Author: Rebecca Gill

Posted on

#14: Federalism and Same-Sex Marriage

Equality Bacon

Read for 10/21/2015

You might remember a while back when many of your facebook friends changed their profile pictures to red equals signs. This was the round before everyone rainbowized their profile pics. This was about the time that the Court was preparing to hand down its decision in U.S. v. Windsor (2013). Read the excerpt I’ve posted in the content section on WebCampus. How is it that what seems like a 14th Amendment equality issue could morph into a federalism question? Read this insightful SCOTUSblog post that helps to show how the question came to be framed in these terms.

Of course, it has also become very trendy for conservative politicians to abandon the position that “marriage should legally be between one man and one woman” and move to a position that calls for each state to make that determination for itself. One recent example of this is Rep. Joe Heck, who recently made an interesting argument on KNPR’s “State of Nevada.” First, he averred that he still believes (“personally”) that marriage is between a man and a woman. He went on to say that there should be no federal role in defining marriage as anything other than that, although he thought the states should be able to decide for themselves. Interestingly, he also thought that the process currently taking place in the federal courts, whereby these institutions are now regularly striking down state-level bans on same sex marriage, were an appropriate part of the process of determining the legality of same sex marriage. As we all know, of course, the federal courts are part of the federal government. Heck did not elaborate on what he thought of the role of the federal courts in using the federal constitution to invalidate state same sex marriage bans.

For the Alabama Supreme Court, however, this debate is far from over. A federal judge overturned Alabama‘s 2006 ban on same sex marriage. Even though the US Supreme Court refused to issue a stay of the same sex marriages in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on the case, the Alabama Supreme Court has taken the matter into its own hands. This Washington Post article gives some of the early details. The Alabama Supreme Court issued a bewildering per curiam opinion, which can be found here. In it, they seem to suggest a number of contradictory reasons for refusing to abide by the federal court’s order. Among these reasons is simply that the Supreme Court’s decision in Windsor was wrong, so the Alabama Supreme Court is not bound by it.

In the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), you’d think that Alabama would have fallen in line. But you’d be wrong. Indeed, a request to disregard Obergefell is currently pending in front of the Alabama Supreme Court. Read this for an update. In any event, the Obergefell decision has essentially settled the primary question of marriage equality (setting aside the major issue of First Amendment rights). However, the implications of Windsor’s lesser-known companion case Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) might be construed as having more important implications for federalism than Obergefell did.

Paper Topic #14: Outside of the same sex marriage context, what impact does Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013) have on state sovereignty  and federalism aside from those related to marriage equality?

Suggested Reading: Young, E.A. and Blondel, E.C. 2012. “Federalism, Liberty, and Equality in United States v. Windsor.” Cato Supreme Court Review 2012-2013:117-147.

Palmer, S. 2015. No Legs to Stand On: Article III Injury and Official Proponents of State Voter Initiatives. UCLA L. Rev., 62, 1055.

Related articles
Posted on

UNLV Research Files

Here’s Dr. Gill on unlvTV’s Research Files (9/25/2015). In her segment, she talks about her NSF-sponsored research on judicial performance evaluation as well as gender equity on UNLV’s campus.

 

Posted on

#0: Welcome to PSC 330

D69898_11Congratulations! You’ve found your way to the PSC 330 blog. Here, I’ll be posting short articles that help to link the content of the course to what’s going on in the world. I’ll let you know on Twitter when a new post is up by tweeting with the hashtag #PSC330. This feed will also include links to additional news items or opinion pieces that are relevant to our course. If you’re not on Twitter, you can check the WebCampus Twitter widget or look on my website: rebeccagill.net. Just click on the “330” link on the menu bar.

Many of these blog posts will pose a question about the the breadth, limits, and interaction of government powers. You will choose from among these questions the topic for each of your three short papers in the course. Really, though, you’ll probably need to narrow the question a bit and form it into an appropriate argument that you can defend in your short papers. There’s much more information about this on our WebCampus page in the “Short Papers” folder.

