By Anjeanette Damon, Reno Gazette-Journal
September 19, 2009
A national ethics watchdog group is raising questions about the propriety of former U.S. District Judge Brian Sandoval exploring a run for governor while still sitting on the bench.
Sandoval, a Republican who gave up his lifetime appointment this week to re-enter politics, said he closely adhered to an opinion issued by the 9th Circuit that outlined the narrow restrictions for how he could consider the campaign without violating judicial canons prohibiting political activity.
But Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said evidence over the summer indicates Sandoval may acted outside those restrictions.
"They were pretty strict requirements," Sloan said. "It didn't allow Judge Sandoval very much room for maneuvering. And I think there are some questions about some of his activities."
Sloan referred to reports of a national organization including Sandoval's name in a poll it conducted on the Nevada governor's race earlier this summer, as well as the widespread talk of his potential candidacy in the months leading up to his resignation. She also questions whether the opinion would allow Sandoval to talk to the political consultants who urged him to enter the race in the first place.
CREW is the same organization that has filed multiple complaints on U.S. Sen. John Ensign's admitted affair with a campaign staffer.
In a written statement Friday, Sandoval stressed that he followed the restrictions set out by the Committee on Codes of Conduct.
"In accordance with the opinion that I sought, I did not raise money, form a committee (informal or otherwise), engage in any political activity, or participate in the planning of or execution of any political polling," he wrote.
In an interview on the day of his resignation, Sandoval said he scrupulously avoided any ethical entanglements over the summer as he mulled leaving the bench for politics.
"I was very strict that I could not talk about a campaign or anything I was doing," Sandoval said. "I had to be very cautious about who I spoke with when I was going through this thought process.
"If I decided not to run, I didn't want to be afoul of any ethics canons, and if I decided to run, I wanted to make sure I did everything by the book."
The opinion issued by Committee on Codes of Conduct for the 9th Circuit advised that Sandoval only "consult privately with a limited group of individuals" about the possibility of a run. It prohibited him from conducting any "public solicitation, inquiry or polling."
Sandoval said he never authorized anyone to conduct polls on his behalf, but said the political consultants he was talking to "made me aware of polling."
"I'm aware of polling," he said. "I didn't do any polling. I don't know if (the consultants) did polling."
Sandoval said he began talking Pete Ernaut and Greg Ferraro, both Republican strategists from Reno, early this summer. He said they approached him with the idea of running against Gov. Jim Gibbons in the June primary next year. He also had one conversation with Mike Slanker, of November Inc., Sandoval said.
U.S. District Chief Judge Roger Hunt said he approached Sandoval earlier this summer when he received a report about the poll.
"It was my opinion and is still my opinion that he knew nothing about it," Hunt said. "He had not authorized it and was not aware it was being done. It's my belief he had not made a decision, and I don't think he was really even considering at that time leaving the bench."
Hunt said he doesn't think the outside polling violated any judicial canons.
"He has no control over what other people do," he said.
The polling occurred well before Sandoval submitted his resignation on Aug. 15, Hunt said. He couldn't remember exactly when he had the conversation with Sandoval.
Sloan said just the fact Sandoval had conversations with professional political consultants could put him in violation of the judicial canon prohibiting political activity. The actions may undercut his attempt to position himself as the "ethical candidate."
"I think these are legitimate questions, especially when you hold yourself out as the ethics candidate, as this guy is, and you're pretty close to the line, if not over it."