Judicial election primary guide

Hey, somebody had to do it! Fortunately, the somebody is not me.

Harmful Error is taking on the task of providing a seat-by-seat guide to the contested judicial elections.

Today’s race report is for Clark County District Court, Department 10.

First up was a look at the primary race for the Nevada Supreme Court Seat B

As you might expect, Harmful Error, a blog focused on criminal law, reports on the candidates' attitude toward criminal justice,  to the extent possible, such as mentioning endorsements by police associations,  work on indigent representation projects, or the sort of "tough on crime" platituudes often associated with politicians.

But how, I wonder,  might one go about determining a candidate's attitudes toward civil litigation?  (Other than looking at who donated to the campaigns, of couse).

Nevada Supreme Court hears term limits arguments; severs legislator case from others

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard the term limits arguments yesterday.  

Today, the court ordered the three cases it had previously consolidated deconsolidated. See Order Deconsolidating Docket No. 51802 from Docket Nos. 51768 and 51798Child v. Lomax – the case attacking Barbara Buckley’s candidacy, has been severed from Sisolak v. Lomax, the attack on Woodbury’s candidacy, and Miller v. Burk the AG’s case attacking various candidacies.

This could indicate a different outcome for the legislators who served in 1996 than for other "public officials."

Meanwhile, here are some of the news reports on yesterday's arguments.

The R-J -  Term Limits Case: Challenge Gets Rash Of Queries

The Nevada Appeal: Nevada term limits: court deliberates, candidates wait.

If you’d like to judge the tenor of the justices’ questions yourself, click here  to listen to or download the audio files.

Court to Webcast Term Limit Arguments

The Supreme Court \will webcast  Monday's term limit cases arguments.  The docket is below.  Click onthe case names for briefs.

Monday, July 14, 2008

10:00 AM Docket:

Miller v. Burk (51768)

Sisolak v. Lomax (51798)

Child v. Lomax (51802)

1:30 PM Docket:

Plimpton v. State (51944)

Live broadcast, webcast for election issue cases

Meanwhile, our own Nevada Supreme Court continues efforts to increase public access to high profile matters  by making  arguments concerning the election issues available to the public by webcast.   See the Court’s press release: Nevada Supreme Court Ballot Hearing, Arguments to be Webcast for the First Time. The live broadcast will also be shown on Las Vegas One, channel 19 in Las Vegas.

Here’s the schedule:

WHAT: Nevada Supreme Court public arguments and hearing on ballot issues
WHEN: Friday, June 13, 2008.
10:00 – Independent American Party v. Ross Miller
10:30 – Halverson v. Ross Miller
11:00 – State of Nevada, Masto v. Michael Montero
1:30 – Term limits, ballot issues case management hearing
WHERE: Nevada Supreme Court, 17th Floor Regional Justice Center, 200 Lewis Ave., Las Vegas
VIEWING: Live Internet broadcast via Supreme Court website:.
Las Vegas One television, Channel 19

Judge Kozinski's website stalls trial

Okay, just how ironic is it when the judge in an obscenity trial is discovered to have a website CJ Alex Kozinskicontaining, according to the LA Times, sexually explicit photos and videos? I write fiction, but if I had written this, I’d have been told it was too implausible.  

Yet this is exactly what happened in the trial of adult-film maker  Ira Isaacs, being prosecuted by the feds who say his films are criminally obscene.  The trial has been stayed for 48 hours due to the discovery that the presiding judge – who is none other than Alex Kozinski, CJ of the Ninth Circuit, had some questionable material on his website. The site is no longer available to public view, but the pictures supposed included such things “a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.”  

And I thought this sort of thing only happened in Nevada. 

See the LA Time story here.

 I wish I had some sort of meter to measure the relative level of amazement produced from a story like this compared to something like - oh, I don't know,  a governor engaging in hundreds of text messages with a woman he insists is not his lover.

 

A candid request

Most lawyers have asked for an extension or continuance at some point, if not many points, in their legal careers.  Legitimate reasons for the request abound. 

But few such requests are quite so blunt in their honesty as a request to reschedule oral argument filed in a bankruptcy court in the Sixth Circuit. That request stated:

Comes now the Appellant, by counsel, and moves the Court to reschedule the Oral Argument currently scheduled for August 1, 2007. The grounds for this motion are that undersigned counsel will be out of town in Oregon, on a 350-mile bicycle trip from July 30 through August 4, 2007, for no other reason than to please his wife. Counsel assures this panel that Oral Argument would be more enjoyable than the aforementioned bike trip.

No word on whether the request was granted.  

Not that I am suspicious or anything, but speaking as a wife, I kind of wonder whether counsel was hoping it would be denied.  “But honey, I can’t help it. I asked, but the Court just won’t let me move the date of the argument....”

Hat Tip to The New Legal Writer and Legal Antics

D.C. Circuit gives Blue Man Group the Blues

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit denied Blue Man Vegas LLC’s challenge to an adverse NLRB decision certifying the election of a union by stagehands.  Using Venn diagrams, the Court explained why the Board’s proposed bargaining unit that excluded musicians technicians  was fair.  

The Court also declined “to take judicial notice of several artistic reviews of the Blue Man Group show that aptly describe the unique and highly unusual experience of attending a Blue Man Group performance."  

See the opinion here.

Updates on the terms limits challenges

More cases have been included in those unprecedented logistical hearings scheduled for June 13.  See post discussing hearing here.

The recently filed petitions for writ, Child v. Lomax  and Sisolak v. Lomax, challenged the candidacies of Barbara Buckley and Bruce Woodbury, respectively, are now also on the Court’s docket.

And, the legislature has moved to intervene in Miller v. Burk, the term limits challenge filed by the AG.

All of the briefing for these and other high profile cases are posted on the Supreme Court's website.

Senior judges rule amended

The Nevada Supreme Court has amended Supreme Court Rule 10, relating to senior judges. See the amended rule here. For the most part, the amendments appear to be clarifications of existing language. One change is that senior judges may not be employed as arbitrators or mediators with companies affiliated with private law firms. The amended rule takes effect June 26, 2008. 

Dislike of lawyers goes way back

Or maybe it was just annoying attorney ads that riled people up.

Yesterday, the Nevada Appeal quoted a letter the Morning Appeal had received in 1878 from Elmira Louisa Pepsey. In subscribing to the paper, Miss Pepsey wrote:

We have noticed one pleasing peculiarity of your instructive and purifying paper: It is free from all such horrid things as lawyers advertisements! Ma, who has a great dislike for lawyers, says your paper is a precious blessing on this account.

Of course, distrust of lawyers existed as far back as Shakespeare’s time, as the oft quoted passage from Henry VI, Pt. 2 “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” But hey – those words were spoken by supporters of the villains!  

But it does make me wonder what sorts of advertisements might lawyers have had back in Shakespeare’s time. 

Hat tip to Wild, Wild law.