Oh man, do I feel dirty. Yesterday I agreed with Seattle Times editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey. And today I agree with (ugh) Katie Riley, as she argues in support of former US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s crusade to end judicial elections.
Washington voters will remember the bruising supreme court justice races in 2006, when the Building Industry Association of Washington targeted the well-respected Chief Justice Gerry Alexander with unseemly and misleading ads. Alexander prevailed but the experience left many observers of Washington’s judicial elections uneasy at the close call — except, interestingly enough, the chief justice himself, who remains strongly in favor of judicial elections.
Advocates argue the system worked, that the nasty campaign spawned a voter backlash that saved Alexander. But I agree with those who argue the conversation would be much different if Alexander had been ousted.
[…]
However, the surprising truth about Washington’s judicial election system is that most judges aren’t elected. They arrive on the bench through a gubernatorial appointment. Of the state’s 218 elected judges on the supreme, appeals and superior courts, 60 percent of them were appointed by the governor, according to a 2009 study by Washington State University professors. And when they come up for re-election, 84 percent of incumbent judges are unchallenged.
Count me with those who think a citizen-based nominating commission, similar to that recommended by the 1996 Walsh Commission, would be a better way. The nominating commission would vet candidates and recommend the best to the governor for appointment. The judges would stand for retention elections.
My recollection is, that’s the way we did it in Pennsylvania, and as irritating as it may be for some folks out here to hear, there are things to be learned from other states… even East Coast ones.
Problem is, one of my rules of political thumb is that nobody ever votes for less democracy, and that’s exactly how such sensible reform would be misrepresented by opponents should it ever come to the ballot. That’s why I don’t find it surprising to hear Justice Alexander voice his support for the current system; he is, after all, subject to it, and any perceived opposition to direct election of judges could be effectively used against him in the next election. So the leadership to address this issue before it corrupts our judicial system must come from the governor and the legislature, as well as the editorial boards and other opinion leaders.
Over the past decade the US Chamber of Commerce alone has spent hundreds of millions of dollars influencing local judicial elections, an effort that has successfully flipped the ideological balance at the Supreme Court and appellate level in several states. I just don’t think that’s what the framers of Washington’s constitution had in mind when they enacted judicial elections as a safeguard against the railroad barons and bankers who had previously dominated the region’s government.
Electing judges, how ridiculous. Who, in their right mind, would want to politicize your judiciary?
If you truly want fair elections for judges, anyone should be able to run, barkeep, policeman, criminal, unemployed homeless person. But, of course, that also is ridiculous
When you elect your judges, many times they are put in this bind: child-custody battle between father-lawyer and mother, non-lawyer. Judge, by law, should award custody to the mother because of certain provisions in the law. But the judge knows if he rules for the mother, it will enrage the father/lawyer, which in turn leads to drawing a challenger in the next election, since only lawyers can stand for election to the bench.
So what to do if you are a young judge with a family to support, mortgage, car payments, credit cards, student loans? Follow the law, award custody to the mother, enrage the father/lawyer and risk a challenger at the next election; or protect you position on the bench, protect your income so you may continue to support your family in the manner they are accustomed, send your children for further education, plus the many perks you give up as a judge?
So in our system you have a choice: politician first, judge and law second (protect your family); or judge and law first, politician second (risk providing for your family because you rule against a lawyer).
I’ve worked in a state with a progressive judiciary, they use a judicial nominating system, 22 citizens from all walks of life and politics take applications for a judicial opening, they vet the applications down to a certain number and submit that list to the state judicial nomination committee who will then suggest five names to the governor who makes an appointment for a ten-year term, with high compensation. This high compensation is a must to attract our brightest, most talented lawyers.
Then after ten years the citizens can vote in a “shall-we-retain” election.
It takes four years just to learn the basics of being a judge. No easy task.
I have nothing against our present judges, they are all fine people, but if we continue to elect judges, we asking for trouble down the road.
Get politics out of our judiciary.
I agree with the commission idea as well, it will help preserve Judicial Independence and we won’t have cases like Caperton v. Massey. I have always admired Justice O’Connor and now even more. It’s a shame she isn’t the chief justice right now.
This would of course require an amendment to the state constitution. Any legislator willing to take this on?
re 1: What’s with the “Emmanuel Goldstein” bullshit?
Are you some kind of jew-baiting fascist? Why don’t you use your real fake name so we know who you are?
