Nevada 2019 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 20 — Revises provisions governing judicial discipline. (BDR 1-494)

Last action — (No further action taken.)

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

AN ACT relating to the Commission on Judicial Discipline; requiring the investigative and prosecutorial function of the Commission to be separate from the adjudicative function of the Commission; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

91 added · 305 removed

Plain-language change summary

The amendments to Bill AB 20 establish a clear separation between the investigative and adjudicative roles of the Commission that oversees judges. This change is important because it aims to enhance fairness in the disciplinary process for judges by ensuring that the same body does not investigate and judge misconduct complaints. This separation may help protect judges' rights and ensure more impartial proceedings when allegations arise.

→
Previous
Latest
A.B.
EXEMPT (Reprinted with amendments adopted on April 22, 2019) FIRST REPRINT A.B.
20–COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY (ON B EHALF OF THE N EVADA SUPREME C OURT ) PREFILED N OVEMBER 15, 2018 ____________ Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY—Revises provisions governing judicial discipline.
20–COMMITTEE ON UDICIARY (ON B EHALF OF THE N EVADA SUPREME C OURT ) PREFILED N OVEMBER 15, 2018 ____________ Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY—Revises provisions governing judicial discipline.
revising provisions governing the appointment of certain members of the Commission under certain circumstances;
requiring the investigative and prosecutorial function of the Commission to be separate from the adjudicative function of the Commission;
revising provisions governing the investigation of complaints against judges and the procedural rules and standard of proof applicable to certain proceedings of the Commission;
(NRS 1.440) Section 1 of this bill requires the Nevada Supreme Court to make these appointments with the advice of the Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction, which is an association of justices of the peace and municipal judges in this State.
(NRS 1.440) Under the Nevada Constitution, the Legislature is required to establish the grounds for censure and other disciplinary action against judges and the standards for the investigation of matters relating to regard to disciplinary proceedings against judges, the Nevada Supreme Court has) With determined that judges have a constitutionally-protected interest in their judicial offices, and when disciplinary proceedings threaten to deprive a judge of that interest, constitutional due process is required.
grounds for censure and other disciplinary action against judges and the standards for the investigation of matters relating to the fitness of judges to hold their judicial offices.
(Nev.
Const.
Art.
6, § 21) With regard to disciplinary proceedings against judges, the Nevada Supreme Court has determined that judges have a *AB20* – 2 – constitutionally-protected interest in their judicial offices, and when disciplinary proceedings threaten to deprive a judge of that interest, constitutional due process is required.
requires that a judge accused of misconduct must be given:
Comm’n on Jud.
Discipline, 117 Nev.
371, 378 (2001)) Constitutional due process requires that a judge accused of misconduct must be given:
and (2) a fair trial of the charges before a fair tribunal.
and (2) a Discipline, 130 Nev.
99, 105 (2014))air tribunal.
Discipline, 130 Nev.
- *AB20_R1* – 2 – Although constitutional due process protections are implicated by disciplinary proceedings against a judge, the Nevada Supreme Court has determined that such adjudicatory, and during the investigatory stage, when evidence is collected and the Commission determines how to proceed against the judge, constitutional due process protections generally do not apply because the Commission’s investigatory proceedings do not adjudicate the judge’s legal rights and thus do not require constitutional due process protections.
99, 105 (2014)) Although constitutional due process protections are implicated by disciplinary proceedings against a judge, the Nevada Supreme Court has determined that such disciplinary proceedings are divided into two distinct stages, investigatory and adjudicatory, and during the investigatory stage, when evidence is collected and the Commission determines how to proceed against the judge, constitutional due process protections generally do not apply because the Commission’s investigatory proceedings do not adjudicate the judge’s legal rights and thus do not require constitutional due process protections.
Consequently, constitutional due process protections generally do not attach until after the investigatory stage is completed adjudicatory stage, and the judge is then afforded notice of the charges and an opportunity to respond and defend against the charges in a hearing in which the judge’s legal rights are adjudicated by the Commission.
Consequently, constitutional due process protections generally do not attach until after the investigatory stage is completed and the Commission files a formal statement of charges, which commences the opportunity to respond and defend against the charges in a hearing in which the judge’s legal rights are adjudicated by the Commission.
99, 105-06 (2014)) Even though constitutional due process protections generally do not apply during the investigatory stage of the Commission’s proceedings, the Legislature may provide additional procedural protections by statute.
99, 105-06 (2014)) Even though constitutional due process protections generally do not apply during the investigatory stage of the Commission’s proceedings, the Legislature may provide additional procedural Gov’t, 120 Nev.
(Univ.
