I just had to say a few words about state Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders’ guest column yesterday in the Seattle Times: “Judge-election system works well.”
Um… no it doesn’t. For some unfathomable reason, WA is one of just four states that elects judges, yet places no campaign finance limits on judicial elections.
But if some elites of the Washington State Bar Association and political insiders have their way, this all could change. First on the agenda is capping individual contributions to judicial campaigns. Second is eliminating judicial elections altogether.
I’ll start with his second point first… nobody is talking about eliminating judicial elections altogether. Well… okay… maybe I have… but nobody of any significance is talking about it, as such a reform just wouldn’t fly with voters. (FYI, I would prefer a system of judicial appointments, with regular retention votes.)
Second (or is it first?), his attempt to pejoratively paint supporters of contribution limits as “elites” and “political insiders” is simply dishonest. I can tell you that I have heard talk of a possible initiative that would subject judicial campaigns to the same limits as other offices… and it hasn’t come from the Bar Association. It’s coming from citizen activists who are justifiably concerned about the fact that median spending on judicial races has more than doubled since 2000, with no end in sight.
As I’ve pointed out before, the BIAW spent over half a million dollars during the past two campaigns electing Justice Jim Johnson… nearly $200,000 in 2004. Now that one business group has bought itself a seat on the state Supreme Court, you can bet that other business groups will want to buy one too. And the same national organizations that launched a multimillion dollar smear campaign against Deborah Senn in the last election, is also spending tens of millions of dollars a year electing conservative, pro-business judges across the nation. We are only beginning to see the inevitable explosion in judicial campaign spending.
Justice Sanders’ arguments are filled with red herrings, especially his contention that contribution limits would encourage “independent expenditures.” There are limits on the content of independent expenditures, making them less useful to a campaign than direct contributions… but that’s beside the point. The real issue here is not whether contribution limits are good or bad, but whether there is any practical reason why judicial candidates should be exempt from the same campaign finance restrictions as every other elected official.
Indeed, one could argue that judicial campaigns are more in need of contribution limits. In its talking points on campaign finance reform, the King County Bar Association highlights the disturbing example of Cruise Specialists, Inc., which made political contributions totaling $112,000 in 2004, all of it to Justice Johnson’s campaign. The founder and president of the company was a defendant in a lawsuit, and found liable to the plaintiff for $18 million. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, in a decision written by Judge Mary Kay Becker… Johnson’s campaign opponent.
It can’t be said for certain that the Lantermans gave $112,000 in order to defeat the judge who had affirmed a major jury verdict against them. But it is the case that these are the only contributions by this company in 2004 and that the contributions were made after the primary when it was clear that Judge Becker would face Johnson in the general election.
The CSI contributions send a chilling message to judges who must decide cases involving wealthy litigants. They illustrate the possibility that a disgruntled litigant can target a sitting judge. Campaign finance limits should be extended to judicial races for this reason if for no other. Judges must be insulated from the threat of overwhelming campaign contributions to their opponent as a method of revenge.
I find Justice Sanders argument that contribution limits would make judicial elections even more prone to influence from wealthy individuals and special interests to be convenient, but silly. I sincerely hope his judicial decisions are better reasoned that his op/ed pieces.
do you see a problem here with a justice doing a guest op-ed????
Ghost @1,
Generally, no… as long as it is not about an issue that might come before him. My problem was not with im writing a guest column, but with what he wrote in it.
goldy….point taken, but, i still think their opinions should be kept to themselves. period.
the only time i want to hear them talking is in a court room and based solely on law…not their opinions.
Here’s a great example of why the left will continue to lose. When you disagree, rather than engaging in a rational discussion, you engage it die-ins, mob protests, heckling military recruiters, blaming talk radio, whining, cowardly vandalism, and in general a lot of emotional responses.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200....._vandalism
It’s gotten so bad that Goldy melts down into a tirade where he uses fuck as almost every word in a sentence. We understand you guys are all big losers. But have some dignity and develop a strategy for turnaround rather than just throwing tantrums and blaming everything on Bush.
Sticker removal and minor vandalism has happened to my car too, and I did not even have a Bush sticker. I think I’ll set up a camera and give the footage to the cops.
so whats the problem? most of the judges on the bench march to the beat of the dominate party in Washington state politics….where ya been the last 20yrs man….why is it a problem now?
We have more pressing problems in the courts than this, like how do you get an old bastard like U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist to step down and call it a day. A person in this condition has no buisiness making important decisions. This man needs to be in a retirement center deciding if he is going to have cold cereal or oatmeal for breakfast. We need a way of getting the likes of him the hell out of the job. All due respect but his time is well past.
