Gov. Jim Gibbons filed for divorce from his wife of almost 22 years, Dawn, on Friday. He also asked a judge to seal the case files and close the trial, should there be one. On Monday, without holding a hearing or asking for a dissenting opinion, Carson City District Judge Bill Maddox agreed to do so.
Maddox simply followed state law, which says a judge “shall” close the trial and seal most of the court records in a divorce case if one party files a written request.
The law was apparently designed to give people going through the painful process of divorce some privacy, which is certainly understandable. However, the current law’s bias toward closure is wrong and unfair.
In this case, Dawn Gibbons had no chance to offer an argument, and the law does not give her the ability to appeal. She would rather have the case be open to the public, said her attorney, Cal Dunlap.
“The first lady believes in transparency in government and would rather not have this matter sealed,” Dunlap told the Reno Gazette-Journal. “The public is entitled to know the affairs of and the nature of the governor’s activities.”
There is a legitimate public interest in this case, as it could shed light on his performance as governor and his use of government resources.
Given his history of poor judgment and questionable conduct, the governor is undoubtedly happy with Maddox’s ruling. Evidence and testimony presented in the case could detail some of the troubling issues that were raised during his 2006 campaign, which he denied, such as accusations that he assaulted a Las Vegas cocktail waitress in the waning days of the campaign. Or that, as a member of Congress, he took money and a cruise from a wealthy donor in return for help in securing federal contracts.
Last year the state Supreme Court issued a significant ruling calling for transparency in Nevada’s court system. Open courts provide an inherent sense of fairness because anyone can see how and why decisions are made. In the Gibbons case, closing the court puts Dawn Gibbons at a disadvantage. Imagine trying to defend yourself against the state’s top elected leader — behind closed doors where no one can see whether the governor is receiving preferential treatment.
There is a good argument for providing secrecy in Family Court cases. Because of the sensitivity and difficulty of the cases, people should be afforded some privacy protection, but it should not be automatic. The Legislature should change the law to give judges discretion to close portions of a case for good cause — not just because.
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