712, 730-31 & n.52 (2004) (explaining that the Legislature mayd enact statutes affording greater protections than the minimum protections established by constitutional provisions)) Section 2 of this bill requires the investigatory and prosecutorial function of the Commission to be separate from the adjudicatory function of the Commission in any matter before the Commission and prohibits any member of the Commission who is involved with the adjudicatory investigatory or informational reports relating to the matter before a hearing;
& Cmty.
or (2) being provided with any information beyond that which is provided to the judge against whom a formal statement of charges has been filed.
Coll.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Sys.
of Nev.
v.
Nevadans for Sound Gov’t, 120 Nev.
712, 730-31 & n.52 (2004) (explaining that the Legislature may enact statutes affording greater protections than the minimum protections established by constitutional provisions)) Under existing law, the Commission is required to adopt procedural rules for conducting its hearings and carrying out its duties, including procedural rules for the investigatory stage of its proceedings.
(Nev.
Const.
Art.
6, § 21;
NRS 1.4663, 1.4667, 1.467) However, existing law also provides that after the Commission files proceedings, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure apply, which afford a judge due process protections.
(NRS 1.462) Sections 2 and 4 of this bill require that the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure apply to all stages of the Commission’s proceedings, including the investigatory stage.
Section 2 also requires that any procedural rules adopted by the Commission must provide due process to a judge.
Existing law provides that the standard of proof during the investigatory stage of the Commission’s proceedings is whether there is a reasonable probability that the evidence available for introduction at a formal hearing could clearly and convincingly establish grounds for disciplinary action against a judge.
(NRS 1.4655, 1.4667, 1.467, 1.468) Existing law also provides that the standard of proof during the adjudicatory stage of the Commission’s proceedings is clear and convincing evidence.
(NRS 1.4673) Sections 3 and 5-7 of this bill clarify that the standard of proof during the investigatory stage of the Commission’s proceedings is evidence, to establish grounds for disciplinary action against a judge.ncing Finally, existing law provides that if the standard of proof is met during the investigatory stage of the Commission’s proceedings, the Commission must require the judge to respond to the complaint in accordance with the Commission’s procedural rules.
(NRS 1.4667) Section 5 of this bill changes this provision to state that the Commission must give the judge an opportunity to respond to the complaint, thereby leaving it to the discretion of the judge to determine whether to respond to the complaint during the investigatory stage of the Commission’s proceedings.
*AB20* – 3 – THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
NRS 1.440 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
Show all 139 changed rows (99 more)
Previous
Latest
1.440 1.
The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the public censure, removal, involuntary retirement and other discipline of judges which is coextensive with its jurisdiction over justices of the Supreme Court and must be exercised in the same manner and under the same rules.
Any complaint or action, including, without limitation, an interlocutory action or appeal, filed in connection with any proceeding of the Commission must be filed in the Supreme Court.
Any such complaint or action filed in a court other than the Supreme Court shall be presumed to be frivolous and intended solely for the purposes of delay.
3.
[The] With the advice of the Nevada Judges of Limited Jurisdiction, or its successor organization, the Supreme Court shall appoint two justices of the peace and two municipal judges to sit on the Commission for formal, public proceedings against a justice of the peace or a municipal judge, respectively.
Justices of the peace and municipal judges so appointed must be designated by an order of the Supreme Court to sit for such proceedings in place of and to serve for the same terms as the regular members of the Commission appointed by the Supreme Court.
Sec.
2.
[Except as otherwise provided in NRS 1.425 to 1.4695, inclusive, or in the procedural rules adopted by the Commission, after a formal statement of charges has been filed, the] The Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure apply [.] to all stages of the proceedings before the Commission, including, without limitation, the investigatory stage.
Except as otherwise provided in NRS 1.425 to 1.4695, inclusive, or in the procedural rules adopted by the Commission, after a formal statement of charges has been filed, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure apply.
Any procedural rules adopted by the Commission pursuant to NRS 1.425 to 1.4695, inclusive, must provide due process to a judge.
In any matter before the Commission, the investigatory and prosecutorial function of the Commission, including, without limitation, deciding whether a formal statement of charges should be filed, must be separate from the adjudicatory function of the Commission, including, without limitation, hearing evidence, making factual findings and imposing discipline after a formal complaint of charges is filed.
Any member of the Commission who is involved with the adjudicatory function of the Commission in a particular matter must not:
- *AB20_R1* – 3 – (a) Receive any investigatory or informational reports relating to the matter before a hearing;
or (b) Be provided with any information beyond that which is provided to the judge against whom a formal statement of charges has been filed.
NRS 1.4655 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
1.4655 1.
The Commission may begin an inquiry regarding the alleged misconduct or incapacity of a judge upon the receipt of a complaint.
2.
The Commission shall not consider complaints arising from acts or omissions that occurred more than 3 years before the date of the complaint or more than 1 year after the complainant knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the conduct, whichever is earlier, except that:
