CARSON CITY, NEV. — The Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday indicated that it was prepared to take substantive steps toward reforming the state's judiciary, which has been plagued by allegations of cronyism, blatant conflicts of interest and judges who hand down money awards to friends and business associates.
The justices made no final decisions and reserved the right to refer the measures to study groups or quash them altogether. However, they indicated their general approval of the measures proposed by Chief Justice Robert E. Rose.
However, a key proposal appeared to be foundering. Justices signaled that they considered a proposal to prohibit judges from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions a violation of constitutional rights, though they agreed to take the proposal "under advisement" with the others.
"I saw reluctance," said Daniel F. Polsenberg, one of the state's top appellate lawyers, who argued in favor of the proposal. "Some of the justices clearly think this would be unconstitutional."
The reform measures come after a Los Angeles Times investigation revealed problems in the Nevada judiciary, including the perception among attorneys that donating money to certain judges' campaigns could earn them "juice" in the courtroom. Judges have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from attorneys and corporations with cases pending before them.
The measures that appeared to have support among the justices included:
* A proposal to allow parties in some civil court cases to seek the removal of "senior judges."
Nevada's senior judges are typically retired but are called upon to help with a busy court docket. Senior judges were singled out in the Times investigation as particularly problematic because they are not accountable to voters and are exempt from some common rules of judicial practice. One senior judge cited in the investigation presided over at least 16 cases involving participants in his real estate deals.
Under current rules, senior judges cannot be removed from a case even if there are serious concerns about bias. Under Rose's proposal, those judges would be subject to peremptory challenge when assigned to a case with at least two weeks' notice.
* A requirement that judges disclose when a former law clerk appears before them.
"Most judges in Nevada do not think this is a disqualifying factor," Rose said. "However, we have received some criticism in this area."
