Attachment A: Explanation Page for Verified Statement of Complaint

Dear Commissioners,
We, the undersigned, submit this complaint regarding Clark County Eighth Judicial District Judge
Susan Johnson’s partisan comments in three different sentencing hearings in 2017. They reflect
Judge Johnson telling Defendants that if they follow the terms of their plea agreements they will
be able to vote for President Donald Trump in 2020. In the third instance, Judge Johnson went
further to suggest that the President “could use [the defendant’s] vote.”
At his July 18, 2017 sentencing hearing, Defendant Gregory Galazin pled guilty to battery with
use of a deadly weapon, pursuant to a plea agreement. Judge Johnson told Mr. Galazin that if he
did not violate his probation, he could be honorably discharged after three years and have his
voting rights restored in “plenty of time” for the 2020 election. The full quote is as follows: “That
way your civil rights would be restored and you would have plenty of time to vote for Mr. Trump
on the next election, okay?”
The following week on July 25, 2017, Judge Johnson informed Defendant Reed Anthony Norris,
who was pleading guilty to attempted burglary, that he could not vote due to his felony conviction.
She added: “But if you do everything I tell you to do you’ve got an opportunity to do some great
things and possibly depending on the time you might be able to vote for Trump in the next
presidential election.”
Finally, during the August 31, 2017 sentencing hearing for Defendant Monique Fresquez, Judge
Johnson stated: “So, if you do everything you – that I tell you to do you will have your civil rights
restored in about three years. You’ll be able to vote for Mr. Trump, I’m sure he could use your
vote, okay?
It took some time for the undersigned to obtain copies of these transcripts from Clark County.
They are attached to each of the complaints. We have filed three separate complaints, one for each
case and each instance of judicial misconduct.

1
Nevada state law disenfranchises all felons, but automatically restores the civil rights of felons
upon completion of their sentences and release from prison either immediately or, if convicted of
a Category B felony, following a two-year waiting period. However, if that felon has previously
been convicted of Category A felonies, Category B felonies involving the use of force or violence
resulting in substantial bodily harm, or multiple felonies arising from different acts or occurrences,
NEV. REV. STAT. § 213.157 as amended by 2017 Nevada Laws Ch. 362 (A.B. 181), the ex-felon
must seek restoration by court order.
Rule 2.4(B) of the Revised Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct states: “A judge shall not permit
family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial
conduct or judgment.” More to the point, Rule 4.1 forbids Nevada judges from “publicly
endors[ing] or oppos[ing] a candidate for any public office.” President Donald Trump filed the
FEC paperwork for his reelection campaign in 2020 back on January 20, 2017.1 Donald J. Trump
for President, Inc. has also steadily raised funds, for example, raking in over $10 million during
the third quarter of 2017.2 Therefore, under any reasonable interpretation of the rules, President
Trump was a candidate at the time Judge Johnson made her comments, and Judge Johnson violated
Rule 4.1. The comments to Canon 4 underscore the importance of this ethical norm:
[3] Public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if
judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence. A judge or
candidate for judicial office retains the right to participate in the political process as a voter,
be a member of a political organization, and contribute personal funds to a candidate or
political organization. Although judges and judicial candidates may register to vote as
members of a political party, they are prohibited by paragraph (A)(1) from assuming
leadership roles in political organizations.
[4] Paragraphs (A)(2) and (A)(3) prohibit judges and judicial candidates from making
speeches on behalf of political organizations or publicly endorsing or opposing candidates
for public office, respectively, to prevent them from abusing the prestige of judicial office
to advance the interests of others.
Judge Johnson clearly crossed a line by publicly endorsing President Donald Trump’s reelection
bid and abused the prestige of her office to suggest that three defendants appearing before her
could or should vote for the President in 2020. Not only were her comments prohibited public
statements, worse, they were made from the bench in her capacity as a judicial officer. Judge
Johnson has previously dismissed these comments as “jokes,” but the defendants who appeared in
her courtroom may have perceived these comments differently. After all, criminal proceedings
are traumatic, sensitive experiences. A defendant, who appears in a sentencing hearing before a
judge who is weighing what punishment to order, may be much more impressionable and/or
suggestible than the average person.
That last point drives at a further serious issue raised by Judge Johnson’s off-hand campaigning
from the bench. Nevada is one of just ten states nationwide that still retains discretionary

1
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg?_201701209041436569+0
2
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00580100/1186850/
2
restoration of civil rights for some or all of its ex-felons.3 The laws of forty states and the District
of Columbia provide for the automatic, non-arbitrary restoration of the right to vote to ex-felons
after release from incarceration, the completion of parole and/or probation, or a waiting period, or
do not disenfranchise felons even during incarceration.4 While there is no indication – at this time
– that these two defendants will be subjected to discretionary judicial restoration, as opposed to
automatic restoration, Judge Johnson will surely adjudicate restoration of civil rights petitions in
the future. Her comments in support of President Donald Trump to date reveal not only that she
personally should not have the authority to grant or deny voting rights restoration to an ex-felon,

