Before I cast my vote for a judge, I usually look at the bar association qualification ratings. After all, how am I, a layman, supposed to make an informed decision on a “nonpartisan” race for which the candidates aren’t even allowed to campaign on the issues?
So I was curious to see the Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association’s Judicial Qualifications Committee’s most recent ratings for Stephanie Arend, the judge who granted Dino Rossi an injunction to stop counting legal votes in King County:
Lloyd L. Alton, Jr. Well qualified Stephanie A. Arend* Minimally qualified Scott A. Candoo Well qualified Clayton R. Dickinson Qualified Henry Haas Exceptionally well qualified Christine J. Quinn-Brintnall Qualified Douglas W. VanScoy Well qualified Karl L. Williams Well qualified| Edward S. Winskill Exceptionally well qualified
That’s right… Judge Arend was only rated “minimally qualified”, the second to lowest rating available. Out of the nine candidates running in 1999, she was deemed to be the least qualified!
A candidate will receive a Minimally Qualified Rating when the candidate meets the minimum statutory requirements for the judicial position sought, is in good standing with the Washington State Bar and other Bar Associations to which the candidate has been admitted and possesses the basic legal ability required for the judicial position but is deficient in one or more of the criteria for a Qualified Rating.
I could not find a more recent judicial rating, probably because she’s run unopposed since then. I assume she’s benefited from some on-the-job training, but I just thought you might like to know what kind of “minimally qualified” legal decision this election might turn on.
Watching her in action – didn’t need rating to tell she was not well qualified.
She missed her chance to protect disenfranchised votes. It will cost her her bench. Should have listened to the attorney for Sam Reeds’ office and not the blumbling R attorney. She only asked him a line of questions, ignored good arguments from the other attorneys.
Wonder if the R attorney is from the Pierce County bar? The bar in most places is like a clique of county club members.
Goldy- you really blew this one. Big time. That is the 2000 material, and the good ol’ boys did not like another woman being appointed to the bench. Note that the other woman was barely rated qualified. Then go look at who survived the primary in 2000…
There was quite a firestorm at the time over the Pierce County good ol’ boy Bar and it’s ratings.
Now go look at 2004. Look at Arends ratings, and her lack of a challenger.
If you were going to be intellectually honest about this, you’d remove that post and apologize. This one is JUST NOT CREDIBLE.
One thing for sure is that if Arends, Vance and Rossi are sucessful in disenfraching these voters the truth of what was in those ballots will eventually be made public. Everyone of the ballots will be opened, examined, counted and REPORTED by the media. Arends and Rossi will at least be held accountable.
I just thought it fair to note that a previous draft of this blog entry was accidentally posted for several minutes this afternoon. It is my habit occasionally to load drafts into the blog software ahead of time, so that I can view them formatted. I must have accidently clicked the “publish” button while saving a revision.
Jim King quickly notified me that I had some facts wrong, and I immediately pulled the blog, as I did not want to unfairly malign Judge Arends… and I had not intended to make it public at that time anyway. It’s not the first time this has happened (accidentally publishing drafts), but due to my astounding growth in readership, it’s the first time I’ve been caught; as King County Elections have learned, it’s difficult to ignore mistakes when under such close scrutiny.
I am loathe to edit blogs for anything more than a typo, once posted, but since this posting was only seen by a handful of readers, and was published by accident, I feel comfortable with the decision.
In case you’re wondering, I had originally implied that Judge Arrends was up for re-election, and that the judicial qualification rating was current. As I have stated, these ratings are from 1999 when she was running as an incumbent appointed by Gov. Locke, and it is very possible she would receive a higher rating today. However, I still feel it is fair to post this information as part of the debate over how much weight we should give to Judge Arrends decision given the likelihood that it will be overturned by the Supremes.
Okay Jim… time for you to defend Judge Arrends….
Judge Arrends decision at the current moment has equal likelyhood of being upheld or overturned. Bravo to her great political and legal savy to disenfranchise nobody. Give it to the big bench. I think her decision will, in the longrun, help put an end to the election sooner than later. I personally think she will be upheld. But I promise, if she is not, THEN I will NEVER vote for another judge with a minimally qualified rating by the lawyers union.
Goldy- “Jim Hill”?
Anyway, I get to correct my error after our research- it WAS 1999, not 2000… this was a winner take all general election, which Judge Arends won with 22% of the vote. The next lowest rating went to long-time Deputy Prosecutor- now Court of Appeals Judge- Christine Quinn-Brintnal, who placed second.
