Nineteen candidates, most from Southern Nevada, told local lawyers about their experience and qualifications and debated hot-button issues such as judicial selection and "activist judges."

The debate was moderated by former association President John Curtas of Armstrong Teasdale.

The panel was sharply divided on the most prominent issue of the debate: judicial selection.

The Legislature is trying to pass a constitutional amendment changing the way District Court judges are chosen, going from an election system to one in which judges are appointed by the governor and then run to retain their seats.

A show of hands, requested by a member of the audience, indicated that the judicial candidates were split about 50-50 on the issue. At least two candidates abstained.

Curtas likened the current election system to "electing the town engineer" and asked whether in the context of all the judicial scandals and controversies in the past two years it might be best to change the system.

Benjamin Boone Childs Sr., running for Department 6, argued that the selection method is not the problem as "90 percent of judges in this state are first appointed."

Robert Spretnack, running for Department 7, argued there is nothing wrong with the current system.

"I think the election process worked," he said. "There were two problem judges (Nicholas Del Vecchio and Elizabeth Halverson), and the people voted them out."

Bruce Gale, running for Department 17, suggested Nevada should skip elections altogether, appointing all judges for life.

Most candidates, though, agreed the real problem is not the system of choosing judges, but the lack of information about candidates that is available to the public.

"Poor judges reflect on all of us," said Chris Davis, who is a running in Department 14. "There is too little information out there. Lawyers need to spread the word about good judges."

Candidates in a key Supreme Court race highlighted the debate over what experience judges need to do their jobs effectively.

Mary "Kris" Pickering and District Judge Deborah Schumacher, who are running against one another for an open seat on the Supreme Court, were asked about the importance of judicial experience when weighing candidates for the state's only appellate court.

Pickering, an attorney who has litigated before the state Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and has some experience as a stand-in judge in Municipal Court and the Supreme Court, pointed out the three judges most recently elected to the state's top court had no experience as full-time judges and had turned out to be good at the job.

"Many groups believe a history of advocacy is the critical feature in qualification for the Supreme Court judges," she said. "I have that experience."

Schumacher countered that judicial experience is key and seemed to take offense at Pickering's choice of words.

"Judicial experience matters," Schumacher said. "If I had never been an advocate I would take that better, but I was an advocate with the law firm of McDonald Carano Wilson and took a change in course (becoming a judge) after adopting a child."

The debate also allowed each candidate to make a case as to why they are most qualified for the contested seats.

Most touted their experience, lengthy criminal and civil practices, willingness to be fair and impartial or how long their families have lived in Nevada.

But a few took the opportunity to take shots at their opponents.

Thomas Frank Christensen, running to unseat Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Gibbons, said he was running "reluctantly" because he would like to improve the court by publishing more opinions and ruling based on actual law and case law.

He also vowed to fight "cronyism."

Robert Spretnack, running for Department 7 against Linda Marie Bell, said that he should be elected because he will bring no agenda to the bench and not take sides.

Davis called his opponent, Judge Donald Mosley of Department 14, "corrupt."

Debates were not the only issue of the day.

The bar association honored Justice Bill Maupin with the second of its yearly Liberty Bell Awards.

The judge, who is retiring this year, was thanked for his dedication to equal access to justice, including indigent defense and legal aid for the mentally ill.

The judge said he was surprised when he found out several months ago that he would be receiving the award.

"My accomplishments had little to do with me as an individual but everything to do with the Clark County Bar Association and its members," Maupin said.

The bar also took the opportunity to plead for donations for its annual Shoes That Fit drive, collecting money to buy shoes for needy schoolchildren, and the WeekEnd Hunger program that sends healthy food home with poor children.

The bar needs to raise thousands of dollars to provide shoes and food-filled backpacks to all students who need them.

The Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada (formerly Clark County Legal Services) also called on lawyers to take pro bono cases from the swamped nonprofit group.

The organization has a backlog of child abuse victims in need of representation and is also looking for lawyers to help Holocaust survivors fill out applications for reparations from the German government.

The Clark County Bar Association is hosting a second debate, this time for Family Court and justice of the peace candidates at an Oct. 16 luncheon.

For more information, go to www.clarkcountybar.org.