Nevada’s Quiet Courts: Unopposed Judicial Appointments and Calls for Reform

Hook

The courtroom fell quiet when two veteran Las Vegas attorneys were sworn in as judges without a single objection, illustrating how the absence of debate can signal deeper concerns about Nevada’s merit-based judicial selection.

Observers noted the stillness not as a sign of unanimous approval but as a symptom of a process that has become opaque to the public and even to many members of the legal community.

For the families waiting outside the doors of the courthouse, the lack of a public conversation can feel like a private decision made behind closed doors - an unsettling reminder that the law, while impartial in theory, is administered by people whose paths we rarely get to see.

Moving from the courtroom silence to the mechanics behind it, the next section unpacks how Nevada’s merit-based system is supposed to work and where the cracks have begun to show.

Background: Unopposed Appointments in Nevada

Nevada’s merit-based system, established by the Nevada Constitution and detailed in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 124.365-124.380, is designed to solicit public input, evaluate qualifications, and minimize political pressure. The Judicial Selection Commission (JSC) must post each vacancy for a minimum of 30 days, then open a 15-day comment period where attorneys, organizations, and citizens can submit written objections or support.

In the past five years, the public records of the JSC show that two high-profile nominations - Justice Michael Cherry to the Nevada Supreme Court and District Court Judge Sarah Hernandez of Clark County - were confirmed without any written objections during the comment window. Both nominees were seasoned litigators with decades of experience in Nevada courts, yet the lack of formal challenges went largely unnoticed by the media.

The commission’s 2023 annual report listed 18 total vacancies across the state’s district, appellate, and supreme courts. Of those, 12 proceeded through the full vetting process, while the two unopposed appointments advanced after the comment period closed with zero submissions. This pattern contrasts with earlier years when the commission routinely received dozens of comments, both supportive and critical, for each vacancy.

These numbers matter because they hint at a broader shift: a once-vibrant public forum is quieting, and the very statutes that promise openness may be losing their bite. When the comment period passes without a single voice, the system’s safety valve is effectively disabled.

Key Takeaways

• Nevada’s merit system requires a public notice and comment period for every judicial vacancy.
• Recent records show two appointments moved forward without any formal objections.
• The silence may reflect procedural fatigue, limited public awareness, or confidence in the nominees’ qualifications.

Having set the factual stage, we now turn to what those silent votes might mean for the credibility of the merit system itself.

Implications for the Merit System

When high-profile judicial seats are filled without opposition, the credibility of the merit system risks erosion. The public often interprets a lack of commentary as a sign that the process is either too technical for lay participation or that the gatekeepers have pre-screened candidates to the point where dissent seems futile.

A 2023 survey conducted by the Nevada Judicial Study Center, cited in the commission’s oversight report, indicated that 61% of respondents considered the merit-based system fair, but only 34% believed the process was sufficiently transparent. The gap suggests that while many trust the expertise behind the selections, a substantial portion feels excluded from meaningful input.

"Transparency is the linchpin of public confidence," said former Nevada Supreme Court Justice Nancy S. Miller in a 2022 editorial. "When the public sees a silent vote, doubts creep in, even if the candidates are highly qualified."

Legal scholars at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas have warned that repeated unopposed appointments could create a de-facto “closed shop,” where a small circle of elite attorneys repeatedly rotates through the bench. This perception can undermine the judiciary’s appearance of impartiality, especially in politically charged cases involving election law or business regulation.

Beyond perception, the practical effect is a narrowing of the talent pool. When a handful of names dominate the shortlist, the system loses the benefit of fresh perspectives that might better reflect Nevada’s growing demographic diversity - an issue that becomes more pressing each year as the state’s population expands.

Understanding the stakes, the next step is to explore concrete ideas that could breathe new life into the process.

Policy Recommendations: Enhancing Transparency and Participation

To restore openness, Nevada could adopt a mandatory public notice period of at least 45 days, extending the current 30-day window. This longer timeframe would give community groups, advocacy organizations, and ordinary citizens more opportunity to review candidate biographies and submit comments.

Stakeholder engagement forums - virtual town halls hosted by the JSC - could provide a platform for direct dialogue. In 2022, the Texas Judicial Selection Commission piloted a series of webinars that attracted over 1,200 participants, resulting in 87 written objections that helped refine the final shortlist. A similar model in Nevada could generate measurable feedback without overwhelming the commission.

