Nasty Supreme Court race brings increased attention to judicial elections
Nov 3, 2016, 9:54 AM
As we fill out our ballots, many of us get stumped when we get to the judges, either guessing or just leaving them blank altogether.
But with three state Supreme Court seats up for re-election, there’s far greater attention and money being focused on judicial races this year, and a lot of ugliness.
“When Charlie Wiggins plays politics, predators walk free and our children pay a horrible price,” says an ominous sounding attack ad that’s been broadcast during the past few weeks.
It’s just one of several paid for by some deep-pocketed opponents of Justice Charlie Wiggins in his race against challenger Dave Larson. Those opponents include Bellevue developer Kemper Freeman and Mariners owner John Stanton. They’ve donated $350,000 to a conservative political action committee targeting judges like Wiggins.
The attack ad is in reference to a majority decision written by Wiggins that led to the release of a child pornographer over a warrant-less search.
Bill Gates, Paul Allen’s Vulcan, and others have poured another $550,000 into another PAC also working to unseat Wiggins over his support of a ruling that overturned the state’s charter schools law, angering thousands.
And that has some people saying it’s time to take judicial races off the ballot and out of politics.
“It’s always bothered me that judges might be influenced by their relative popularity to their decisions. It just seems to me that judges should be above the fray,” said Roger Valdez, a Seattle political consultant and activist best known for his work with real estate developers on higher-density housing.
But he recently authored a lengthy essay explaining why he refuses to vote for judges.
He points out the separation of powers that inoculates the judiciary from political influence dates all the way back to the Magna Carta, circa 1215.
“That’s why we have a Supreme Court that’s appointed for life. That’s why we have federal judges that are often appointed for long periods of time,” Valdez said. “You want to have someone that isn’t worried about getting re-elected or worrying about whether the lawyers on one side or another are going to support them. It just seems to me strange that we subject judges to a popular referendum.”
So why do we do it rather than leave it up to legal experts to appoint judges?
Our state’s founders put it in our Constitution, as did many other western states looking to give their people more say, according to Paul Fjelsted, co-founder and administrator of the website Voting For Judges.org.
“It had the power and intent of giving more power to the people,” Fjelsted said.
The Kitsap County attorney has dedicated the past decade to giving voters as much information about judicial races in the state as possible spending
Fjelsted has spent countless hours compiling everything from bar association ratings and endorsements to media articles and even financial reports in comprehensive pages for each judicial candidate, without any commentary on his part. It’s as objective and comprehensive a look as you’ll get in any race.
Somewhat ironically, Justice Wiggins helped found the non-partisan, independent website as an appellate attorney over 10 years ago, long before getting a spot on the bench.
Given the money and vitriol embroiling this year’s races, Fjelsted says it’s his mission and labor of love to provide as much information to voters as possible.
“Given the situation as it currently exists, at least we can try to make voters more informed. If they are to be electing judges, at least they can have a better shot at doing a good job,” Fjelsted said.
But Valdez and others argue as long as there’s money, it’s impossible for there to be true independence – especially when people who donate end up appearing before the same judges in a case.
“it just seems totally antithetical to the whole concept of the judiciary being insulated from that kind of influence. I mean, you want a judge to look at it based on the law, not whether they’re going to keep their job or not,” Valdez said.
But unless the Legislature and ultimately the voters agree to amend the Constitution, judicial elections aren’t going anywhere.
If you want to make the most informed decision possible in the judicial races, I strongly encourage you to check out www.votingforjudges.org.
Follow @http://twitter.com/joshkerns38