And yes Judge Arends has not been rated since, because she was unopposed in both 2000 and 2004. Just months after she retained her seat with 22% of the vote, no one wanted to take her on…
Of course, that set of ratings was about the final straw against the Pierce County good ol’ boy Bar, who had used ratings consistently throughout the 90’s to keep women and minorities off the bench.
What kind of judges do the establishment good ol’ boys like- anyone recall Judge Grant Anderson?
Here’s how he was rated:
http://judgedoug.org/FriendsR4.....tings.html
(this piece was done by the attorney who blew the whistle on Judge Anderson, while he- the whistleblower- was running against another appointed judge. The whistleblower lost, but the points he ,akes are quite salient…)
Anyway, if anyone is interested, here is how the candidates fared in 1999:
Superior Court – Department No. 12
One Year Unexpired Term
(WITH 1237 OF 1237 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
KARL L. WILLIAMS . . . . . . . . 21,239 13.36
STEPHANIE AREND . . . . . . . . 35,087 22.07
LLOYDE ALTON . . . . . . . . . 5,860 3.69
CHRISTINE QUINN BRINTNALL . . . . . 31,624 19.89
HENRY HAAS . . . . . . . . . . 15,639 9.84
SCOTT CANDOO . . . . . . . . . 11,753 7.39
ED WINSKILL. . . . . . . . . . 19,071 12.00
DOUG VANSCOY . . . . . . . . . 10,710 6.74
CLAY DICKINSON. . . . . . . . . 7,070 4.45
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 931 .59
Thank you, Goldy…
See… now if that doesn’t prove my explanation, I don’t know what does. I’ve been screwing up all day. Sleep deprivation will do that to you.
I’ve edited my comment to fix your name Jim, sorry. I was simultaneously writing an email to a customer by that name… sheesh… I hope I didn’t call him Jim King.
I went to law school with Stephanie. Steph, you were a dumb bitch fifteen years ago, and still haven’t changed. You couldn’t get a job in Seattle, and now take you revenge on King County by siding for Rossi.
Goldy- I’m laughing… Don’t worry about it. You edit your post, and people wonder what the fuck I was talking about- typical liberal conspiracy… LOL
Goldy —
Your point is understood: this is probably not a top-10-percentile judge, more likely the opposite. But maybe she WAS smart enough to punt to the Supreme Court. It should make for interesting viewing on Wednesday morning…
Jim,
What the *&%^ were you talking about!
Just kidding.
I’ve never understood the argument that granting the TRO was a punt. This case was going to be appealed to the Supremes regardless of the ruling.
Goldy, you might recall I posted a question a few days ago asking if anyone had insight on why a Pierce court was chosen for the appeal. Was wondering what the basis of any cherry-picking might be, and perhaps the ratings stuff sheds some light. Does anyone out there know how much discretion the R’s had to pick a particular court and judge for the appeal?
Goldy- The significance of the TRO is that King County was prepared to move ahead on those ballots AFTER the Pierce County ruling, unless it went against them, as it did. If she had ruled for King County, it might have been a done deal before the Supreme Court acted…
Which is why she may have granted the TRO, to hold in place until the inevitable Supreme Court ruling.
Remember, too- if Sanders is recused, a 4-4 ruling sustains the Pierce County ruling…
Jim, Logan had said he would keep the ballots in their envelopes until the legal issue was settled, and I assumed that to mean completely settled.
And Rudy… my understanding is that practice allows you to choose a court in a neighboring county when there might be some conflict of interest in cases that concern the government. I assume they picked Pierce because they thought they had the best shot with the judges available. Arrend would have been assigned, but you get one shot at requesting a different judge.
But personally, I don’t think they really expected to win in Superior Court. This is all part of the play for a contested election and a revote.
Goldy – While it’s a good PR ploy, do you really think there will be support for a revote? I can’t imagine after all the pissing and moaning about how Gregoire should just “concede” and how she’s trying to “change the rules” that the press and Democrats couldn’t just call the Republicans on that if they tried to push for a reote.
Of course, I couldn’t imagine that Republicans would change a rule to allow Tom Delay to continue to serve even if indicted, so Republicans have proven they’ll sink to any depth to get (or keep) their guy elected.
