Judge made mistake by overturning election results

Clark County District Judge Jim Crockett has taken judicial activism to a whole new level. That’s not a compliment. In June, Jason Burke defeated Mack Miller in the Republican primary for Assembly District 5. Following the election, Mr. Miller filed a lawsuit because Mr. Burke, a first-time candidate, failed to submit campaign finance reports on time.

The law requires candidates to file these reports. It also lays out the consequences if a candidate doesn’t do so on time. Such missteps are civil infractions, punishable by fines. The secretary of state can even waive the civil penalty for good cause — if the violation was inadvertent, for instance.

But for reasons that defy explanation, Judge Crockett issued an order two weeks ago declaring Mr. Burke ineligible for office simply because he had missed a deadline for filing his campaign finance information. The decision essentially overturned the results of an election, making Mr. Miller the winner.

Problem is, as the Review-journal’s Ramona Giwargis reported, Nevada law doesn’t allow this remedy for filing late contribution and expenditure reports. State statutes allow an election to be voided only under limited circumstances … say, a voting discrepancy or a winning candidate who wasn’t eligible to run. The state constitution also says nothing about throwing candidates off the ballot for failing to fill out disclosure forms.

Judge Crockett made a mistake. He could also use a refresher on the separation of powers. The Legislature makes the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws. The judicial branch interprets the law when disputes arise. A judge’s job isn’t to mandate how things should be. It’s to apply the law as it exists. No doubt, some judges think they could do a better job than legislators at making laws. But most of them have the good sense to resist creating new law from the bench.

Judge Crockett now has a chance to reverse his mistake. A hearing on the case is scheduled for Thursday. Mr. Burke said he wasn’t notified of the original Sept. 13 hearing, which may help explain, but doesn’t excuse, the judge’s ruling. He has also filed his back reports and paid a fine for his tardiness. Those reports show that he lent himself $100. That’s hardly indicative of underhanded tactics designed to steal an election.

The secretary of state’s office has also filed an amicus brief in the case. It reads in part, “A person may not be disqualified from running for a legislative office simply by virtue of having neglected to timely file a contribution and expense report or financial statement.”

That’s the law. Judge Crockett’s job is to follow it. He should reverse his decision.