The process of choosing Judges in Nevada court structure is usually undertaken in a non-partisan dimension through the voting process. However the most unique feature of the Nevada Court structure in the process of choosing judges occurs in the sense that voters are not provided with an option indicating any of the above’. meaning they cannot indicate that none of the candidates presented for elections is fit for judicial duties (Ames, 2014). This decision was arrived at after an election conducted in 2002, where approximately 78,000 voters indicated that none of the candidates that presented for elections was fit for judicial duties (www.judicialselection.us).
There have been certain proposed amendments that have been proposed by the Nevada Judicial systems but rejected. One of these proposed amendments that was rejected by a 70-30 election outcome was in 1996. this proposed amendment was geared toward setting term limits for judges, specifically indicating the judges could not be elected twice to occupy the same office, in case they had served in a previous term. However, after an intervention by concerned lawyers and other concerned citizens who undertook awareness campaigns in relation to the benefits of the proposed amendment, it was approved by a 70-30 election margin (www.judicialselection.us).
In 2007 and 2009, the Nevada legislature approved a proposed amendment that indicated that the process of selecting judges would be conducted through merit. However, legal documentation indicates that this amendment was quite different from the Missouri Plan in two dimensions: To begin with, this amendment suggested that judges would retain only retain office in the case that they accrue 55% of the votes cast. Secondly, the amendment suggested that an analysis of their performances, as well as evaluation, would determine if they remain in office or not. However, this amendment was also rejected with a vote margin of 58-42 (www.judicialselection.us).