Jeff B @ 4
Nothing emotional going on at (un)SP is there? Nothing emotional at all about you…
Nice work being Goldy’s personal Miss Manners…
My 2 Cents about @4
Jeff, WTF does an article about an air force reserve colonel in Denver getting arrested for vandalism have to do with the topic of this thread?
If your intention is to depict all Bush opponents as vandals because of what one individual did, then all Bush supporters are vandals too: http://www.komotv.com/stories/32534.htm
Dumb fuck.
Goldy, I remember Jim Johnson from his days as an Indian-baiting assistant attorney general doing Slade Gorton’s hatchet work on the tribes. The irony is that Cantwell’s winning margin of 2,200 voters over Gorton in 2000 was provided by Native American voters. Washington has nearly 30 tribes, and they know when someone is kicking them in the shins.
What Johnson wants to do is ensure that the radical right wing can buy control of Washington’s judiciary so they can shove their extremist agenda down the throats of all Washington citizens. That will be harder to do if the donation limits imposed on all other campaigns apply to judicial races.
An important point to remember is that judges, unlike other candidates, aren’t allowed to publicly defend their decisions. This makes judges especially vulnerable to a well-financed group running an attack campaign against a mainstream judge they want to replace with a radical.
However, I don’t agree with your argument that judges should be appointed instead of elected. Who would do the appointing? It would have to be an elected official such as the governor, and appointees inevitably would be political cronies of the sitting governor. Washington voters don’t always do a perfect job of electing judges. Sometimes they elect a Sanders or Johnson. But they generall do a pretty good job. Most voters take the job of sorting through judicial candidates seriously, and try to pick the ones who will be the best judges, not the best ideologues. The overall track record of electing judges in this state has been pretty good, so I see no reason to change to an appointed system.
Here’s a link to the Lanterman case: http://www.risad.com/WA_Morbeck-Kirlan_2003.htm
The Army sacked a 4-star general for having an affair with a civilian after separting from his wife, but has done nothing to any of the generals running America’s torture machine (except for a female reserve brigadier appointed as human sacrifice) — that indicates to me that either (a) having sex is a more serious offense than torturing and murdering people, or (b) torture is official policy.
Electing judges is just plain stupid. I have yet to meet anybody who has any clue about any judge’s qualifications before voting.
9
Let’s choose (b).
Roger Rabbit @9,
I think the way to do it is a bipartisan commission (there’s no such thing as nonpartisan) composed of judges, Bar Association representatives, elected officials, other appointees, etc) who present a list of acceptible nominees to the governor.
I know it sounds elitist, but even under the best circumstances, the vast majority of voters (including myself) simply aren’t qualified to elect judges.
RR @9 the winning margin was provided by voter fraud in the King county political machine, just like the recent governors selection.
@14 You are correct that it is very difficult for voters to determine which judge candidate is worth electing. It might be useful to loosen the restrictions on what a judge is allowed to say in a campaign.
Leftys just want more campaign finance laws, as a back door way to restrict free speech (witness them going after KVI guys)….
16
How do campaign finance laws restrict free speech?
Gary @ 15 writes:
“RR @9 the winning margin was provided by voter fraud in the King county political machine, just like the recent governors selection.”
Ahhh. . . another out-to-lunch sore loser.
roger rabbit…america’s torture machine????? oh come on!
okay…i’ll bite….WHERE?
Dr E at 17;
Don’t you recall a month ago or so, suit against the gas initiative said that under state law, campaign has to show/claim its free publicity from KVI. That is the type of anti free speech stuff that happens when a poliitical campaign has finance type rules, regulations. Gov’t was trying to wind its way into the Opinion vs News angle of a radio station. I’d say you really can’t do that, that is, tell me what part of liberal slant on stories in NY Times is editiorial opinion, vs news. Same for KVI or Fox, so what if their news has a slant, or their opinion side is one sided.
Get rid of the rules on campaign finance, (heck, both parties always find loopholes).
20
I think we’re talking about a matter of degree here: to what extent KVI was functioning as on-air advocacy for I-912. I believe the judge excluded discussions and interviews on the topic, focusing instead on the extent to which Carlson and Wilbur actively promoted the ballot measure, soliciting donations, calling for volunteers to collect signatures, etc. This is very different from an op-ed, a newspaper’s printed endorsements, or any (real or perceived) editorial bias that might show up in a media outlet’s coverage of a news story.
dr e
None of the judges business what they talk about on the air. That’s why those laws are bad; now it allows the judiciary to censor free speech.
