Nevada received a poor grade in a new report comparing financial disclosure reports of state supreme court chief justices, with authors saying the state’s forms fail to seek information about investments, board positions and other matters that could inform the public about potential conflicts of interest. 

The report, published last week by government transparency nonprofit Fix the Court, compared financial disclosure reports of the state supreme court chief justice in each state.

Nevada received 20 out of 30 total points, a failing score that puts the state near the bottom half of rankings. A state having 24 points or higher received a passing grade.

Comprehensive financial disclosures help build trust with the public, ensuring that justices are not making judgments in cases where they have a financial stake, said Gabe Roth, author of the report and CEO of Fix the Court, in an interview.

“We need to ensure that they're maintaining their end of the bargain when it comes to the public’s trust,” he added. 

There are infrequent opportunities for judges to be held accountable by the public via elections, Roth said, which is why maintaining trust with the public is so important.

Nevada’s seven supreme court justices are elected to six-year terms and justices do not have term limits. But a spokesperson for the Nevada Supreme Court told The Nevada Independent that those elections — plus oversight from the Commission on Judicial Discipline — “provide public accountability.” 

That’s in contrast to federal supreme court judges, who are appointed for life and do not face term limits or electoral accountability, the spokesperson added.

In the report, Nevada performed well in only one category — online accessibility of the financial disclosure reports. The annual judicial disclosure reports are readily available online by searching the Nevada judiciary website and authors awarded the state full points in that category. 

Where the state falters is in the contents of reports. 

Nevada’s financial disclosure report only asks whether justices received any gifts valued over $200 and to require them to report any reimbursements over $200. 

Chief Justice Douglas Herndon disclosed a $195 reimbursement for the Nevada Justice Association’s annual conference in his 2024 financial disclosure report.

Justices are not asked to disclose any investments, board positions, spousal income, investments such as stock ownership or liabilities, such as student loan debt and mortgages. 

Colorado and California, which tied for first in the rankings, asked judges to report all of that information. 

Real estate, including second and vacation homes, have historically been at the crux of ethics investigations about judges, Roth said. For example, judges have been investigated for hosting litigants at their vacation home or received sweetheart deals on real estate properties in exchange for political favors.

“Where spouses work is important in making sure judges don’t give favorable treatment to companies their spouses work for,” Roth said.

Nevada judges follow the Judicial Code of Conduct, which was modeled after the American Bar Association’s (ABA) code of ethics, Roth said.

Although the ABA language was progressive in a time where financial disclosure reports were not mainstream, Roth said, the language is largely outdated now. 

Even if justices have annual disclosure reports, they can elect to exclude certain information about trips.

The report comes one month after a Las Vegas Review-Journal investigation revealed seven judges in Clark County took fully funded educational trips without reporting them on their annual financial disclosure reports.

The trip was sponsored by George Mason University’s Law and Economic Education center, a group that takes donations from ideologically conservative organizations such as The Federalist Society, and corporations such as Johnson & Johnson and Exxon Mobil.