Friday, July 4, 2008

Halverson Saga Continues

The Nevada Supreme Court denied a petition by Judge Elizabeth Halverson to declare unconstitutional a Nevada law that created two year judgeships. The petition contended that a six-year term was required by the state constitution. If the relief sought had been granted, Judge Halverson's term in the judicial office to which she had been elected would have been extended by four years. The court concluded:

S.B. 195’s creation of judicial offices with initial two-year terms is constitutional.  The constitution allows the Legislature to create new judicial positions with initial terms of fewer than six years in order to place those positions on the same election cycle as district court judge positions generally.  As a result, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition and for declaratory relief.

(Mike Frisch)

Judicial Ethics and the Courts | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Halverson Saga Continues:


Did you catch FN 38 in the opinion?

Halverson filed an EEOC complaint against the Nevada Supreme Court (the day after oral argument but while her petition was pending)!

"We note that on June 6, 2008, Halverson signed a complaint that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received on June 12, 2008. Halverson failed to inform this court of the existence of this complaint during the June 13, 2008, oral argument, at which time this court took this writ petition under submission."

The FN goes on to say that Halverson should not be allowed, through the Complaint, to disquality the Court from deciding the matter, since that would leave the parties without a remedy.

Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | Jul 9, 2008 9:38:08 PM

Halverson should have filed a complaint with the EEOC. It makes no sense nor does it show any integrity within the Nevada Supreme Court that they would rule on their OWN misinterpretation of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court are the legislative group that bypassed the public when they slipped in the 2 year term in order to raise Judges salaires.

Say what you want about Halverson. Make fun of her weight, but fact is, she is right on the money when she filed that claim. The Supreme Court did NOT have the authority to create a two year term. The case the Justices quoted had nothing to do with the claim Halverson was raising. It was there way to try and smoke screen people. However, if you read the case you will see it has nothing to do with them having the authority to make anything other than a 6 year term.

It must really make the justices angry that Halverson has a point.

Oh, and why exactly would Halverson tell them she filed and EEOC complaint? She has no obligation to do so. It's about time someone question the craizness going on in the Nevada Judicary.

They seem to make up things as they go along and clearly think they are above the law and the constitution.

They are NOT. Let's hope someone really looks at this group of unprofessional and unethical Justices. We all know Halverson does not stand a chance at any fairness in any trial that stays in Nevada. They are ALL connected. Federal regulators need to look into this case. The good ole girls and boys in Nevada should not be allowed to sling the law whichever way suits them.

Posted by: k alexander | Jul 10, 2008 11:32:00 PM

Post a comment