<meta name="google-site-verification" content="cIysTRjRVzTnQjmVuZAwjuSqUe0TUFkavppN8dORD0Q" /> Q&A for Esther Rodriguez, Esq. candidate for Nevada Supreme Court | Seat B | The Urban Voice An Online Directory of Businesses Owned and Operated by African-Americans

Q&A for Esther Rodriguez, Esq.


QUESTION: Why are you running for Nevada Supreme Court?

 

ANSWER: The judicial race for the Nevada Supreme Court is one of the most important races on the ballot. Many people do not realize the tremendous impact that the decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court can have on their everyday lives, whether it be family law issues, consumer issues, negligence issues, or criminal matters. The Nevada Supreme Court defines the parameters that each of the Court’s below work within, be it family court, civil court or criminal court. The Court similarly defines the limits for what your attorney can do for you in terms of seeking to vindicate your rights or seeking damages for compensation or injustices. That is why it is important to have the right person on the bench at the Supreme Court. This should be a person who is not only qualified and experienced, but is empathetic to the needs and challenges faced by all Nevadans. I believe I am that person who will bring a fair and balanced perspective to the bench.

 

QUESTION: What is the significance of potentially being elected as the first minority woman as a Supreme Court Justice in Nevada?

 

ANSWER: While the make-up of our State is diverse, the make-up of our judiciary is not reflective of our citizens. In fact, we presently have an all-white State Supreme Court, which is certainly not the make-up of the State of Nevada. Our State has benefitted with the many contributions of our cultural diversity. Presently, persons who identify as people of color, including African-Americans, Latinos and Asians, comprise half of our population. Yet in our State’s history we have never had a Latino on the Supreme Court, nor any woman of color. We had the good fortune to have the distinguished Justice Michael Douglas the first African-American State Supreme Court Justice, but he is now retired. I don’t think anyone would argue with the great contributions he brought to the bench. With his retirement, there is clearly a void.

 

Diversity in the judiciary is important in that it restores public confidence in our judicial system. Nevadans need to have confidence in the Courts that are meant to serve them. Further, the present lack of diversity affects the decision-making of the court; it is important to have a different point of view involved in making the important state law decisions. I would be extremely proud to serve in this capacity, having been the first person in my family to attend college. My father was an immigrant from Mexico who obtained an opportunity to come to this country due to his athletic abilities, and saw the value of providing his children with an education. I attended this country’s top institutions of Princeton, Stanford and Tulane Law School. With my cultural background, it has always been important to me to utilize my talents and the opportunities I have been given in public service  for the betterment of others that have not been as fortunate. I want to continue to serve all Nevadans as best I can as the next Supreme Court justice. When elected, I will continue to be involved in outreach and education to the community to communicate that we are here to serve all citizens.

 

QUESTION: The Nevada Supreme Court recently prepared guidelines for judges to utilize when imposing ‘Cash Bail’.  What are your thoughts on this ruling?

 

ANSWER: In a landmark decision of Valdez-Jimenez and Frye v. State of Nevada , the Nevada Supreme Court has implemented over-due reform to the use of cash bail for pretrial release in the state’s criminal justice system. In a 6-1 ruling, the justices issued an opinion that creates a new process for lower-court judges to follow before requiring a person to pay cash bail in order to be released before trial. The decision reduces the requirement for cash bail for defendants, while looking at other factors, allowing more to stay out of jail and to maintain their employment and obligations without interruption. It allows for defendants who did not commit violent offenses to instead be out of jail on restricted conditions, thereby eliminating a large obstacle for lower income defendants who often cannot afford excessive cash bail.

 

Justice Kristina Pickering wrote the sole dissenting opinion. The majority opinion acknowledged that when bail is set in an amount the defendant cannot afford, it deprives the defendant of his or her liberty, despite the fact that he or she has not been convicted and is presumed innocent. It now requires judges to take into consideration individual circumstances of the accused (such as character or ties to the community), past criminal history, and nature of the crime. There has long been an outcry from the community for bail reform, and this case decision goes a long way towards implementing a more just system, while still protecting the rights of victims and their families. This also serves as a benefit to the tax-payers in reducing the imprisonment of non-violent offenders. It is fortunate that the court opted to hear this case and to issue a ruling because of its public importance.

Nevada Opinion-Editorial Politics