*AB20* – 4 – (a) Where there is a continuing course of conduct, the conduct will be deemed to have been committed at the termination of the course of conduct;
(b) Where there is a pattern of recurring judicial misconduct and at least one act occurs within the 3-year or 1-year period, as applicable, the Commission may consider all prior acts or omissions related to that pattern;
and (c) Any period in which the judge has concealed or conspired to conceal evidence of misconduct is not included in the computation of the time limit for the filing of a complaint pursuant to this section.
3.
Within 18 months after the receipt of a complaint pursuant to this section, the Commission shall:
(a) Dismiss the complaint with or without a letter of caution;
(b) Attempt to resolve the complaint informally as required pursuant to NRS 1.4665;
(c) Enter into a deferred discipline agreement pursuant to NRS 1.468;
(d) With the consent of the judge, impose discipline on the judge pursuant to an agreement between the judge and the Commission;
or (e) Authorize the filing of a formal statement of the charges based on a finding that there is a reasonable probability [that the evidence available for introduction at a formal hearing could clearly and convincingly] , supported by clear and convincing evidence, to establish grounds for disciplinary action.
Sec.
NRS 1.4663 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
1.4663 1.
If the Commission determines pursuant to NRS 1.4657 that a complaint alleges objectively verifiable evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that a judge committed misconduct or is incapacitated, the Commission shall assign or appoint an investigator to conduct an investigation to determine whether the allegations have merit.
The Commission may designate special counsel at any time after a complaint is filed with the Commission pursuant to NRS 1.4655.
2.
Such an investigation [must be conducted in accordance with procedural rules adopted by the Commission and] may extend to any matter that is, in the determination of the Commission, reasonably related to an allegation of misconduct or incapacity contained in the complaint.
3.
An investigator assigned or appointed by the Commission to conduct an investigation pursuant to this section may, for the purpose of investigation, compel by subpoena on behalf of the Commission the attendance of witnesses and the production of necessary materials as set forth in NRS 1.466.
*AB20* – 5 – 4.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator shall prepare a written report of the investigation for review by the Commission.
Sec.
NRS 1.4667 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
1.4667 1.
The Commission shall review the report prepared pursuant to NRS 1.4663 to determine whether there is a reasonable probability [that the evidence available for introduction at a formal hearing could clearly and convincingly] , supported by clear and convincing evidence, to establish grounds for disciplinary action against a judge.
2.
If the Commission determines that such a reasonable probability does not exist, the Commission shall dismiss the complaint with or without a letter of caution.
The Commission may consider a letter of caution when deciding the appropriate action to be taken on a subsequent complaint against a judge unless the caution is not relevant to the misconduct alleged in the subsequent complaint.
3.
If the Commission determines that such a reasonable probability exists, the Commission shall [require] give the judge an opportunity to respond to the complaint in accordance with procedural rules adopted by the Commission.
Sec.
NRS 1.467 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
1.467 1.
After giving a judge [responds] an opportunity to respond to the complaint as required pursuant to NRS 1.4667, the Commission shall make a finding of whether there is a reasonable probability [that the evidence available for introduction at a formal hearing could clearly and convincingly] , supported by clear and convincing evidence, to establish grounds for disciplinary action against the judge.
2.
If the Commission finds that such a reasonable probability does not exist, the Commission shall dismiss the complaint with or without a letter of caution.
The Commission may consider a letter of caution when deciding the appropriate action to be taken on a subsequent complaint against a judge unless the caution is not relevant to the misconduct alleged in the subsequent complaint.
3.
If the Commission finds that such a reasonable probability exists, but reasonably believes that the misconduct would be addressed more appropriately through rehabilitation, treatment, education or minor corrective action, the Commission may enter into a deferred discipline agreement with the judge for a definite period as described in NRS 1.468.
4.
The Commission shall not dismiss a complaint with a letter of caution or enter into a deferred discipline agreement with a judge if:
*AB20* – 6 – (a) The misconduct of the judge involves the misappropriation of money, dishonesty, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation or a crime that adversely reflects on the honesty, trustworthiness or fitness of the judge;
(b) The misconduct of the judge resulted or will likely result in substantial prejudice to a litigant or other person;
(c) The misconduct of the judge is part of a pattern of similar misconduct;
or (d) The misconduct of the judge is of the same nature as misconduct for which the judge has been publicly disciplined or which was the subject of a deferred discipline agreement entered into by the judge within the immediately preceding 5 years.
5.
If the Commission finds that such a reasonable probability exists and that formal proceedings are warranted, the Commission shall, in accordance with its procedural rules, designate special counsel to sign under oath and file with the Commission a formal statement of charges against the judge.
6.
Within 20 days after service of the formal statement of charges, the judge shall file an answer with the Commission under oath.
