Nevada Supreme Court denies latest Halverson petition
Late this afternoon, the Nevada Supreme Court issued its sixth opinion of the day: Halverson v. Miller. The Court denies Judge Halverson's petition for a writ of mandamus which challenged her two-year term of office under Senate Bill 195. She had argued that the Legislature exceeded its authority by providing for a term of office of less than six years.
"We conclude that the senate bill does not violate the constitution because the constitution provides the Legislature with the ability to create new judicial positions for less than six-year initial terms in order to place judicial positions on the same election cycle. Long-standing precedent from this court has settled the constitutionality of statutes creating judicial positions with shortened initial terms to preserve a uniform general election cycle. Further, that precedent rejects any right by the judge selected for the shortened initial term to later claim entitlement to a full six-year term. As the two-year term in this senate bill was part of an ongoing effort by the Legislature to place judicial positions on identical election cycles, it is constitutional. We therefore deny the petition."
In a footnote the Court notes that on June 6, 2008, Judge Halverson filed a complaint against the Court with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She did not inform the Court of the complaint prior to the June 13, 2008 oral argument. The Court finds that the "rule of necessity" requires that it sit on this case, even if disqualification might otherwise be warranted.