The material on the blog is required, just as is the material in the book. You need to read the appropriate book section and the blog before you come to class. Each blog post will include the date by which I expect you to read it. I will be posting the blogs several class periods ahead so that you have the information you need to get started on your papers. I’ll post these a bit in advance, but not too far ahead; I want to make sure I have the chance to update these with any new cases or content that is relevant to the discussion.

The blog content will feature prominently in most of our classroom discussions, and it is fair game for both the in-class clicker questions and the exams. Remember, if I preface a link by saying “read this,” then the material on the linked page is required, too. Enjoy! 

-RG

Posted on

New Paper: New: Chivalry, Masculinity, and the Importance of Maleness to Judicial Decision Making

Social science research on gender in the legal system has largely focused on the woman as the “other.” This research has looked for ways in which women judge or are judged differently from the norm. The results of this line of research have been mixed. Male-centered theories of masculinity and chivalry provide promising tools to help researchers understand the contribution that maleness has on outcomes in the legal system. Immigration appeals provide an ideal test of these theories, which predict that male judges will be harder on male immigrants and easier on female litigants than will female judges. In this paper, we implement a research design that takes seriously both female-centric and male-centric explanations of decision outcomes. Using an original database of immigration appeals in the U.S. Courts of Appeal, we find evidence to support the research of maleness on its own terms. We find that elements of chivalry and masculinity theory both operate to frame the decisions made …

via SSRN Author: Rebecca D Gill http://bit.ly/1dyedPF

Posted on

#11: Independent Watchdogs

Read for 10/12/2015.

In the arena of domestic affairs, there has been a lot of separation-of-powers debate surrounding the attempts of Congress to reform the financial system. In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2009), the Court struck down an arrangement in Title I of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Here’s a quick summary of the act from the SEC’s website:

“On July 30, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which he characterized as “the most far reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” The Act mandated a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud, and created the “Public Company Accounting Oversight Board,” also known as the PCAOB, to oversee the activities of the auditing profession.”

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Act violated the separation of powers doctrine. This is because it gave broad powers to the PCAOB (an entity of the executive branch) while simultaneously keeping the President from appointing or removing the members of the PCAOB. Read this CS Monitor article decribing the separation of powers issue in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB.

As a 2012 article in Compliance Week explains, the most recent attempt at financial sector regulation, known as “Dodd-Frank”, is facing a similar legal challenge. The suit’s main points are that the CFPB was established with too much independence—that Congress cannot set the CFPB budget (its funding is determined as a total portion of the Federal Reserve’s budget); that the president cannot remove the CFPB director except in special circumstances; and that the courts must give CFPB decisions extra deference.

“As a whole, Dodd-Frank aggregates the power of all three branches of government in one unelected, unsupervised and unaccountable bureaucrat,” said former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, attorney for the plaintiffs and founder of Boyden Gray & Associates.

“Dodd-Frank is to financial reform like a tsunami is to a slightly dry lawn—all-enveloping, hugely destructive, and pretty much unaccountable to whoever unleashed it,” said Sam Kazman, CEI’s general counsel. (The rest of the article is here.)

Part of the problem with Dodd-Frank, according to its critics, is that it violates the nondelegation doctrine in much the same way that Sarbanes-Oxley did. Read this short analysis by Professor Bainbridge.

Indeed, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Dodd-Frank on separation of powers grounds is in the works. As one conservative analysis explains,

“The challenge to Dodd-Frank is … serious. As former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray and his co-author, Adam White, wrote in a recent Weekly Standard cover story: “Dodd-Frank is a gift to big banks,” and “Even if we take President Obama, Sen. Dodd, Rep. Frank, and the rest of Dodd-Frank’s supporters at face value when they protest that they actually intended to rein in Wall Street banks, the laws they passed accomplish the opposite result. Intentional or not, a kiss is still a kiss.”