I suspect the vast majority of Washingtonians will live with whatever the result is. People who post on blogs certainly aren’t representative of the populace :)
Thanks for the info on assignment of judges. I don’t think they expected to win, but I do think they looked for every possible edge, and perhaps found a small but important one.
Jim, are you certain Sanders was recused at last go around?
Josef, with the profile of this election and the advantage to R’s if they win, I can’t see why Rove’s fingerprints WOULDN’T be appearing!
Goldy- the formal agreement was until after the Pierce County judge had ruled… It might have made sense to hold of on moving forward until the Supreme Court had settled matters, but King County neither HAD to, or had AGREED to…
Anyway- everyone was supposed to have had their materials in by 5pm- I’m searching the Matrices trying to find anything posted…
Rudy- he did not participate- I have heard several different reasons why he was recused, but I have not heard in any official manner that he was recused as opposed to just absent. The most common gossip is variants of “He has a personal pissing match with Gregoire going on’ or “He was too close to BIAW so had to recuse”. I don’t believe the second- I don’t think anyone could force him out for that reason (or that he’d voluntarily step back for that reason). Having been around both of them, I can believe the first reason, and if that IS true, I could see Sanders recusing himself. But he may just have been absent.
If he’s on the bench Wednesday morning, he was just absent. If ANYONE is missing, tie goes to the GOP on this one…
So, you go with the bar associations reccomendations? The bar is pretty much composed of lawyers, a group of people that get paid large sums of money to lie much of the time. And these are the people you are trusting to give you the best answer…have to hand it to you you are the consumate democrat…easily led and gullable.
Don’t know who you were asking on your last question Chuck, but for me I look at endorsements, bar association, money info if I can find it, materials from candidatees and any other scrap of info I can find without looking too hard, which usually ain’t much. All in all I find voting on judges a difficult thing to do.
Typical empty, smug comment, Chuck. Who should I consult when evaluating judges… the BIAW? That’s where I might go for advice if I was looking for a contractor. And when I look for doctors, I ask other doctors. So who better to ask for advice on picking a judge than the people who know them best?
Personally, I don’t think we should directly elect judges at all, as I don’t think even the best intentioned voters can generally make an informed decision. I’d prefer a system where judges are appointed based on the recommendations of a nonpartisan commission, but easily recalled.
But no… let’s not have any constructive debate here… let’s just turn every comment into an opportunity for a personal attack.
Goldy- the Missouri system- appointed, but have to stand for retention every few years. They run unopposed, so to speak- but people vote yea or nay on keeping ’em on the bench. Nay, and someone else gets appointed.
The biggest problem with elected judges, at least in washington, is that they have to REALLY screw-up to draw a challenger. Mediocre judges rarely draw a challenger.
And before you use that to defend a chartacterization of Arends as mediocre, I just remembered that the News Tribune did a big analysis of the Pierce County bench- in August, I think- with a polling of the bar on the judges. I’ll race you to see who finds it first- let’s see what they said about Arends earlier this year…
Goldy- The News Tribune, August 22, 2004- paid archive- “Judging the Judges”- I’ll have to go to the library tomorrow…
Jim, I think I make it clear from my feelings about electing judges, that I’m not qualified to judge Arrends…. I’m just pointing out that the Bar did in 1999, and didn’t judge her well.
There’s another problem with the way we elect judges that desperately needs to be fixed, and that is the inexplicable exemption they have from individual contribution limits. For example, whatever you think about Jim Johnson and the BIAW, it is absolutely ridiculous that they could spend a half million dollars to get him onto the Supreme Court.
Obviously I’m not big on electing judges either, but the current situation provides one good argument for them – they have one more reason to think really hard about taking away individual rights when a big Issue Of The Day is in front of them
Actually judges more than most elected officials need to be elected AND due to the age of most judges they should have to pass a bi yearly senility test, I am very serious about this, a particular judge named Hutchenson in Eatonville comes to mind. You could see him go to the eatonville grocer and on one occasion that I can verify, in a drunken stupor (while buying beer) backed into a car, looked around and drove across the road and passed dentance on a guy with a DWI. The three guys that saw this infuriated me because they had to appear before him and refused at the time to make waves…
But there judges get so sure in their jobs that they actually start making law or reading things into law, this is why we need the oppertunity to throw them out of office…as we did “Hutch”. But to add to this we need full disclosure including party affiliation as well as gut feelings.
