A Conclusion Unsupported By The Data: A Professional Look At The AJS/Washington State Poll
January 28, 2009
As readers know, I found the recent survey of Washington state voters and their attitudes about judicial elections vs. “merit” selection a little squirrely. The fact that the survey was funded by the American Judicature Society and George Soros’ Open Society Institute certainly raised a red flag. Both groups have spent millions in an organized campaign aimed at abolishing a voter’s right to elect state judges.
To help sort through the 23-page report, I asked Dr. Whit Ayres to take a look. Dr. Ayres is nationally respected pollster whose clients have included presidential candidates, Senators, Member of Congress, governors and major corporations. Roll Call recently called the Ayres McHenry & Associates polling firm “one of the best in the nation.” Here’s his analysis.
GUEST POST BY DR. WHIT AYERS
The Washington State University survey of the state’s voters regarding presumed support for commission appointment of state judges contains an intriguing analysis of public opinion data.
The mail survey methodology, while unusual in this day and age, was professionally accomplished, and defensible given the complexity of the questions presented. Consequently I have no quarrel with the results the survey produced.
But I take strong exception to the conclusions that the researchers purport to base on those results. For the results support a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to the one reached in their analysis. The researchers conclude that Washington voters are less committed to electing their judges than commonly thought. But their findings show that the exact opposite is the case.
First, the survey establishes that Washington voters hold an overwhelmingly positive view of electing judges, and a negative view of having judges appointed. By a margin of 68 to 9 percent, voters hold a positive rather than a negative view of “non-partisan elections,” and by 64 to 10 percent they view “having contested elections” positively. On the other hand, having the “Governor filling vacancies” is viewed positively by 27 percent and negatively by 31 percent.
Respondents were told that, in the current system of judicial selection in Washington, 40 percent of judges reached the bench by non-partisan election, and 60 percent reached the bench after being appointed by the Governor. 26 percent of voters thought that system was good or very good, while 35 percent thought that system was bad or very bad. The primary reasons why voters thought the current system is bad are that “(a) substantial number of respondents commented that too many judges are appointed by the Governor and that such appointments tend to be inappropriately partisan and political. A large number of respondents also voiced concern that they were frustrated by the large number of uncontested elections and the lack of judicial accountability present in the current system.” In other words, it is precisely the large number of appointed judges and the lack of sufficient contested elections that leads voters to conclude that the current system is bad.
When asked about a commission system for appointing judges, the survey indicated a preference for a commission system over the current system. The results above show the reason: voters are frustrated that the current system does not include enough contested elections. Indeed, when asked further about a commission system, the respondents zeroed in on the lack of contested elections as the key drawback: 32 percent thought “not having contested elections” was positive, while 36 percent thought it was negative.
Consequently I do not understand how the researchers can conclude: “(I)t has been a widely held belief among people who have followed judicial politics in the Evergreen State that “Washingtonians would never give up their right to elect their judges”. Given the evidence of citizen interest in and support for a merit selection process documented in this survey, it may be time to set aside this long-established belief and adopt a stance more open to the possibility of change in how the state’s judges ought to be selected.”
No, it is not time to set aside this long-established belief. It is time to read the data in this study that show Washington voters have an overwhelmingly positive view of electing judges in contested elections, they would like more contested judicial elections, and they do not support any system that would mean more appointments and fewer contested elections.
– Whit Ayres