Overall, I concur w/Justice O’Connor and others about appointing judges vs. electing them. I’m nervous, however, about entrusting some “non-partisan” commission to vet potential candidates for presentation to the governor, if he/she is required to appoint only from this list. It’s too much of an invitation to the “good ol’ boy” club.
Excellent lawyers whose careers or interests are a little out of the mainstream will rarely if ever be selected by such a body. Any constitutional amendment should (a.) assure that the recommending commission be broadly based and include a healthy measure of non-lawyers, and (b.) the commission is only advisory to the governot
Actually, Goldy, the Pennsylvania system isn’t appointment-and-retention. In PA, judges can be appointed to fill vacancies, but they must gain their first full (10 year) term in a competitive election. It’s only after they’ve completed that initial term that they face retention elections. Here’s the relevant text from the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (.pdf file):
There’s another big difference between the PA and WA judicial-election systems, hiding in the first quoted paragraph — those initial competitive elections are partisan. IOW, the candidates have those pesky labels like Dem and Rep after their names. And the candidates get onto the general election ballot by running in party-specific primaries.
Then again, Pennsylvania has the great good sense to register voters by party. And the even greater good sense to run closed primaries.
Actually, Gerry Alexander will not be up in the next election.
He reaches the mandatory retirement age before his present term expires.
So this would seem to be his actual opinion, not one colored by a fear of electoral consequence.
re 4: Google Emmanuel Goldstein.
This is a character from the book 1984. The state needed someone to focus their hate. They needed someone that sounded vaguely Jewish and vaguely Spanish, never sure if this person existed. No matter, this afforded the general population someone to call a jew-baiting fascist.
It works.
re 8 – You tell ‘im!!
Here is a better idea, which incorporates the Walsh Commission suggestions.
1. All judicial VACANCIES will be filled by the Governor appointing from the top three candidates chosen by a majority-citizen commission. Maybe 17 members — 9 non-lawyers, one from each congressional district, 4 lawyers, and 4 judges.
2. ALL judges will have to be voted on at each election at their normal terms (i.e. 4 years for trial courts, 6 years for appellate courts).
3. If no one files against the judge, the voters choose in the GENERAL election whether or not to retain the judge. If the judge does not win a majority for retention, then there is a VACANCY to be filled by the Governor, pursuant to # 1 above.
4. If candidates file against the judge, there will be a primary if more than one challenger (i.e. three or candidates, including the judge) to narrow to the top two for the general election.
5. The same thing applies if a judge retires, and does not file for re-election — i.e. a top two primary if needed to narrow to two candidates for the general election.
6. So if there is a contested general election, the voters will have a choice between the two general election candidates, and NONE OF THE ABOVE. To be elected judge, a candidate must get a majority of the total votes (including NONE OF THE ABOVE). If neither candidate gets a total majority, then NO ONE is elected, and there is a VACANCY to fill under # 1 above. Neither of the unsuccessful general election candidates will be eligible to fill this vacancy.
This process combines the benefits of merit-based appointments, retention elections, and the right of the people to choose their own judges. Also, if the voters think that both of the general election candidates in a contested election are bozos, they can choose to elect NEITHER of them.
Or, the governor can appoint and senate confirm.
It’s a slippery slope.
re 10: On the surface, your proposal seems reasonable. It looks like you’ve given this some serious thought.
@8
Good one!
While we wait for the reform train, I commend votingforjudges.org.
Croak!
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
The “nonpartisan” election of judges is remarkably lame. They are forbidden to speak to actual issues that people care about, and they become cyphers touting their fairness. Like, who would get elected judge promising to be unfair?
Either make judicial elections wide open bitterly partisan affairs (like other elections) or allow the prevailing electoral executive winner appoint subject to legislative review, similar to the federal model.
Ya’ know, there is an actual reason for elections.
Goldy hates democracy and doesn’t trust the wisdom of the people, hence his dislike of the initiative/referendum process, electing the King County Director of Elections, and now the popular election of judges.
Welcome to the west, Goldy – it’s how we do things here. If you want politics like you had in Philly, maybe you should have stayed in Philly.
The Piper
@18 = intolerant
@18
typical intolerance, ignorance, chauvinism; stupidity masquerading as localism; as close-minded as any redneck can be, from the most backward part of the holler.
Y’all aint from here ’bouts is you?
Totally brilliant.
Du du du doo dooo….
@18
When Sandra Day O’Conner’s positions are identified as “Philadelphia politics” and “not Western” you know you real have a moron talking.
