Nevada;
November 27, 2024
Dear Chief Justice Caddish, Nevada Supreme Court Justices, Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline, Nevada Legislative Counsel, Nevada Governor Joseph Lombardo, Nevada Judicial Selection Commission, Nevada State Bar:
The “rule of law” embodied in the Nevada Constitution has been degraded and serially violated by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Selection (“commission”). The sanctity of the very provisions creating the commission in our state’s charter document has been evaded notoriously for the last 22 years—- in a once secretive manner, but recently boldly and defiantly, in the open and unapologetically. https://nevadacurrent.com/2024/09/17/attorney-challenges-newly-appointed-district-court-judge-questions-appointment-process/ This legal sacrilege must end.
The spurned Constitutional provision.
The mechanism to choose a replacement judge finds its hierarchy in our state constitution under ARTICLE. 6. – Judicial Department, Section 20(1): “…..the Governor shall appoint a….. judge from among three nominees selected for such individual vacancy by the Commission on Judicial Selection.” The constitutional language admits no ambiguity; however, a 2024 event of evasion brought to light a pattern and practice of lawlessness by this constitutional body in need of reproval and censure.
The 2024 event of evasion.
A vacancy in Department 14 of the Eighth Judicial District Court arose because of the April 2024 resignation of District Judge Adrianna Escobar. The commission hurriedly advertised the opening upon the governor’s declaration of a vacancy on April 17, 2024. On May 14, 2024, the commission chairperson announced only one (1) applicant for the position, Tina Talim, f/k/a Priyanka Singh Talim, the sole nominee to the state’s most populous judicial district court.
As if the courthouse was burning, the commission met on May 17, 2024, and decided over the “no votes” of the Commission Chair and a public member to forward the name of the sole applicant to the governor.
https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/45320/2024_May_17_Approved_Meeting_Summary.pdf
“Com’r Lopez Negrete stated that the Governor should be able to select from more than one applicant since previous processes have re-opened the application period and are in favor of reopening the vacancy for the sake of the process.” [ She had not been tipped off before the meeting.] Public Commissioner Lopez Negrete’s preference for reopening was consistent with the commission’s pattern, which was repeated often and then recently in filling the January 2024 vacancy in Department 27 of the same judicial district.
https://nvcourts.gov/aoc/committees_and_commissions/judicial_selection/news/commission_on_judicial_selection_extends_application_deadline2
The May 2024 minutes reveal one commissioner and vice-chair tag team strategy to volley the sole applicant’s name over the net to the governor. The deception was a “rule” of a recent invention, 10B.
Indeed, knowing better what the Constitution required: “Chair Cadish provided clarification of Rule 10. B allows one applicant’s name to be sent to the Governor.”
Not to be deterred by the voice and “no vote” of the chair (the administrative head of the entire state judiciary), the commission pressed forward with its blatant constitutional violation of the rule of three (3), hanging its robes on this “rule:”
“Rule 10B. The Commission may proceed as follows where three or fewer qualified applicants apply for a vacancy: 1. Refer all the names to the Governor for consideration without taking a vote on the merits of the applicants; 2** 3** https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/41632/NCJS_Rules_July_19_2023.pdf
The history of the rule.
Before 2023, the commission was legislatively authorized to make “regulations.” A 2023 statutory revision by the Nevada Legislature allowed the commission to adopt rules rather than mere regulations (occupying a lower rung on the ladder of authority).
NRS 1.400 Rules. The Commission on Judicial Selection may adopt rules for the Commission’s operation and maintain the confidentiality of its proceedings and records.
(Added to NRS by 1977, 410; A 2023, 2599)
Senate Bill 63.
Without waiting for the governor’s signature to dry on the Senate Bill’s 63 roadmap to evade the constitution, long-time commission member Jeffery Gilbert and Vice Chair Kamer set about drafting the covert workaround, as documented within: https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/45362/2023_07.19_Approved_Meeting_Summary.pdf
Transparency is not a hallmark of the commission. As the meeting minutes observed:
“Vice-Chair Kamer stated that he preferred ambiguity in the rules because it allows Com’rs to follow the rules and to make needed changes in the future as the situation arises. ”
After a tag team motion by Gilbert and a second by the vice chair, the deed was done, and the constitution was abrogated by rule 10B:
“B. The Commission may proceed as follows where three or fewer qualified applicants apply for a vacancy:
i. Refer all the names to the Governor for consideration without taking a vote on the merits of the applicants;
ii. Amend the original nomination process timeline to solicit additional applicants to have three or more applicants or
iii. By a two-thirds vote of the Commission, disqualify all applicants and begin the application and selection process anew.
This rule cannot be squared with the Nevada Constitution:
Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution:
Sec. 20. Filling vacancies occurring before the expiration of term of office in the Supreme Court or court of appeals or among district judges; Commission on Judicial Selection.
1. When a vacancy occurs before the expiration of any term of office in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or among the district judges, the Governor shall appoint a justice or judge from among three nominees selected for such individual vacancy by the Commission on Judicial Selection.
Usually, rules exist to govern behaviors, facilitate smooth operations, and uphold social order. This commission rule (RULE 10B) has been employed to hijack the constitution’s specific strictures.
Without the apparent cover of a rule, the commission has long acted in blatant contravention of the Constitution.
Upon challenge, the commission staff divulged the names of the gallery of constitutionally fugitive judicial appointments that violated our charted law, requiring the commission to identify, vet, and forward three nominees to the chief executive. The names of the judicial aspirants are not listed here but are known by the commission staff and are readily available to the readers. The dates of the violative nominations are:
2002
2010 twice
2012
2018
2022
2024
Path to rectification of this pattern of law-breaking.
The commission, as created, was placed under the auspices of Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution, styled as the “Judicial Department.”
The chair of this rogue body is the then-serving chief justice of the Nevada Supreme Court. Article 6, Section, Sec. 19 of the Nevada Constitution designates the chief justice as the administrative head of the court system.
Rule 7 (4) of the Nevada Supreme Court Rules recognizes that the administrative head of the Nevada Court System is the Court’s chief justice:
4. The Chief Justice is the administrative head of the Nevada Court System, who must act by court rules and all norms of collegial conduct heretofore expressly or implicitly recognized by the historical practices of the Court and be bound by any decision or order that a majority of the Court may enter. Unless he is absent from the Court, disqualified, mentally, emotionally, or physically disabled, or otherwise unavailable, the Chief Justice, as the administrative head of the Nevada Court System, has authority to perform administrative activities not inconsistent with this and other Court rules or any recognized norm, or any decision or order of the majority. Whenever the Chief Justice is absent from the Court, disqualified, disabled, or otherwise unavailable, the Vice Chief Justice may and shall act as Chief Justice in all respects.
A priōrī, the chief justice may unilaterally and/or upon consultation with the entire supreme court membership, revoke the offending rule, declare it extra-constitutional, null and void, and of no effect in future operations of the Nevada Commission On Judicial Selection.
Closing
As a concerned citizen, I ask this honorable body to strike this rule and demand the commission adhere to the strictures of our Nevada Constitution.
Investigation into Nevada Judicial Selection Commission!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkWyLv-UNkY&t=1s