Stricter oversight of the JSC could be achieved by requiring an annual transparency audit, published on the state’s judicial website. The audit would list each nominee, the number of comments received, and a summary of any objections. By making this data publicly accessible, the commission would demonstrate a commitment to data-driven decision-making and reduce speculation about behind-the-scenes lobbying.

Another low-cost yet high-impact tweak is to post short video introductions of each nominee on the commission’s website. In 2024, the Oregon Judicial Nominating Commission experimented with 90-second videos that highlighted a candidate’s judicial philosophy, community service, and personal background. Viewers reported higher engagement, and the number of written comments rose by 22% compared with the previous year.

Policy tweaks are valuable, but structural changes to the commission itself could address the root of the imbalance.

Proposed Reforms to the Judicial Selection Committee

Rebalancing the committee’s composition is central to mitigating bias. Currently, NRS 124.365 mandates a nine-member panel: three attorneys elected by the State Bar, three non-attorney citizens appointed by the governor, and three sitting judges. Critics argue that the attorney bloc can dominate deliberations, especially when nominees share similar professional networks.

One reform proposal suggests adding two independent legal scholars appointed by the Nevada Supreme Court, bringing the total to eleven members. This adjustment would dilute any single bloc’s voting power and introduce academic perspectives on jurisprudence and ethics.

Another recommendation is to require at least one member from a recognized civil-rights organization, such as the Nevada ACLU, to ensure that issues of diversity and inclusion are considered from the outset. In 2021, the Washington State Judicial Nominating Commission added a civil-rights advocate, resulting in a 15% increase in nominations of women and minorities over the next two years, according to the state’s judicial statistics office.

Adding a rotating seat for a retired judge who served in a different jurisdiction could also bring comparative insights, helping the commission avoid echo-chamber dynamics. Such a seat would be limited to a two-year term, ensuring fresh viewpoints while preserving institutional memory.

Even a well-balanced commission benefits from an external watchdog that can verify compliance and keep the public informed.

Independent Oversight and Auditing Mechanisms

Establishing an external audit body - perhaps housed within the Nevada Office of the Attorney General - would provide a neutral check on the JSC’s actions. The audit team could review appointment outcomes, assess compliance with statutory timelines, and verify that all public comments are logged and responded to within a 10-day window.

Data from the 2022 Colorado Judicial Nominating Commission audit shows that after implementing a similar oversight framework, the average response time to public comments dropped from 21 days to 8 days, and the number of unaddressed objections fell to zero. Applying these metrics to Nevada could help the state meet the “transparent, data-driven” standards outlined in the 2020 Judicial Reform Act.

The audit report would be posted on the Nevada Courts website, accompanied by a dashboard displaying key performance indicators: number of vacancies, comment volume, response time, and any identified conflicts of interest. By making performance visible, the audit encourages continuous improvement and deters any perception of backroom deals.

In addition, a quarterly public briefing - live-streamed and archived - could give journalists and civic groups a chance to ask questions directly of the audit team, further cementing trust.

Conclusion: Charting a Path Forward

By adopting longer notice periods, stakeholder forums, a rebalanced selection committee, and an independent audit mechanism, Nevada can transform the current silence into a robust dialogue that safeguards the integrity of its judicial bench. These reforms not only address the immediate concern of unopposed appointments but also lay the groundwork for a merit system that is both fair and visibly accountable.

For attorneys, community leaders, and citizens alike, the next steps are clear: engage with the JSC during comment windows, demand publication of audit findings, and support legislative proposals that broaden representation on the commission. When the process is transparent, the resulting judiciary will command greater public confidence and better reflect Nevada’s diverse population.

What is the public comment period for Nevada judicial vacancies?

Nevada law requires a minimum 30-day public notice followed by a 15-day comment period during which anyone may submit written objections or support for a nominee.

How many members serve on the Judicial Selection Commission?

The commission consists of nine members: three attorneys elected by the State Bar, three non-attorney citizens appointed by the governor, and three sitting judges.

What reforms are being proposed to improve transparency?

Proposals include extending the public notice to 45 days, holding virtual stakeholder forums, adding independent legal scholars to the commission, and creating an external audit body to publish performance metrics.

Why do unopposed appointments matter?

When appointments face no formal objections, the public may perceive the process as lacking openness, which can erode confidence in judicial impartiality even if the nominees are highly qualified.

What can ordinary citizens do to participate?

Citizens can submit written comments during the 15-day window, attend virtual town-hall meetings hosted by the JSC, and follow the audit dashboard once it is published to stay informed about each nomination.