Court Opinion

ID: 9571667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:34:05.127439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:46.855179
License: Public Domain

*165Guy, D. J.,
concurring:1
I concur with the results. I would go further than the majority pertaining to the Attorney General.
Having decided that the Commission is a part of the Judicial Department, I would further order the Attorney General, her associates and Special Deputy Attorneys General to have no further contact with this case or any other matter appearing before the Commission.
Aside from the obvious Attorney General conflict noted in the majority opinion, article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada expressly forbids either the Legislature or the Executive to intrude into the Judicial.
Article 3, section 1 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada entitled “Three separate departments; separation of powers,” states:
The powers of the Government of the State of Nevada shall be divided into three separate departments, — the Legislative, — the Executive and the Judicial: and no persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of the three departments shall exercise any functions, appertaining to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed and permitted.
(Emphasis added.)
The Constitution of the State of Nevada invests the governing of this state in three co-equal divisions of government: The Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. Neither is more important than the other two. Neither is any less important than the other two. They are co-equal partners in the governing of the State of Nevada. The Constitution of the State of Nevada does not authorize a non-criminal investigation into either the internal *166organization or the competency of one branch of government by either of the other two divisions. These matters are left to the voters.
Article 6, section 21 (9) (a) authorizes the Commission to use attorneys and attorneys at law to act as counsel to conduct the proceedings. It does not authorize the Attorney General to act in any capacity for the Commission. The use of the Attorney General in an administrative judiciary proceeding for the possible administrative discipline of a member of the judiciary cannot be condoned.
It is certain that to permit the executive department, to wit, the Attorney General, whether upon request or otherwise, to be counsel or in any way participate in the possible disciplinary action procedure of a justice or district judge before whom the Attorney General must appear for judicial decisions, could cause investigations, brought about for political reasons or because of decisions that were unfavorable. The power or ability to bring before the Commission only that information or those facts necessary for a favorable decision for disciplinary action is a great temptation. The temptation becomes even greater if there is only a scintilla of evidence indicating that a justice or district judge might need censoring or a stricter penalty. The Legislature may not authorize that which is forbidden by the Constitution.
I would remand this matter to the Commission to commence or proceed in its investigation and proceedings by an impartial investigator not within the executive or legislative branch. Such investigator, of course, could be an attorney at law.

 The Governor appointed the Honorable Addeliar D. Guy, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court, to sit in place of The Honorable Cliff Young, Justice, who is disqualified because he is a member of the Commission on Judicial Discipline. Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4.