3
The other nine states include: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming. ALA. CODE § 15-22-36 (executive restoration for felony
convictions involving moral turpitude, but permanent disenfranchisement for specific felony
convictions); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-905‒13-912 (judicial restoration for individuals with
two or more felony convictions); FLA. CONST. art. VI, § 4 (executive restoration for all felony
convictions); IOWA CODE § 914.2 (executive restoration for all felony convictions); KY. CONST. §
145 (executive restoration for all felony convictions); MISS. CONST. art. 5, § 124; art. 12, § 253
(executive or legislative restoration for certain felony convictions, but permanent
disenfranchisement for other felony convictions); NEV. REV. STAT. § 213.157 as amended by 2017
Nevada Laws Ch. 362 (A.B. 181); TENN. CODE. ANN. §§ 40-29-202‒40-29-204 (executive
restoration for most felony convictions; permanent disenfranchisement for serious felony
convictions); VA. CONST. art. II, § 1 (executive restoration for all felony convictions); WYO. STAT.
ANN. § 7-13-105 (executive restoration for all felony convictions except non-violent first-time
felony convictions).
4
Maine and Vermont do not disenfranchise felons, even while they are incarcerated. ME. CONST.
art. II, § 1; VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 28, § 807(a). There are four categories of automatic restoration
schemes, and none of these laws would run afoul of the constitutional prohibitions underlying
Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the First Amended Complaint: (1) D.C. MUN. REGS. tit. 3 § 500.2; HAW. REV.
STAT. § 831-2(a)(1); ILL. CONST. art. III, § 2, 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/5-5-5; IND. CODE §§ 3-7-13-
4, 3-7-13-5; MD. CODE ANN. ELEC. LAW § 3-102(b)(1); MASS. CONST. amend. art. III, MASS. GEN.
LAWS ch. 51, § 1; MICH. COMP. LAWS § 168.758b; MONT. CONST. art. IV, § 2, MONT. CODE ANN.
§ 46-18-801(2); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 607-A:2, 607-A:3; N.D. CENT. CODE ANN. §§ 12.1-33-
01, 12.1-33-03; OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2961.01(A); OR. REV. STAT. § 137.281(7); 25 PA. CONS.
STAT. §§ 2602(t), 2602(w) 3146.1, http://www.votespa.com/en-us/Pages/Convicted-Felon.aspx;
R.I. CONST. art. II, § 1; UTAH CODE ANN. § 20A-2-101.5(2) (automatic restoration upon release
from incarceration); (2) CAL. ELEC. CODE § 2101(a); COLO. CONST. art. 7, § 10; COLO. REV. STAT.
§ 1-2-103(4); CONN. GEN. STAT. §§ 9-46, 9-46a; N.Y. ELEC. LAW § 5-106(3) (automatic
restoration after completion of parole, but prior to the end of probation); (3) ALASKA STAT. §
15.05.030; ARK. CONST. amend. 51, § 11(d); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 15, §§ 6103, 6104 (automatic
restoration except permanent disenfranchisement for certain disqualifying felony convictions);
GA. CONST. art. II, § I, para. III; IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-310(2); KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 21-6613,
22-3722; LA. CONST. art. I, §§ 10, 20; MINN. STAT. § 609.165; MO. REV. STAT. § 115.133; N.J.
STAT. ANN. §§ 2C:51-3, 19:4-1(8); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 31-13-1; N.C. GEN. STAT. ANN. §§ 13-1,
13-2; OKLA. STAT. tit. 26, § 4-101; S.C. CODE ANN. § 7-5-120(B); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 24-5-2;
TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 11.002; WASH. REV. CODE § 29A.08.520(1); W. VA. CODE § 3-2-2; WIS.
STAT. § 304.078(2) (automatic restoration following completion of parole and probation); and (4)
NEB. REV. STAT. ANN. § 29-112 (automatic restoration two years after completion of sentence).
3
but that no state official – least of all elected politicians including the Governor and state judges –
should be given the uncontrolled discretion to decide whether or not an ex-felon may vote.
Even though Judge Johnson is elected and allowed to engage in political activity in a limited way,
she is not permitted to endorse a political candidate, let alone suggest whom a Defendant would
or should support. Judges must be seen as neutral, impartial arbiters of legal disputes. Since judges
are commonly seen that way, such politically suggestive statements from the bench have all the
more influence over people whose lives are laid bare in criminal proceedings. While Nevada still
maintains a partial discretionary rights restoration regime, Judge Johnson should, at a minimum,
be reprimanded for her comments, if not prohibited from deciding any future civil rights restoration
petitions.
Sincerely,

Jon Sherman, Fair Elections Legal Network

and
PLAN Action
ACLU Nevada