“Dodd-Frank’s kiss is intensified by an unconstitutional regulatory structure. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau grants its director czar-like power, combining the authority with little legislative, executive or judicial oversight. Similarly, Dodd-Frank’s Orderly Liquidation Authority authorizes unaccountable corporate death panels, which are unrestrained by meaningful judicial scrutiny, while the Financial Stability Oversight Council has unchecked power to define “too big to fail.” In each instance, Dodd-Frank ignores our Constitution’s mandate for separation of power into three branches of government, housing it instead in one unaccountable agency.” (The rest of the article is here.)

The decision to keep the new agencies independent from the Fed and other executive agencies accountable to the President was a conscious one. As this HuffPo article explains:

“Specifically, Dodd’s bill takes away the Fed’s regulatory power in some key areas. “I really want the Federal Reserve to get back to its core enterprises,” Dodd said. “We saw over the last number of years when they took on consumer protection responsibilities and the regulation of bank holding companies, it was an abysmal failure. So the idea that we’re going to go back and expand those roles and functions at the expense of the vitality of the core functions that they’re designed to perform is going in the wrong way.” …

“Dodd said that despite removing a fair amount of regulatory authority from the Federal Reserve, the bill shouldn’t be seen as a criticism of Chairman Ben Bernanke himself. “This is not about ego,” he said. “It’s about putting together an architecture that works.” …

“Dodd’s bill protects the independence of financial accounting standards …”

Topic #11: Given what we know about the Supreme Court’s separation of powers and nondelegation jurisprudence, will these independent agency provisions from Dodd-Frank survive judicial review? Is it even possible for the Congress to develop a mechanism for creating truly independent watchdog groups?

Suggested Reading:

Posted on

#12: Separation of Powers in Foreign Policy

Read for 10/14

The Supreme Court’s decision in MBZ v. Clinton (2012) is an example of a three-way separation of powers battle. Amanda Frost over at SCOTUSblog summarizes the debate this way:

“Federal law requires the Secretary of State to record the birthplace of an individual born in Jerusalem as “Israel,” which is at odds with State Department policy. The question for the Court in M.B.Z. v. Clinton … is whether that law interferes with the President’s constitutional authority to recognize foreign nations, and whether that dispute between the branches is a political question beyond the power of the courts to decide.”

http://youtu.be/b2VoLG-wht0

More details can be found in this National Journal article.

The Court’s decision in MBZ v. Clinton (2012) did little to clear up the dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch; however, it did assert the power of the judiciary to decide the dispute. Read Lyle Denniston’s astute commentary on the Court’s decision.

Paper Topic #12: As Lyle points out, the question remains as to whether Congress has the power to legislate about how a birthplace is listed on a passport. How will the lower courts answer this question? Is § 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act constitutional? What implications will the decision have for striking a balance in this foreign policy separation of powers game?

Suggested Reading: Hand, A. (2012). Forbidden Territory or Well-Defined Boundaries-MBZV Clinton and the Overzealous Application of the Political Question Doctrine. Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y Sidebar, 7, 61.

Posted on

The Lifespan of Denial

[Read for “Third Party Consent”]

In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), the Court held that one occupant can veto the consent to search given by another occupant. In Fernandez v. California (2014), the Court was asked to clarify how long such a veto lasts. If one resident denies consent, may the police return at a later time when that resident is not present? How long must they wait?

The good folks at SCOTUSblog have provided a nice analysis of the opinion here and here. You should read both of these short articles.

Notice the prevalence of domestic violence as a subtext in most of these co-occupancy consent cases. Given our current utter failure as a society to deal with the problem of domestic violence (especially where NFL players are involved, it seems), what does this say about the Court’s reconsideration of the Georgia v. Randolph holding? Does Fernandez really address the problems raised in the Chief Justice’s dissent in Randolph?

 

 

 

Posted on

These Open Fields are HOT!

