Why Are Washoe County Judicial Races Uncontested?
As Washoe County voters prepare to cast ballots this November 3rd, they will find something unusual on the judicial portion of the ballot: most races aren’t races at all.
Among the district court, family court, and municipal court contests visible to voters in Reno, only two are contested, while most judges are running unopposed.
Contested Races
The contested races are:
Second Judicial District Court Department 1
Joe Gorman versus Derek Dreiling
Reno Municipal Court
Angela Gianoli versus Jenny Hubach
Reno Municipal Court: A System Without Pre‑Trial Justice
UnContested Races
Meanwhile, other judges on the ballot face no opposition, including:
Second Judicial District Court
Department 3 Tammy M. Riggs
Department 4 Connie J. Steinheimer
Department 6 Lynne Jones
Department 7 Egan K. Walker
Department 8 Barry Breslow
Department 9 Scott Freeman
Department 10 Kathleen A. Sigurdson
Department 15 David A. Hardy
Reno’s Judges are Bailing: A Look at Turnover, Vacancies, and Court Impacts
Second Judicial District Court Family Division
The Family Court ballot tells a similar story, with all candidates running unopposed, including:
Department 2 Dixie Grossman
Department 5 Kristine E. Riley
Department 11 Paige Dollinger
Department 12 Sandra A. Unsworth
Department 13 Alexander C. Morey
Department 14 Tamatha Schreinert
Department 16 Aimee E. Banales
An Unexpected Lack of Competition
The absence of challengers is noteworthy because it comes amid visible change and controversy in Washoe County’s court system.
In recent years, the courts have experienced judicial retirements, vacancies, appointments, administrative turnover, and public criticism from litigants who believe they were treated unfairly.
The situation became even more unusual earlier this year when Connie J. Steinheimer was placed on leave while remaining on the ballot for re-election. Yet no challenger emerged for her seat.
Ordinarily, political observers might expect controversy, uncertainty, or turnover to create opportunities for challengers. That did not happen.
Jacobs’ Signs, a Lawsuit, and a Judge Being Removed
Why Aren’t Attorneys Running?
One explanation may be that dissatisfaction among litigants does not necessarily translate into political opposition.
Courtrooms produce winners and losers. Every year, thousands of people leave court unhappy with a judge’s ruling. Family court litigants, criminal defendants, civil litigants, and parties in probate disputes often direct frustration toward judges. But unhappy litigants are not judicial candidates.
To challenge a district court judge, an individual must be an experienced attorney willing to suspend or abandon an existing legal practice, raise campaign funds, and publicly challenge an incumbent judge.
That is a much smaller pool of people than the number of citizens who may have complaints about the courts.
Another factor may be the unique nature of the legal community itself.
Washoe County’s legal community is relatively small. Many attorneys regularly appear before the same judges they would need to challenge. Losing a judicial race could mean returning to practice before the very judge they opposed during an election campaign.
That reality may discourage many potential candidates.
The Judge, the Senior Partner, the Junior Lawyer and the Scandal
The Incumbent Advantage
Judicial elections are unlike races for mayor, city council, or county commission.
Most voters know little about judicial candidates. Judicial races typically receive limited media coverage, attract relatively modest fundraising, and generate little public debate.
As a result, incumbents often begin with significant advantages:
Name recognition.
Existing professional networks.
Familiarity within the legal community.
A presumption of experience.
A challenger must overcome all of those factors before voters even begin evaluating qualifications.
In many cases, attorneys may conclude that the odds of victory do not justify the effort.
Judicial Complaint: What a Mother Alleged About Judge Bridget Robb
What It Means for Voters
The larger question is not whether individual judges deserve challengers.
The significant issue is what the lack of challengers says about the judicial election system itself.
Judicial elections are intended to provide public accountability. Yet when most races are uncontested, voters have little practical ability to choose between competing visions for how the courts should operate.
Instead, voters are often left with a simple vote-or-no vote referendum on incumbent judges. You can leave it blank.
Whether that signals public satisfaction, professional reluctance, structural barriers, or some combination of all three remains unclear.
What is clear is that despite recent turnover, controversy, and public criticism surrounding portions of Washoe County’s court system, only two judicial races are being actively contested this year.
For a court system that touches nearly every aspect of civic life, from criminal justice to family disputes to civil litigation, that lack of competition may be one of the most noteworthy stories of the 2026 election.
Do you have a story to tell? Write to me at: mike@mikesrenoreport.com
Support Reno independent journalism. Click to donate: Mike’s Reno Report.