Chuck, why would judges “more than most elected officials” need to be elected? That implies they should be more political than the politicians, which is not what we should be looking for in judges
Rudy, I think I summed the reasons up fairly well.
I should have refreshed, I didn’t see your post before writing mine. Your point seems to be people should get a chance to throw out judges, which would be taken care of with Jim King’s “Missouri” alternative
which would be taken care of with Jim King’s “Missouri” alternative>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes and no, I personally believe that the general population, once the facts are in front of them (unlike judgship elections in this state presently) will generally pick the best person, and in reality if a judge has really pissed that many off, then perhaps he is in fact making law, senile, or with the onset of alshiemers. We dont need those chances any more, there is a difference between wisdom of elderly and that elder needing commitment for his own good. We chose the right guy to have the “button” as president, I have faith in us.
I don’t know much about the history, but assume WA’s elected justices are part and parcel of the populist movement to diffuse good ol boy power and lessen chances that judiciary will be beholden to the powerful interests, like railroad and timber back then. With the kinds of things happening in justice races now (Jim Johnson campaign as Exhibit A), the time may have come again to return to appointments as a way to do exactly what the populists intended in the first place. Perhaps more transparency into judicial campaigns would help as an alternative, but something in me hates to see judgeships become just another political race
The problem as I see it is that it’s not just another political race.
These are “nonpartisan” races for a job few of us understand, for which the candidates are not allowed to campaign on the issues, and for which there are no limits on individual campaign contributions. It’s an absolutely ridiculous way to choose a judiciary.
And most voters are not making informed decisions.
It’s been a long time since I voted there, but I believe Pennsylvania has a system similar to what Jim described. Judges are appointed, but routinely go up for retention votes… it’s kind of like a mandatory recall. If there’s a problem judge, somebody makes a stink and we boot them out.
Works for me – how bout you Chuck? Oh come on now, you were at “yes and no” before, and Missouri/Pennsylvania approach takes care of your bad old apple problem. Do it! Do it!
So in the case of the retention vote, a judge that just plain sucks gets booted while medeocre sam stays, because we cannot pick the best man and the next appointed guy might be worse…hell of a way to run a railroad….
Yes, the election of judges was part of the West’s move to keep cattle, timber, railroads from controlling the judiciary- even before the populist movement.
And Goldy- I wasn’t thinking of you “really” saying that Arends was mediocre- I was just going to point out that I had undercut my argument that her lack of opposition indicated how good she was…
Point it out before you or any of the other sharp wits on this blog did…
And Chuck- I hear what you are saying- but we get that now- no one will challenge a mediocre judge, only a bad one, and if no lawyer will run against a judge, then that judge is automatically re-elected, with the people getting no choice. Look at how few Superior Court races there were this year…
Yes my point, but we need a REAL vote, not a good name or face, I want to know as a lawyer what he did, as a prosecuter, as a judge pro tem. Get my drift? I want a choice.
Yeah, I get it your point, Chuck- and it would be nice to have those kind of choices. But that happens SO rarely…
Anyway, It’s been a good discussion about things… I’m gonna try and get some sleep…
Just old silly me, no big time Olympia/Judicial expert – BUT – assuming The Supremes hear arguments on Wed am, and they do not rule from the bench- very rare,
King Co says it will report on Wed afternoon, and IF Gregoire is ahead at that point, isn’t it moot about the ruling?
Compared to what a good attorney makes in a well connected firm, or as a trial expert, a la Edwards, judges get paid piddle.
Downtown Seattle firms, 500.00 per hour. I think there is a trolling for $$$ on the side problem, and if an attorney is a social activst type in the beginning then there might be good judge- an advocacy person who persues justice as the moral center of their being…..
But if it is an attorney who can’t hack the Big Time and get the big bucks, well that means the scond or third string.
bby- King County will report, but they will NOT certify…
Says who – the Dems can dismiss their suit in 20 seconds.
My concern is that if the KC reports a narrow Rossi victory, and then the Supremes let the 723 be counted, and that overturns the election, the Rossifarians will go absolutely nuts. I mean, even MORE nuts than they’ve already gone. Personally, even though I hate the suspense, I’d rather KC wait until after the decision and all the votes that will be counted are counted, before announcing the results.
I’m with Goldy on that one. From both a legal and PR perspective, if KC is asserting its right to count these 723 ballots before certifying the totals, I would think they should wait to announce their results until the Supremes rule on whether or not these votes can be included.