In Chapter 10, we return to the case of Kyllo v. US. In the Court’s decision in Kyllo v. US (2001), the majority held that the use by police of a thermal imaging camera to investigate the temperature of a house without a warrant was unconstitutional. However, the Court relied on a very interesting rationale:

“Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a ‘search’ and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.”

Thermal imaging devices can be quite useful, and police departments have been allowed to use them for various purposes since the Court’s decision in Kyllo. Under Kyllo, police can certainly get a warrant for the use of such devices. They can also use them for officer safety during hot pursuit or other emergency situation. Here’s a relatively famous recent example:

The kind of infrared thermal imaging device that was new technology in 2001 is relatively commonplace today. Read this Volokh Conspiracy piece about the application of the general public use doctrine to infrared thermal imaging devices today. Does the logic in Kyllo mean that the ban on warrantless infrared thermal imaging searches has an expiration date? (Especially now, since identity theives are making use of the devices for their own purposes.) If it does, have we reached it?

Posted on

Voter Information for 2014 Clark County Judicial Primary

Of late, there has been a barely audible clamoring for information about the judicial candidates in Clark County’s 2014 primary races. I’ve taken it upon myself to compile some information that voters may find useful in making comparisons among the candidates. These data are gathered from a number of sources, including Martindale, the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Voter Guide, the websites of political groups in Clark County (especially here and here), and the data I have compiled for my own research (see my LVRJ op-ed and this plain English supplement).

Before I continue, I’d like to include a few caveats. I do not intend to suggest that

  1. all of the information presented here is (or should be) relevant to any particular voter’s decision, nor that
  2. there is no additional information that would be relevant to that decision.

I’ve included the judge’s partisan affiliation, as reported by some of the sources listed above. I have also included their Nevada Bar admission year, their educational history, and links to their responses to the prompts sent by the LVRJ for the Voter Guide. This is information that voters may or may not find helpful in making their decisions.

For incumbent (or formerly incumbent) judges, I’ve also included the overall retention percentages (i.e., the percentage of attorneys recommending the judge’s retention) from the LVRJ‘s “Judging the Judges” surveys. Of course, I have made clear in my previous work that I don’t trust these surveys to be without serious problems (for a summary see Judging the Judges’ Tilts Against Women; see also Implicit Gender Bias in Judicial Performance Evaluations and Are Judicial Performance Evaluations Fair to Women and Minorities? A Cautionary Tale from Clark County, Nevada). For a shortcut, I recommend adding about 10-12 points to the scores of female judges and about 15-18 to the scores of minority judges to counteract the effects of bias in the surveys.

I have not included links to information about additional media coverage of the candidates. Neither have I included direct links to campaign websites (where voters may be able to glean endorsements and additional resume and biographical information), but the links to the LVRJ Voter Guide pages provide this information.

 

District Court Department 2
Phung Jefferson (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada, B.S.
  • Western State University, J.D.

2001

 

Law Office of Phung H. Jefferson, Esq.

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/phung-jefferson

 

NA
Richard Scotti (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Southern California, A.B.
  • Hastings College of Law, J.D.

1988

 

Partner, Kemp, Jones & Couthard

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/richard-scotti [no answer]

 

NA
William S. “Bill” Skupa (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas, B. S.
  • University of California at Los Angeles, J.D.

1970

 

Law Offices of William S. Skupa

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/william-s-skupa

 

NA
 John G. Watkins (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Missouri, B.A.
  • St. Louis University, J.D.

1980

 

?

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/john-g-watkins

 

NA

 

District Court Department 22
Bruce L. Gale (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Texas at Austin, B.B.A.
  • University of San Diego, J.D.

1988

 

Bruce L. Gale, Attorney at Law

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/bruce-l-gale [no answer]

 

NA
Jacob Hafter (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • George Washington University, B.S.
  • Case Western Reserve University, J.D.