Wow @18, is that Sandra Day O’Connor, the political machine operator from Philly you’re talking about?
Cretin.
@19 – 21…LowRents…
Instead of analysis or commentary, all you have to offer is less-than-third-grade name calling.
But that is typical among the HA Happy Hooligans – no wonder they tend to be such an unhappy and miserable lot of humanity.
The point remains that Goldy has a huge anti-democratic streak and a deep and abiding dislike for the will of the people (except on those rare instances when it coincides with HA Happy Hooligan political correctness and orthodoxy).
The genuine progressive (as opposed to today’s hyper-liberalism, which is ashamed of the label hence the masquarade as “progressive”) tradition in Washington state is to put decision making in the hands of the people. Those who wrote the Washington State Constitution were deeply suspicious of vested interests where power was concentrated in their hands. They sought to check that through popular sovereignty, a concept loathed by elitists (read: you birds). That includes the election of judges.
The abiding loathing of the wisdom of ordinary Americans by liberals is once again on display in this thread.
The Piper
Mr. Scott @ 18,
Instead of analysis or commentary, all you have to offer is less-than-third-grade name calling.
@23…ATotalJerk…
Thank you for proving my point. Your bag is empty, you can’t refute my points, so your lame attempt at wit is the best you can do.
Well, as for being a wit, you’re half there.
Now, address the meat of what I said – or is that beyond you?
The Piper
Mr. Scott @ 24,
The “meat” of what you said? There wasn’t any “meat.” It was all bile, as was your reply to me. But that is typical among the HA Conservative Hooligans – no wonder they tend to be such an unhappy and miserable lot of humanity.
Your delusions of adequacy are amusing but far from illuminating. The grownups were having a discussion, and you came along and tried to insult Goldy. You will be told the truth now. called you on it, and you got pissy. I simply pointed out your hypocrisy.
@25…ATotalJerk…
Same song, second verse.
Now, deal with the underlying issue of why you hate popular sovereignty, which is the reason behind the effort to have un-elected judges.
And your rhetoric isn’t clever…it’s boring.
Off to the Washington Coalition on Open Government seminar on the Public Records Act…
The Piper
I’ll deal with your claim when you tell me when you stopped molesting your children.
@18 Piper’s self-described “meat”: “Goldy hates democracy”
Equally meaty: Piper fucks goats.
It appears that the proposal is a variation of the “Missouri Plan”, which as a compromise between a nominated appointment (such as is used on the federal level) and a judicial election (common on the state and local levels). Different variations of the Missouri Plan have been batted about since it’s adoption in that state in 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_plan
The problem with judicial elections is that (a) most voters aren’t remotely qualified to judge the merits of the candidate, (b) judicial cannons of ethics prohibit judicial candidates from saying anything which would be of real meaning to the voters in making their decisions, and (c) the small number of voters, and relatively small amount of cash required to win a normal judicial election, make it relatively easy and cost-effective for a national party to target specific elections.
In the mid-1990’s the Republicans started targeting Democratic or moderate Republican state Supreme Court justices, especially in states like Texas and Alabama, to replace them with radical right-wing Republican candidates. Karl Rove was involved in many of these campaigns, sharpening his dirty tricks in the process.
Rove would get stories planted in publications like the Readers Digest, labelling the targeted justices as “One of the Ten Worst Judges in the Nation” (using very biased and inaccurate information as the basis for the article – things they couldn’t even get away with as a campaign ad). Then the TV ads would simply repeat that he was named “one of the ten worst judges”, without going into the details.
In one Alabama election, a justice with an unimpeachable record and a long reputation as a supporter of children’s charities was the subject of a whispering campaign which originated in the Young Republicans chapter of the Univ. of Alabama Law School. They went home on breaks to spread the word that the justice was a closet child abuser who used his charities to troll for victims, and it remained a secret because the news media, police, and prosecutors were afraid to out him due to his power and position.
Of course, there wasn’t a shred of truth to the allegations, but that wasn’t the point. In an election which generates very little news one way or the other, the negative allegations are the only story which gets heard.
Baloney! O’Conner isn’t from around here and doesn’t understand how we do things in this part of the country. We’ve always elected our judges and always will elect our judges! That’s how western populism works and it’s as immutable as the rising and setting of the sun.
If a subversive organization like the Seattle Times is against electing judges then you know for sure it’s a good thing!
Public Notice
Roger Rabbit was called out of town on short notice to perform emergency stud services. One of our red counties doesn’t have enough rabbits! Roger will resume normal posting next week.