A pending recusal dispute has put a question of judicial impartiality at the center of the contest for Clark County District Court’s Department 28. Civil attorney Danielle Tarmu and Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Noreen Demonte are seeking the open seat; Nevada Current reports that incumbent Judge Ron Israel is not running for reelection.
The legal standard is broader than proof of actual bias: Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 says a judge must disqualify themself when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Whether the circumstances in a particular case meet that standard depends on the case; the rule alone does not resolve the dispute over Demonte.
The dispute concerns Jon Ponder, who faces charges alleging sexual abuse and unauthorized contact with Nevada prison inmates. Tarmu has called for Demonte to recuse herself, arguing that connections to both the prosecution and defense create a conflict. Nevada Current reports that Demonte will not recuse herself from Ponder’s preliminary hearing, scheduled for Oct. 6, which she is set to preside over.
Police say Ponder was arrested Aug. 18, 2026, and booked on nine felony counts and 11 gross misdemeanors, including one count of sexual assault, seven counts of unauthorized custodial contact and one count of attempted sexually motivated coercion. The charges remain allegations, not findings of guilt. LVMPD said detectives were seeking additional potential victims as its investigation continued.
The case involves the founder of Hope for Prisoners, a Las Vegas reentry nonprofit whose programs help people transition from correctional facilities and jails; the organization has also partnered with the Metropolitan Police Department. In 2020, President Donald Trump granted Jon Ponder a full presidential pardon. The department describes the nonprofit as serving people returning from correctional facilities, local jails and rehabilitation programs, while the White House announced Ponder’s pardon that year.
The connections cited in the dispute involve both a past endorsement and people linked to the case. Nevada Current reports that Demonte had endorsed Ponder before his arrest and that her campaign later removed his name from its website. Campaign consultant Tom Letizia said the removal expressed no view on the case’s merits or Demonte’s ability to decide it fairly. The outlet also reported that attorney David Chesnoff, who represented Ponder at his initial appearance, is a Demonte donor and is hosting a fundraiser for her. Sheriff Kevin McMahill and District Attorney Steve Wolfson, who have endorsed Demonte, served on the Hope for Prisoners board; Nevada Current reported that they were advised in 2020 to terminate Ponder after misconduct allegations but took no action.
The candidates bring different professional experience to a department that hears civil and criminal cases. Nevada Current reports that Tarmu has worked in civil litigation, including insurance defense and law-and-motion practice, while Demonte has spent 18 years as a prosecutor and currently presides over a criminal docket in Justice Court. Tarmu has argued that the District Court needs more civil-litigation experience. Demonte did not respond to multiple interview requests for Nevada Current’s report; Letizia provided the campaign’s response on the recusal dispute.
The reported relationships and campaign arguments do not establish that Ponder is guilty or that Demonte is biased. The question raised by Rule 2.11 is whether her impartiality might reasonably be questioned in this proceeding, an assessment tied to the specific circumstances. Nevada Current reported that early voting in the judicial race begins Oct. 17.
Nevada’s code also pairs the recusal standard with a judge’s general duty to hear assigned cases: disqualification is required when Rule 2.11 applies, but not simply because a party requests it. The code says a judge’s obligation to step aside applies even if no disqualification motion is filed. That makes the dispute turn on the rule’s application to the specific circumstances, rather than on the filing of a motion alone. Nevada’s judicial conduct code sets out both duties.