If the judge fails to answer the formal statement of charges within that period, the Commission shall deem such failure to be an admission that the charges set forth in the formal statement:
(a) Are true;
and (b) Establish grounds for discipline pursuant to NRS 1.4653.
The Commission shall adopt rules regarding disclosure and discovery after the filing of a formal statement of charges.
(Deleted by amendment.) Sec.
By leave of the Commission, a statement of formal charges may be amended at any time, before the close of the hearing, to allege additional matters discovered in a subsequent investigation or to conform to proof presented at the hearing if the judge has adequate time, as determined by the Commission, to prepare a defense.
Sec.
7.
NRS 1.468 is hereby amended to read as follows:
1.468 1.
Except as otherwise provided in subsections 2 and 3, if the Commission reasonably believes that a judge has committed an act or engaged in a behavior that would be addressed most appropriately through rehabilitation, treatment, education or minor corrective action, the Commission may enter into an agreement with the judge to defer formal disciplinary proceedings and require the judge to undergo the rehabilitation, treatment, education or minor corrective action.
2.
The Commission may not enter into an agreement with a judge to defer formal disciplinary proceedings if the Commission has determined, pursuant to NRS 1.467, that there is a reasonable probability [that the evidence available for introduction at a formal *AB20* – 7 – hearing could clearly and convincingly] , supported by clear and convincing evidence, to establish grounds for disciplinary action against the judge pursuant to NRS 1.4653.
3.
The Commission may enter into an agreement with a judge to defer formal disciplinary proceedings only in response to misconduct that is minor in nature.
4.
A deferred discipline agreement entered into pursuant to this section must be in writing and must specify the conduct that resulted in the agreement.
A judge who enters into such an agreement must agree:
(a) To the specified rehabilitation, treatment, education or minor corrective action;
(b) To waive the right to a hearing before the Commission;
and (c) That the agreement will not be protected by confidentiality for the purpose of any subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the judge,  and the agreement must indicate that the judge agreed to the terms set forth in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Such an agreement must expressly authorize the Commission to revoke the agreement and proceed with any other disposition of the complaint or formal statement of charges authorized by NRS 1.467 if the Commission finds that the judge has failed to comply with a condition of the agreement.
5.
The Executive Director of the Commission shall monitor the compliance of the judge with the agreement.
The Commission may require the judge to document his or her compliance with the agreement.
The Commission shall give the judge written notice of any alleged failure to comply with any condition of the agreement and shall allow the judge not less than 15 days to respond.
6.
If the judge complies in a satisfactory manner with the conditions imposed in the agreement, the Commission may dismiss the complaint or take any other appropriate action.
Sec.
8.
May apply the amendatory provisions of this act which govern the procedures applicable to proceedings arising under NRS 1.425 to 1.4695, inclusive, to any such proceedings that were commenced before the effective date of this act and are still within the jurisdiction of the Commission and pending before the Commission on the effective date of this act, unless the Commission *AB20* – 8 – determines that such an application would be impracticable, unreasonable or unconstitutional under the circumstances, in which case the Commission shall apply the procedures in effect before the effective date of this act.
May apply the amendatory provisions of this act which govern the procedures applicable to proceedings arising under NRS 1.425 to 1.4695, inclusive, to any such proceedings that were commenced before the effective date of this act and are still within the jurisdiction of the Commission and pending before the Commission on the effective date of this act, unless the Commission determines that such an application would be impracticable, unreasonable or unconstitutional under the circumstances, in which case the Commission shall apply the procedures in effect before the effective date of this act.
*AB20*
H - *AB20_R1*
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Amendments

1 amendment

Click Show changes on an amendment above to see how it modifies the bill.

Action History

  1. (No further action taken.)

  2. From printer. To engrossment. Engrossed. First reprint. To committee.

  3. Read second time. Amended. (Amend. No. 297.) Rereferred to Committee on Ways and Means. Exemption effective. To printer.

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended.

  5. Notice of eligibility for exemption.

  6. Read first time. To committee.

  7. From printer.

  8. Prefiled. Referred to Committee on Judiciary. To printer.

Sponsors

  • Assembly Committee on Judiciary · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 66 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Assembly Committee on Judiciary

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (66)

66 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 66 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 20 do?
AN ACT relating to the Commission on Judicial Discipline; requiring the investigative and prosecutorial function of the Commission to be separate from the adjudicative function of the Commission; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Who sponsors AB 20?
AB 20 is sponsored by Assembly Committee on Judiciary.
What is the current status of AB 20?
This bill died with 2019 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 20?
Track AB 20 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 20

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 20

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →