Judiciary
Embattled Las Vegas Judge Loses Bid to Extend Her Term
Posted Jul 10, 2008, 01:06 pm CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Embattled Las Vegas Judge Elizabeth Halverson has lost her claim that a law giving her an initial term of only two years on the bench is unconstitutional.
The Nevada Supreme Court said in a footnote that it ruled on Halverson’s claim even though the judge had filed a complaint against them with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports. The footnote says Halverson did not inform the court of the pending complaint when she appeared before them.
Halverson had claimed that she and three other judges who won elections to newly created positions are entitled to six-year terms under the state constitution.
The legislature had created the judicial seats with initial terms of two years so all judges could run on the same election cycle. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in its July 3 opinion that the action was constitutional under prior precedent. As a result, Halverson and the other judges will have to run for re-election this year.
Halverson has been accused of judicial misconduct that includes mistreating staff and sleeping during trials. She faces an Aug. 4 hearing before the Judicial Discipline Commission, the Las Vegas Sun reports.
Updated at 5:53 p.m. to indicate that Halverson's hearing is set for Aug. 4.
Related Stories
- Courts in Chicago Struggle to Protect Domestic Violence Victims
Oct 10, 2008, 06:03 pm CDT - Conn. Attorney Bribed & Tampered With His Own Client, Jury Finds
Oct 10, 2008, 03:01 pm CDT - Big Brother’s View Expands in UK
Oct 10, 2008, 01:26 pm CDT - We Won’t Evict Unless You Do Your Job, Illinois Sheriff Tells Lenders
Oct 10, 2008, 11:42 am CDT
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by Stephen Gianelli - 3 months, 3 days, 33 minutes ago
Did anyone notice in the liked article (which quotes from the Nevada Supreme Court opinion at FN 38) that Judge Halverson filed an EEOC discrimination complaint AGAINST THE NEVADA SUPREME COURT while the petition she filed to extend her term by 4 years was pending?
“In the Thursday decision, the Supeme Court justices took the unusual step to point out in a footnote that Halverson had filed a complaint against them with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the length of her term. Halverson, according to the court, failed to inform the justices of the complaint when she appeared before them June 13 during oral arguments in the case.
“The court was served with the EEOC complaint on June 23.
“"We nevertheless determine that we have a duty to sit and decide this matter,” stated the court in the decision written by Justice Jim Hardesty.”
Posted by David Wan - 3 months, 3 days, 27 minutes ago
It made no sense for these pack of thieves (The Supreme court) to rule on this issue in the first place. They are the ones who passed the unconstitutional ruling in the first place. How would it be legal or make any sense that they should decide on their own misdeeds. Why did not a single one recuse themselves??
Something is way off with this “SUPREME”??? court. LOL…
Posted by K Alexander - 3 months, 3 days, 19 minutes ago
Halverson would be under NO obligation to inform the Supreme Court that she filed and EEOC complaint against them.
As the last reader posted, it seems HIGHLY unetheical that the people who passed the order would rule on their ruling that is being challenged.
The constitution is very clear. Regardless if you like Halverson or not, the point she raises is 100% right on. The Supreme Court is clearly covering themselves here. There is no way they did not know this would be escalated to higher courts. Afterall, it was clear by their disrespect and disdain for Halverson they were angered that she had the nerve to even call them on their shady dealings. It will be interesting to see if the higher courts agree with the Supreme Courts decesion.
Very interesting indeed.