The 2010 Nevada referendum, commonly known as question 1, would change the way judicial elections are held in this state. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, a Commission on Judicial Selection would be created with the task of recommending candidates to the governor for the appointment of open judicial seats. After the governor appoints the candidate to that position, that candidate would have to run for a retention election in two years. If the candidate receives more than 55% of the vote, then that individual would then serve the remainder of the 6 years term with the possibility of running for another retention election assuming the candidate seeks a second term. One of the reasons that may explain why this ballot initiative was
In Ohio, "nonpartisan" elections vote justices into office. However, Preceeding these elections are partisan primaries, and each justice must campaign. If the justice wins the election, the justice will want to be re-elected as well. If they want their party to vote for them, they have no choice but to side with the party on issues, instead of interpreting the constitution as it is written. For these reasons, the Missouri Plan should be implemented in Ohio to prevent justices from acting as activists, and to keep justices from excessive partisan influence.
In Nevada, in contrast, the State Supreme Court uses a “staggered” system in order to appoint their judges. The judges are selected not by presidential appointment but by “qualified electors of the State at the general election,” and are only allowed to hold their office for a limited period of years. Furthermore, the Chief Justice is only allowed to maintain their post for six years, thus reducing the opportunity to shape the direction of the state’s laws throughout the remainder of their lives.
After the establishment of Nevada Territory, President Lincoln appointed James W. Nye as territorial governor. Nye was allowed to appointed heads to territorial offices, create a judiciary, and planned to hold elections for a legislature. Nye stressed the importance of establishing a judiciary, despite saying territories did not need law and order. This was important to establish mining rights. An election occurred in 1863 to decide if Nevada Territory become a statehood. There were overwhelming support and delegates drafted a constitution. However, this constitution failed to address matters, such as mining tax. This spilt the Union party, and ultimately the constitution was defeated. Within twenty days after the defeat of the first constitution,
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe recently gave an order that would restore voting rights to hundreds of thousands of felons prior to the upcoming general election, but the Supreme Court of Virginia is currently reviewing a case that could ruin McAuliffe’s order. A Republican attorney for the state argued that the order was an unconstitutional overreach, while the opposing side said that the order was a daring, but perfectly legal use of his power. Nearly a quarter of Virginia’s African American population is not allowed to vote due to convictions and Virginia is only one of eleven states that requires individual exemption to vote after felons completed their sentence. Over eleven thousand ex-convicts have registered to vote since McAuliffe
Have you ever wondered what would happen if your worst fears became reality? For the founding father and crafters of the U.S. Constitution those fears have come to roost. What was originally designed to be the foundation of our country, and the law of the land; has now been amended out of existence. The ratification of the 17th Amendment changed the country’s political landscape and weakened the U.S. Constitution by allowing Senators to be directly elected by popular vote instead of by the legislatures of the states they represent. This Amendment was a byproduct of the Democratic Progressive movement. It was believed by some that it would correct the procedural issues and perceived political
The issue of limiting the number of terms that a Congressman or a Senator can seek re-election is a huge hot button issue today. It is also an issue that has a rather large conflict of interest stamp behind it. The reason for this is because our Senators and Congressman are in direct control of whether or not this issue is brought out of a committee and eligible to be sent to the States for potential ratification. There is a Constitutional way to get around the Senate and the House from bringing up this issue, but the problem is that we as a nation haven’t done it in over 200 years. What I am referring to is a state’s ability to call a Constitutional Convention to propose and ratify an Amendment.
The Aliso Canyon gas leak in 2015 was the largest methane leak in the U.S. Eight-thousand families had to evacuate their homes because of the methane emissions. Three years later, residents near the Canyon say they are suffering from severe health problems due to the air contamination.
Commendatory public opinion on important issues can persuade other high ranking officials to support the Governor. The Governor in our
I think Gov. McAuliffe’ decision to individually restore the voting rights of felons is illegitimate because his actions did not fall under every part of legal-rational authority that he does have. Under legal-rational authority, obedience to laws are expected because the laws are seen as legitimate,
A debate has been brewing in recent years about the way we elect our president. The first system is the Electoral College which is very complicated. Americans are not knowledgeable about it and worry that one candidate can win the popular vote and not the Electoral College. The opponents of the Electoral College propose a new plan called the National Popular Vote (NPV). The pro-Electoral College party think the bill’s risks and costs are not worth the possibility of some gains for certain states.
Background: The issue of the Electoral College as the entity responsible for appointing the President of the United States of America has been among the most controversial aspects of the legal framework set forth by the American Founding Fathers. Throughout different times in history, modifications to it, have been proposed in the form of more than 700 Congressional Bills, some of which have even received the endorsement of incumbent Presidents or the approval of one of the legislative chambers. [1] This is the matter that has drawn the most proposals for Constitutional Amendments, displaying the discontent that certain sectors of the population have expressed about the status quo. [2]
Why the Nevada Constitution is lengthier and what that means for Nevada judges as they do their jobs of interpreting the state constitution compared to federal counterparts.
Forgette Richard, Garner Andrew, and Winkle John. “Do redistricting principles and practices affect US state legislative electoral competition? State Politics and policy quarterly, 20(9) (2009): 151 175.
When the Constitution was revised in 1874, the optional referendum was introduced allowing “the holding of a referendum on any change to federal legislation…” which can be requested “by 50,000 voters or eight cantons within a period of 100 days after the publication of the law.” Of the 2181 parliamentary decisions eligible for an optional referendum from 1848 to 2005, only 156 were subject to them. Of these 156, only 46% were successful in rejecting legislation that had been passed by Parliament.
In reviewing the journal question for Unit #2, it was difficult for me to envision the six factors that influence the strength of the power of the Governor without being realistic about the influence and power that the modern day Governor or any politician have in 21st Century America. Today, the political landscape in the United States of America have been transformed by changes in society, meaning the world of technology and its’ influence over people world-wide. As a result, the new political landscape affords greater access to the public, offering politicians, such as Governors a new and formidable power source that did not exist during the drafting of the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution. Therefore, I continued