since shuttered. We did the surveys in 1980 and 1984. The first time the Bar Association wanted nothing to do with us, but they warmed to the idea in 1984 and provided a list of members and encouraged participation.

The history in Las Vegas has been similar. The paper started out with cooperation of the local Bar but that has waxed and waned over the years with the perception of how well or how fairly the various projects were conducted. (A.D. wasn’t saddled with every one of them.)

As A.D. points out, the state initiated a pilot evaluation project to test evaluating judges by lawyers and other parties, including jurors and parties to civil suits. It was part of ballot Question 1, which would have replaced the current wide-open judicial elections with so-called merit selection and retention elections. The voters rejected the change and the evaluation idea has been in limbo since. The Review-Journal editorially opposed Question 1 and I voiced concerns in my column.

One of the big criticisms of the survey is that so few attorneys participate, only 19 percent this year. But a large number of attorneys are engaged in practices that involve contracts, wills and other paperwork that never require them to appear in court. The survey asks that attorneys only evaluate judges before whom they have appeared. Besides, the turnout in the 2010 municipal elections was only 19 percent and that was deemed valid.

The judicial evaluation is an important public service and an expensive one. Glad to see it was considered worth the expense for at least one more year. I will certainly consult its results when I go to vote, and so should you.

Even though some of the results will not appear in print until Monday, the entire project is online now.

(Mitchell is the former editor of the Review-Journal.)

Take today’s poll: Should the Legislative Commission pass regulations that SOS Miller could not get passed during the Legislative Session?

 

Prev postNext post

Related Itemsa.d. hopkinsattorneysbiennialjudgesjudging the judgesReview-Journalspecial projects
Government
January 1, 2012
Chuck Muth

Related Itemsa.d. hopkinsattorneysbiennialjudgesjudging the judgesReview-Journalspecial projects

More in Government

Amodei Statement on Debt Ceiling Bill

Chuck MuthJune 1, 2023
Read More

Stone: The Truth About AB 250: Will Patients Really Benefit?

NN&V StaffMay 26, 2023
Read More

Amodei vs. Biden: Debunking Misinformation on Debt and Border Policies

NN&V StaffMay 23, 2023
Read More

Quarter-Million Dollar Ad Campaign Targets Nevada Legislators for Trapping Hispanic Families in Unsafe Schools

NN&V StaffMay 22, 2023
Read More

Lombardo’s Veto Message on AB354 (Gun Control)

NN&V StaffMay 17, 2023
Read More

Lombardo’s Veto Message on AB355 (Gun Control)

NN&V StaffMay 17, 2023
Read More
Scroll for more
Tap

Subscribe Free By Email

Looking for the best in breaking news and conservative views? Let Chuck do all the work for you! Subscribe to his FREE "Muth's Truths" e-newsletter.

* indicates required
Nevada News and Views
Nevada News & Views is an educational project of Citizen Outreach Foundation, a non-partisan IRS-approved 501(c)(3) organization. It is not associated or affiliated with any political party or group. Nevada News & Views is accessible by the public at no cost. It funds its operations through tax-deductible contributions from donors and supporters and does not accept government money or grants.

TAGS

Featured Article Nevada Politics business Muth's Truths government Muth’s Truths Opinion Government Obama Ron Knecht News Donald Trump GOP Republicans

Copyright © 2023 Citizen Outreach | Maintained by VirtualAlly

To Congress For Spending Our Grandchildren Into Perpetual Indebtedness: The Franklin Solution
Incline Village/Crystal Bay Residents Hold Their Future In Their Hands