When you go to vote in Nevada, you expect the system to be fair. You don’t want someone pulling the strings behind the scenes.
That’s why the race for Assembly District 40 in Carson City raises some serious alarms.
Stacy Woodbury is running for the Nevada Assembly from District 40. On the surface, she might look like just another candidate.
But her husband, Jason Woodbury, was appointed in November 2024 by Gov. Joe Lombardo to the First Judicial District Court, Department I in Carson City.
Why is that important?
Because that court is one of only two courts in Carson City that handle statewide election-related lawsuits in Nevada.
If Stacy Woodbury enters the legislature and votes on election laws or rules, and if those laws are later challenged in court, Judge Woodbury could be forced to recuse himself.
That’s no small matter.
Why this isn’t just theoretical
Nevada’s judicial ethics rules are clear. Under the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.11(A) says: “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned…”
Let’s translate: If a judge’s spouse is involved in something that might come up in a case – such as legislation the spouse helped vote for – the judge must step aside to avoid even the appearance of bias.
If elected, Stacy Woodbury could vote on election-law changes.
And if someone then challenges that law in court, Judge Woodbury might have to recuse himself to follow Rule 2.11.
That possibility alone raises questions about fairness and stability in election cases.
The bigger problem: Who ends up hearing the case?
Here’s where things get more worrisome.
If Judge Woodbury steps aside, the case goes to the other judge in Carson City who handles election matters.
But if that judge also has to step aside or is “preempted,” Nevada law allows the state Supreme Court to appoint a substitute judge who was not elected by the voters.
Having an unelected judge decide a contested election lawsuit is a big deal.
Voters in Carson City didn’t pick that judge. Yet that judge could decide a matter that affects how we vote.
That introduces a disconnect between the will of the voters and how the rules are enforced.
For many conservatives who believe in accountability, local control, and electoral legitimacy – this is unacceptable.
We shouldn’t have our election rules challenged and decided by someone who was never chosen by the community.
Why you should care
- Elections are bedrock: If you don’t trust how the rules are written or enforced, then you start to question the outcome. A conflict of interest here doesn’t just affect one case – it affects public confidence in all of it.
- Separation of powers: The legislature writes laws; the courts interpret them. If an Assembly member’s spouse must step aside from election-law litigation, it plugs a legislative actor into the judicial process by default. That blurs the line and risks politicizing the courts.
- Local accountability: Voters elect judges (in many cases) and legislators to serve them. When a judge is appointed instead of elected just to hear major election cases that stem from someone’s spouse voting on the rules – the voters lose a voice.
What the opposition might say
Supporters of Stacy Woodbury might argue that she is simply seeking to serve her community and that these concerns are overblown.
They might also say that the recusal rules provide enough protection to handle any conflicts.
They may believe the appointment of a temporary judge is rare and unlikely to happen.
While that may be true, the fact remains: the possibility is real, and the stakes are high.
Stacy Woodbury’s candidacy for the Assembly may seem harmless at first glance.
But when you factor in that her husband sits on one of the two courts that handle election litigation in Carson City – and the ethical rules that require his recusal if she votes on election laws – the situation becomes a red flag.
For those who care about fair elections, local control, and trust in our courts, this isn’t just background noise. It’s a serious issue.
Before you vote next year, think about more than just the candidate. Think about the downstream effects on how our laws are written and how they are enforced.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