2001

 

Law Offices of Jacob Hafter & Associates

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/jacob-hafter

 

NA
Susan Johnson (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada, B.S.
  • McGeorge School of Law, J.D.

1985

 

District Judge (Incumbent)

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/susan-johnson [no answer]

 

2008    60

2010    82

2012    78

2014    71

 

District Court Department 24
Anthony Ashby (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada, B.A.
  • Whittier College School of Law, J.D.

1993

 

?

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/anthony-ashby

 

NA
Jim Crockett (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • Loyola University, B.A.
  • McGeorge School of Law, J.D.

1974

 

Senior Partner, Law Office of Crockett & Myers

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/jim-crockett

 

NA
Joe Hardy, Jr. (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • Brigham Young University, B.A.
  • Brigham Young University, J.D.

2000

 

Co-Managing Partner, Gordon & Rees

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/joe-hardy-0

 

NA
Tony Liker (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • ?
  • University of Oregon, J.D.

1992

 

Law Office of Tony Liker

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/tony-liker [no answer]

 

NA
District Court Department 28
Susan Bush (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas, B.A.
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas, J.D.

2002

 

Founding Partner, Bush & Levy

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/susan-bush

 

NA
Ron Israel (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of California, B.A.
  • University of San Diego, J.D.

1980

 

District Judge (Incumbent)

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/ron-israel [no answer]

 

2012        59

2014        61
Robert Pool (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada, B.A.
  • University of San Diego, J.D.

1992

 

Robert B. Pool

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/robert-pool [no answer]

 

NA

 

 

 

 

District Court, Family Division, Department B
Ellen J. Bezian (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • ?
  • Thomas M. Cooley Law School, J.D.

1997

 

Law Office of Ellen J. Bezian

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/ellen-j-bezian [no answer]

 

NA
Kristine Brewer (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • ?
  • Thomas Jefferson School of Law, J.D.

2004

 

Brewer Blau Law Group

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/kristine-brewer [no answer]

 

NA
Jane D. Femiano (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Maryland, B.S.
  • University of Maryland, J.D.

1989

 

Clark County Family Court (hearing master)

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/jane-d-femiano

 

NA
Thomas G. “Tom” Kurtz (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • Rochester Institute of Technology, B.S.
  • State University of New York at Binghamton, J.D.

1983

 

Clark County Family Court (hearing master)

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/thomas-g-kurtz

 

NA
Linda Marquis (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Middle Tennessee, B.S.
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas, J.D.

2003

 

Associate, William B. Terry, Justice of the Peace Pro Tem

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/linda-marquis

 

NA
Joseph A. Scalia, II (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Maryland, B.A.
  • University of Baltimore, J.D.

1992

 

Law Office of Joseph A. Scalia

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/joseph-scalia

 

NA
Shann D. Winesett (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada, B.A.
  • Loyola Law School, J.D.

1993

 

Pecos Law Group

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/shann-d-winesett [no answer]

 

NA
Heather Bailey Zana (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • Arizona State University, B.A.
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas, J.D.

2003

 

?

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/heather-bailey-zana [no answer]

 

NA

 

 

District Court, Family Division, Department C
Rebecca Burton (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Wisconsin-River Falls, B.F.A.
  • University of California, Hastings, J.D.

1992

 

RL Burton Law

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/rebecca-burton

 

NA
John Hall “Jack” Howard, Jr. (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • Occidental College, B.A.
  • California Western School of Law, J.D.

1974

 

John H. Howard Jr.

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/john-hall-howard

 

NA
Lynn Hughes (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada, B.A.
  • Indiana University School of Law, J.D.

1997

 

Hughes Law Office

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/lynn-hughes

 

NA
Marsha Kimble-Simms (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Michigan, B.A.
  • University of Detroit Mercy, J.D.

1991

 

Simms Law Firm

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/marsha-kimble-simms [no answer]

 

NA
Michele “Shell” Mercer (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Texas at Austin, B.S.
  • St. Mary’s University of San Antonio, J.D.