What if you had to report all your emails, your posts? What if goldy had to say how much he posted on 912?
21
Well, the only issue that is close to the KVI situation is the RI mayor’s lawsuit. The circumstances surrounding this lawsuit are really quite different, so I don’t think a comparison can be drawn here.
You might try do draw a comparison with the ACLU’s opposition to the 527 rule change, but I don’t think that really works either.
23
The judiciary is not censoring free speech — the radio hosts are free to say whatever they want (just look at Mike Savage, for instance). The question is not whether they have the right to say what they want, but whether their activities constituted advocacy for the ballot measure.
14
We have that now, Goldy. Several organizations (including the Bar Association) interview and rate judicial candidates. Candidates with the best ratings invariably publicize them in their voters pamphlet blurbs and campaign advertising. Many voters do use the ratings to guide their voting selections.
Reply to 15
Do you have any FACTS to back that up, jackass? Or are you just blowing brain farts, like you usually do?
REply to 19
Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, assorted detention facilities in Afghanistan and aboard Navy ships and in other countries, and various hired foreign governments.
Now I ask you, my friends, how can ANYONE still maintain that the U.S. is not systematically torturing prisoners? Only someone who is in (a) total denial, or (b) a coma.
Hey, Roger Rabbit – it’s time to let Harry Poon have the body for a while. I’ll bet he’d like to say something.
20
I agree with you, righton. (!) The judge and Public Disclosure Commission should — nay, MUST — butt out. Carlson and Wilbur can say whatever they want in their on-air seances. Talk-radio ranting is not an “in-kind contribution” for purposes of the campaign laws.
It’s not intelligent discussion, either, for any purposes.
Reply to 22
No, it’s hair-splitting of the intolerable kind.
Freedom of speech is in grave jeopardy if we allow this kind of judicial micromanagement of regularly scheduled radio broadcasts to go forward.
30
Harry Poon can post anytime he/she feels like it. I’m not Harry Poon, and I’m not responsible for Harry Poon’s posting or lack thereof, nor am I Harry Poon’s (a) mother (b) supervisor.
Sounds like you have too much time on your hands and need to get a job.
Yeah, RR
Air America is also crap (from my pov) but heck, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
And of course most of the PI are Demo PR hacks, so similarly let them type away and don’t mess w/ them either.
FTC@7,
Huh? Who’s Jeff B.?
Roger Rabbit@8,
The comments are open. People say whatever they want. If Goldy doesn’t like it he can shut down comments, ban commenters, etc. It’s just a stupid blog, if you want a real voice, go get a job at a newspaper.
Dr. E@22
But Carlson as well as Kirby both also solicited funding for the anti 912 campaign, including but not limited to asking people like Goldy on the show to validate their stand on 912.
Goldy,
It would take a constitutional amendment to make the judiciary non-elected positions. Of course there are flaws in any election system. But Sanders did not raise even half of what Justice Johnson raised. Sanders has been elected because of a strong grass roots appeal. Plus the amount of $$ that Johnson raised in 2004 was less than in 2003 when he lost. But no-one complained about the $$ when Johnson lost. So it does appear as though the “elites” just have sour grapes when their candidate (Becker) lost.
I think that the people are more than qualified to elect judges. However if you think you are not qualified, then can you tell me whether you vote for justices, and why?
Have you ever changed your mind on issues that you post on? If so, I would ask that you reconsider on this issue. There are compelling arguments that Justice Sanders has made. One is that contribution limits tend to favor incumbents. Sanders is speaking the truth.
Liking it.
Reply to 29
Do you have any FACTS to back that up, jackass? Or are you just blowing brain farts, like you usually do? The few reports of abuse have been demonstrated to be left wing propaganda. Unless you count sleep deprivation of known mass murderers as tortute. You really are a partisian ASS
28
Gitmo and Abu Graib? You gotta be kidding me.
Its torture to turn the AC temp lower than comfortable? Its torture to play loud music? Its torture to force someone to stay awake? Its torture to lead someone around on a dog leash? Its torture to threaten to sic a dog on someone? Its torture to force someone to go naked? Its torture to force prisoner to make a naked human pyramid?
The “re-education” treatment I received during Escape and Evasion training makes Gitmo and Abu Graib look like childs play. You whiny leftists have no idea what REAL torture is about.
36
Did I say anything about closing down the comments? Why should Goldy stop you from making a public ass of yourself?
38 & 39
Appears to be (a) total denial.
test
test
Direct TV Source DirecTV Direct TV