The Seattle Weekly Supports Judicial Elections
October 23, 2008
The Seattle Weekly – the alternative weekly paper in Seattle, WA, owned by Village Voice media – recently published a long cover story, “The Way We Elect Judges Is A Sham,” by Damon Agnos. It’s a very long piece that basically makes the refreshing argument that judicial candidates should engage in robust debate in judicial campaigns to make the case to voters that they deserve a spot on the bench. Some highlights:
“Of the 53 King County Superior Court spots up for election this year, only six were contested …. All three state Supreme Court justices who are up for re-election also won in the primary. If you’re counting, that leaves three contested races out of a possible 56 for you to decide in November…
“The irony is that judges can have far more direct and tangible impact on people’s lives than most anyone else you’ll vote for – deciding individual fates on a daily basis. Yet we hardly know anything about them. And that seems to be exactly what the legal establishment wants.
“’The organized bar generally dislikes election of judges,’ says Seattle attorney Michael J. Bond, who unsuccessfully ran for a Supreme Court seat this summer. ‘Most lawyers think the public is stupid and lawyers know best.’”
And …
“‘U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote: ‘The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech.’ That perfectly sums up the state of judicial elections in Washington – and why it needs to change.”
And …
“The reaction to the Alexander/Groen race [for WA Supreme Court] demonstrates that it’s not a lack of information so much as a disturbance of the old order that irks the legal establishment. When an incumbent is challenged or attacked with ads that would hardly raise an eyebrow in the other branches of government, look for a firm and loud response from the organized bar. When a challenger with a substantive platform drowns in the apathy of judicial campaign culture, while the incumbent opponent boasts of endorsements and ratings and offers nary a peep of a defense of his or her record, nobody seems the least bit concerned.”
And …
”When you stop to think about it, it’s hard to see why the legal establishment would ever want to open up elections. Why should those relied upon as counsel in the appointment of judges and who call the shots in sham elections want to cede their role to an apathetic, uneducated, and potentially reactionary electorate? Better to retire early and keep the entire election process in house.”