1998

 

Law Office of Shell Mercer

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/michele-mercer [no answer]

 

NA
District Court, Family Division, Department J
Rena G. Hughes (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • East Central Oklahoma State University, B.S.
  • University of Oklahoma, J.D.

1988

 

The Dickerson Law Group

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/rena-g-hughes [no answer]

 

NA
Romeo R. Perez (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Texas at Austin, B.A.
  • Texas Southern University, J.D.

1998

 

Law Office of Romeo R. Perez

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/romeo-r-perez

 

NA
Kenneth E. Pollock (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of California, B.A.
  • University of San Diego, J.D.

1991

 

Family Court Judge (Incumbent)

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/kenneth-e-pollock

 

2010    47

2012    46

2014    40
District Court, Family Division, Department L
Jennifer L. Elliott (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  •  ?
  • McGeorge School of Law, J.D.

1986

 

Family Court Judge (Incumbent)

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/jennifer-l-elliott

 

2004    71

2006    74

2008    73

2010    70

2012    59

2014    61
Paul “Mitch” Gaudet (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • Southeastern Louisiana College, B.S.
  • Louisiana State University, J.D.

1992

 

?

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/paul-gaudet

 

NA
Mary Perry (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Nevada, B.A.
  • University of Nevada Las Vegas, J.D.

2001

 

Law Office of Mary D. Perry

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/mary-perry

 

NA
District Court, Family Division, Department P
David R. Ford (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • San Diego State University, B.S.
  • California Western School of Law, J.D.

1981

 

David R. Ford, Attorney at Law

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/david-r-ford

 

NA
Nathan Gibbs (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • Brigham Young University, B.S.
  • Brigham Young University, J.D.

1996

 

R. Nathan Gibbs, Ltd.

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/nathan-gibbs

 

NA
Sandra L. Pomrenze (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of Illinois, B.A.
  • John Marshall Law School, J.D.

1977

 

Family Court Judge (Incumbent)

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/sandra-l-pomrenze

 

2006    63

2008    62

2010    56

2012    54

2014    47
District Court, Family Division, Department T
Lisa M. Brown (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • St. Joseph’s University, B.A.
  • Villanova University, J.D.

1989

 

Lisa M. Kent, P.C.

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/lisa-m-brown [no answer to questions]

 

2002              64

2004              44

2006              29

2008              36
Maria Maskall (R) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • University of British Columbia, B.A.
  • California Western School of Law, J.D.

1991

 

?

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/maria-maskall

 

NA
Gayle Nathan (D) Education:Admitted to NV Bar:

 

Current Position:

 

LVRJ Guide Answers:

 

Judging the Judges:
  • State University of New York at Binghamton, B.A.
  • Touro Las Center, J.D.

1988

 

Family Court Judge (Incumbent)

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/voting-guide/candidates/gayle-nathan

 

2012            59

2014            48

If you notice an error or omission, please post in the comments (along with your source) and I’ll revise as needed.

My best to you, dear voters!

Posted on

New Paper: New: Buying Time? False Assumptions About Abusive Appeals

The federal government has expressed fear that immigrants abuse the appellate process to delay their deportations by filing meritless petitions for review with the federal courts. Some courts have responded to these concerns by imposing stricter standards for issuing stays of removal, so that the government can more easily deport petitioners even while their appeals remain pending. The risk with this approach is that immigrants who ultimately prevail may be erroneously deported. What is often overlooked is that the potential for abuse is really a function of time, with longer appeals posing a greater threat to immigration enforcement. This study presents new empirical evidence showing that most circuit courts actually decide immigration appeals faster than previously assumed. Moreover, in many circuits the appeals most likely to be frivolous are resolved especially quickly. These results undermine the concerns that lead the government to oppose stays of removal and illustrate the …

via SSRN Author: Rebecca Gill http://ift.tt/MqXy2r

css.php