That’s what Tom Delay would do.
“candidates are not allowed to campaign on the issues”
I know this is getting a little afar from electing the governor, but in the spirit of educating the electorate can someone explain briefly what this means? Can a candidate discuss his/her position on anything? Can he/she criticize an opponent? Or is the campaign literature limited to a resume listing and a photo of the wife and kids?
King County has announced- wisely or unwisely- that when they conclude the manual count sans the 723 plus 22, they will announce the unofficial returns. They will not certify until after the Court rules, and they have had the opportunity to count those votes if allowed to do so by the Court.
As for judicial candidates- they are not supposed to discuss issues that may come before them on the bench. The candidates use this to duck everything they can…
Yes, it reads like a very dry resume, listing education, military service, size of family they grew up in, length of marrige number of kids and that sort of thing.
Can a candidate for judge even say in public or in campaign literature “my opponent, the incumbent, as you may remember, is the one who ruled as follows in the XX case”?
The candidates don’t do that, but the newspapers doing the endorsing often do. It’s one of the things that makes it hard to get enough information to really make an informed decision on the judicial races. The newspapers “cherry-pick” the decisions of the judges that are most interesting to them.
I hate trying to be an informed voter :)
Nope, the canidate cannot even state his party affiliation.
Comment by Chuck— 12/21/04 @ 9:36 am
Which is a good thing, since being a judge is a non-partisan position. You’re not there to enforce one party’s view of things, but rather interpret the law as it applies to the case in front of you.
It does make it harder to vote, since the party “system” provides us with easy “identification” of candidates basic beliefs.
A persons party gives you an idea of the mindset of the person, not that it should be a determining factor but it should be a small equasion into the whole picture.
While you’re certainly right, I think in the case of judges what’s far more important is their voting record, anything they’ve said personally at public functions and how they carry themselves in and outside of the courtroom.
While I certainly don’t think we should remove the political party designation from other elections, I don’t think we should inject it into the judicial system. Prosecutors and defense attornies aren’t required to state their party affiliation when presenting a case, because that’s not what’s at issue. Let’s at least try and continue the non-partisan tradition of our court system.
Besides, as the Federal Supreme Court shows (at least historically), party affiliation can have very little bearing on the way you’ll rule as a judge.
Claiming party affiliation shouldnt be a requirement, but on the other hand they shouldnt be barred from doing so. As I said it is only a small part of a whole package.
Respectfully, I disagree. Judges do not run on a party ticket. They are not appointed promising to support the GOP or the Democratic platforms. More importantly, they are not allowed to couch their rulings based on anything other than their interpretation of the law. So I think it’s entirely appropriate to refrain from mentioning their party affiliation as a reminder that the judicial system is their to provide checks and balances to the party-aligned legislative and executive brances of government.
Something as simple as the 1st amendment can take on several meanings…depending on liberal/conservative sway or bias, so you need a way of determining this, and party affiliation could help in this, I am open to better suggestions in determining this.
I think that’s why I suggested having lists of their previous rulings (or why the papers already highlight how the judge has ruled on “big ticket” issues). Rather than a party affiliation, I’m not against seeing their stance on what they consider the important issues.
This would require re-writing the rules prohibiting them from campaigning on the issues.
However, I think it’s a little odd to have a judge campaign on an issue that may never come up during his/her term. “I promise to prevent the execution of the mentall retarded because I believe that violates….” – So we all vote for that person and then no case is ever brought before him/her allowing the judge to put their opinion into effect.
True, I agree with what you are saying, on the whole. And I believe we agree on the whole that the present system of voting for a nice face with a description of their family kind of sucks.
Wow, Goldy’s blog bringing people together. A real “Christmas” miracle :)
Regarding the decisiion that Arends made, I think it’s very improper to criticize her decision. It depends on her expertise with regard to elections law, and the time she had to prepare for arguments. She had literally 5 1/2 hours to prepare for this case after it was filed. For her to hear the case and come up with a decision is quite remarkable. I disagree and so did the Washington Supreme Court, but her waiting until Monday would potentially delay us knowing who the legal winner is until after christmas. Of course, if she ruled in favor of King County, the Supreme Court would likely decline to hear an appeal by the Republicans rather quickly, and the election would have been certified on Wednesday by both King County and the Sec of State.