NV COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE, A SUPER SECRET RUBBER STAMP?

April 19, 2017

Less than a week ago, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Ramsey v. City of N. Las Vegas, that elected Judges are not subject to being recalled as spelled out in the State Constitution. The majority for the Court said, in their ruling, when the voters and State Legislature voted to create the Nevada State Commission on Judicial Discipline that superseded or wiped out the voters’ right to recall elected Judges. 

The following NV Supreme Court Justices affirmed that decision:

Justice James W. Hardesty

Justice Michael A. Cherry

Justice Mark Gibbons

Justice Ron D. Parraguirre

So the Court’s ruling has shined a light on the Nevada State Commission on Judicial Discipline and frankly it appears, from a lay person looking in, like a good old boy rubber stamp system. The Nevada State Commission on Judicial Discipline is responsible for regulating some 597 judges throughout Nevada. The Commission make up consists of Judges appointed by the Nevada Supreme Court, lawyers appointed by the State Bar and lay people appointed by the Governor. The Commission is not subject to the open meeting rules and complaints filed by the public against a sitting Judge are not available to the public to review unless the Commission, in secret meetings, decides to bring charges against a sitting Judge.

With over 561 complaints filed against sitting Judges over the past three years, the Commission only publicly reprimanded 2 Judges in 2014, ZERO actions taken against Judges in 2015 and 1 Judge, (Judge Ramsey) barred from running for reelection in 2016.

According to the Commission’s 2014 report, they received 183 complaints against sitting Judges resulting in 2 Judges publicly reprimand, 2 publicly censured, 1 suspension and ZERO removals.

In 2015, the Commission received 209 complaints, resulting in ZERO public reprimands, ZERO public censures, ZERO removals and ZERO suspensions. According to the report, the Commission only investigated 17 complaints, which all were dismissed with no action taken.

In 2016, the Commission received 169 complaints, resulting in ZERO public reprimands, ZERO public censures and 1 Judge barred from holding office (Judge Ramsey, the Judge who was the subject of the recall effort leading to the Court Decision). According to the report, the Commission only investigated 12 of the complaints filed in 2016.

Year                  Number of Complaints Filed                   Number of Judges Disciplined

2014                      183                                                                           3

2015                      209                                                                           0

2016                      169                                                                           1

360Daily.net spoke with Paul Deyle, the Executive Director and General Council of the Nevada State Commission on Judicial Discipline regarding the numbers and issues raised in this story.

Deyhle said “Many of the complaints file with us are centered on Judges’ decisions and not a violation of the ethics or the canons, which falls outside our jurisdiction. If you don’t like a Judge’s decision, then appeal it.” Deyhle went on to say he understands the concern many people have regarding the fact that complaints filed with the commission are not made public and investigations are not made public unless they find a violation, but “most commissions in the country are governed under similar rules as part of a public policy not to publish potentially false and defamatory complaints against sitting Judges.”  “We are governed by the NRS and so the State Legislature has oversight.”

One of the issues the commission does investigate are ethics violations. According to Deyhle, they investigate if a Judge should have recused himself or herself when there was a clear conflict of interest in a case before them. Judges cannot rule on a case in which they may benefit directly or indirectly. Which raises the question regarding the Ramsey v. North Las Vegas case, should the Justices have recused themselves on an issue that they directly benefitted from by granting themselves powers no other elected officials in the state have?  Deyhle responded saying “The case was appealed and the Justices had to make a decision. This case is a very unique situation obviously.”

Rob Lauer

Political Reporter

360Daily.net