As an outsider looking in, I see several things coming into play in the matter of Presiding Judge Kathy Hardcastle vs. District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson. Hardcastle fired Halverson as a law clerk. Halverson ran for and was elected a District Court judge, which, the truth be known, Hardcastle was not happy about.
If you were in Halverson's position, how would you like to be elected judge, only to have the presiding judge breathing down your neck? You know, the one who fired you? The press and letters to the editor keep throwing out that Judge Halverson is paranoid.
Before you go that route, keep in mind that everyone, except the judges, answers to the presiding judge and can be fired just as Halverson was. If you serve at the pleasure of the presiding judge, who are you going to back? Halverson is just fighting to do the job that she was elected to do.
It's clear to me that Hardcastle wants Halverson out and seems to be doing a pretty good job of accomplishing this goal. But more important than that, the judges want the Missouri Plan of selecting judges, and then every so often they would appear on the ballot and the voters would vote "yes" or "no" as far as retaining the judge.
The judges would not need to worry about anyone having the audacity to run against them at election time. Beyond that, justices of the Nevada Supreme Court would feel much safer with decisions such as Guinn v. Legislature.
I predict that Halverson will end up being the poster girl to get the voters, like lemmings, to vote for such a system, much to the delight of the judges.
Martin Henderson, Las Vegas
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy