When Nevada voters reach the judicial races on their ballots, many face a frustrating question: Who are these people, and how can I make an informed decision?
Judicial elections may be called nonpartisan, but the absence of a party designation does not mean a candidate has no legal philosophy, influential supporters or professional record worth. Judges decide cases affecting voting rights, reproductive freedom, LGBTQ protections, environmental regulation and government accountability.
Why is it so difficult for voters to find a single, reliable source comparing judicial candidates?
Campaign-finance disclosures, biographies, judicial opinions and ethics information may be publicly available but often require navigating scattered websites and legal databases. Voters should not have to become investigators to make an informed choice.
Nevada can do better. State lawmakers should consider standardized candidate questionnaires for both incumbents and challengers; a centralized judicial voter-information portal; accessible disclosures of outside campaign spending; and plain-language summaries of candidates’ experience and public records. Officials should also review conflict-of-interest and recusal standards.
These measures should respect judicial independence and ethical rules that prevent candidates from compromising outcomes in future cases. Independence is vital; so is public accountability.
I am calling on Nevada officials to consider these reforms in the 2027 legislative session. Our democracy depends not only on the right to cast a ballot, but on voters’ ability to understand the choices printed on it.
Aliyah Casari is a registered Nevada voter, U.S. Air Force veteran and retired air traffic controller. She lives in Las Vegas.