Clark County, NV
January 22, 2026
Clark County voters are being asked to make a dangerous mistake.
Attorney Jennifer Isso, now seeking a seat on the Family Court bench (Department P), is a candidate whose professional history includes formal complaints serious enough to be elevated to a Nevada Supreme Court bar discipline matter. This is not conjecture. This is not social-media gossip. This is a documented matter referenced as Case No. 91972 – RE: Discipline of Jennifer Isso.
(Link: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=73865)
That fact alone should stop this campaign in its tracks.
Judicial candidates do not typically arrive at the doorstep of the bench with disciplinary allegations attached to their name—let alone allegations reportedly involving erratic, unprofessional, and egregious conduct toward court professionals and during court proceedings. These are not minor lapses. These are precisely the traits that disqualify someone from wielding judicial power.
This is the type of behavior several Family Court judges themselves reportedly described in sworn affidavits, detailing Jennifer Isso’s conduct during court proceedings. The allegations portray an attorney unable to consistently control her behavior in the courtroom—conduct fundamentally incompatible with the role of a judge. Someone who cannot maintain professionalism as an advocate does not belong on any court bench.
Family Court is one of the most volatile and sensitive environments in the justice system. Judges must exercise extraordinary emotional control, patience, and judgment. When an attorney’s conduct allegedly raises concerns serious enough to prompt formal complaints and Supreme Court involvement, voters are not merely entitled to worry—they are obligated to.
Judges are supposed to be the stabilizing force in the courtroom. They are not supposed to be the source of instability. Elevating someone whose professional conduct has been questioned at this level would be reckless, irresponsible, and deeply damaging to public confidence in the judiciary.
Let’s be very clear:
Confidentiality does not equal exoneration.
Nevada’s discipline system keeps many matters out of public view—even when allegations are severe. The absence of a public reprimand does not erase the existence of complaints, nor does it magically transform concerning behavior into judicial temperament.
And here is the most alarming question voters must confront:
Why is someone facing this level of controversy seeking the authority to judge families, parents, and children?
The bench is not a refuge from accountability. It is not a promotion awarded in spite of red flags. It is a position of immense trust—and that trust must be earned, not demanded.
Clark County’s Family Court is already under intense scrutiny. Public confidence is fragile. Installing a judge whose candidacy is shadowed by serious allegations of misconduct would further erode that trust and invite yet another crisis.
Voters should not “wait for clarification.”
They should not “give the benefit of the doubt.”
They should run—immediately—from this candidacy.
The cost of getting this wrong will not be paid by the candidate.
It will be paid by families, children, and litigants forced to stand before a judge whose fitness was questioned before she ever took the oath.
Do Clark County a favor and withdraw from Department P, Family Division, Jennifer Isso.
If you cannot control yourself as an attorney in court or consistently act professionally, you do not possess the temperament required of a judicial officer.
Clark County cannot afford this risk.
The answer is not hesitation.
The answer is rejection.
(Video reference: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/yohty8VdKMA)
