Judge Charles Hoskin, a 17-year incumbent on the Family Court bench, is seeking re-election for another term. He faces a challenge from Timothy Treffinger, who previously ran for Clark County District Attorney in 2022 and lost that race. Treffinger has maintained a limited campaign presence and did not respond to requests for an interview. He filed one contribution report for the first quarter, showing no contributions or expenses, and did not file a report for the second quarter. Hoskin asserts his opponent is not actively campaigning.
Hoskin was appointed to the bench by Governor Jim Gibbons in 2009. He was subsequently elected by voters in 2010, 2014, and 2020. Hoskin states that he is seeking re-election due to the urging of family law attorneys. He cited their desire for stability and experience on the bench, noting the presence of many new or relatively new judges.
With 35 years of practice in family law prior to his judgeship, Hoskin says he had a strong understanding of legal processes and how individuals cope with them before becoming a judge. This background, he believes, helps him ensure a professional and informed environment in his department, which he credits with minimizing drama. He observes that some judges lack this prior experience, requiring time for them to learn the process and the intense emotions litigants experience.
Family court, according to Hoskin, deals with "probably the most emotional area of the law." He described the situation for litigants as rough, noting that they often did not ask for these circumstances and are unprepared. Litigants, he explained, are essentially asking a third party to make decisions that will profoundly affect them and their children.
Between 70% and 80% of Family Court litigants represent themselves in proceedings. To assist these unrepresented individuals, Hoskin contributed to the Supreme Court’s creation of rules for an informal, opt-in trial program. This program is designed to allow parties to bypass some of the confusing protocol that typically dominates court proceedings. The program enables litigants who may not understand court processes, rules of evidence, or procedures to present all necessary evidence without navigating complex requirements. Through this, the court can consider the totality of what litigants wish to present, rather than being restricted by strict rules of evidence.
The increasing use of artificial intelligence in motions is presenting new complexities for Hoskin and other judges. They report that AI-generated pleadings do not always accurately reflect what the party is actually requesting. Hoskin states that when necessary, he will ask pro se litigants for additional information and provide them an opportunity in court to clarify their positions. For attorneys, he says he is less lenient but still aims to fully understand their arguments, noting that he sometimes finds lawyers' prepared cases unclear despite their legal training.
In the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Judging the Judges 2025 survey, 83% of 108 evaluating attorneys recommended Hoskin for retention. However, according to Our Nevada Judges, which tracks judicial records, appellate courts found Hoskin to be in error in 42 of 80 cases.
Hoskin offered context for these statistics, stating that appellate judges have a different role than trial judges. He explained that his job involves applying evidence against the law to specific circumstances in the moment, while appellate judges analyze what occurred to determine if anything went awry, having the luxury of time for analysis. Hoskin noted that statistics do not always convey the full story. He expressed a desire to learn from mistakes, but finds it frustrating when similar cases receive a reversal in one instance and an affirmance in another, leaving him to discern future expectations.
Hoskin has received endorsements from several organizations. These include the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada, the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, the Culinary Union, the Southern Nevada Building Trades Union, IATSE 720, Teamsters Nevada, and Nevada Veterans United. As of October 5, Hoskin had raised $20,800 for his campaign and had just under $11,500 in his bank account. He stated that he is not actively trying to raise significant funds, citing his opponent’s apparent inactivity.
