Washington Courts: Judicial News Report Detail

Judicial Selection: What Do Judicial Voters Need To Make Intelligent Choices?

Are moral character, professional qualifications, judicial temperament and common sense the most important factors, or is name recognition all it takes to make a successful bid for the bench?

Opinions were divided as members of the Bench Bar Press Committee of Washington and the Walsh Commission convened to share opinions on what the electorate should know and how to get that information to the voters. The meeting was held October 9th in Seattle as part of the on-going information-gathering process of the Walsh Commission, a group formed to look at how judges are selected in Washington State.

A media “reaction panel, including Alex MacLeod, managing editor of The Seattle Times, Diana Kramer, executive director of the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, and Mark Allen, executive director of the Washington State Broadcasters Association, fielded questions put to them by Commission members.

Lack of media coverage

Why doesn’t radio, television and the print media do more to cover judicial elections?

Allen said allocating broadcast news time to judicial races is difficult because most of them are uncontested and therefore less newsworthy than other elections. This is aggravated by the fact that few judicial candidates have much to say because of restrictions placed on them by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

King County Superior Court Judge Robert S. Lasnik said he wished news stories were “less objective’ and explored the qualifications of candidates. “Under the guise of objectivity, news articles tend not to explore the qualifications of candidates,” he said. “Editorials, on the other hand, make the qualifications of candidates clear.”

Former Seattle Times court reporter, Julie Emery, now a member of the Walsh Commission, said there is always a story in judicial candidates, whether it be about their legal background or moral character. Emery said she had written many stories about judicial candidates, but believed the electorate was not interested enough to read them.

The loosening of Canon 7: help or hindrance?

Recent changes in Canon 7 of the judicial code, the rule which regulates the conduct of judicial election candidates, drew words of praise and caution from the audience. While loosening the rule theoretically allows judicial candidates greater freedom to voice opinions during elections, judges expressed worry about the revised code’s impact.

Dennis Sweeney, acting chief judge of Division III of the Court of Appeals, said both voters and the media make natural comparisons between judicial and legislative elections. But there is a key difference, he said. Legislative and executive branch officials are elected based on “bottom line considerations,-- what decisions they will make on certain current issues.

“The focus of judicial elections should be different. It should be on the process by which decisions are made. Judges are presented with a set of facts and a neutral principle of law. We are supposed to take that set of facts, apply a neutral principle of law and that should dictate the result.

“Any judge in this room, or any judge who is worth his salt will tell you that they sometimes don’t like the result of a decision. Sometimes the initial reaction is, ‘This isn’t right! I wish it was otherwise, but the application of this principle of law to this set of facts leads to this result,’” said Sweeney.

Loosening the restrictions of Canon 7, he said, tends to pull judges into the same type of elections as the Legislature--those focused on “bottom-line” considerations.

“Questions are reduced in essence to, ‘How do you stand on this issue? How are you going to rule on this issue?’ That for me, is not the thing that judges should be answering,” concluded Sweeney.

Spokane County District Court Judge Richard B. White agreed, saying that only ten percent of what a judge deals with in any given day deals with high-profile issues. What qualifications matter most is intelligence and judicial temperament.

“The best way to measure judges is to get opinions from those who know them best -- the lawyers they have worked with, and other judges,” said White.

Judicial campaigns

Intelligence, knowledge of the law and judicial temperament may be the best way to measure a candidate’s qualifications, but many in the audience agreed judicial campaigns are becoming increasingly expensive, and focusing more on name recognition than on qualifications.

King County Superior Court Judge Michael Hayden explained how his own, successful election bid required him to spend significant amounts of money, including $30,000 for a single campaign mailing. The number one focus, his campaign consultant told him, should be name recognition. Although he hoped voters elected the better candidate, Hayden said his experience did not give him faith that judicial candidates are elected on the basis of qualifications.

Hayden also joined in criticizing the broadcast and print media’s lack of coverage on judicial races. As a candidate, he attended a special election forum hosted by the League of Women Voters, but no media showed up. Coverage of judicial election returns on broadcast television on election night were non-existent, he declared.

No problem outside of King County?

According to a state-wide telephone poll taken last winter, most voters across the state are not satisfied with the information they get during judicial races. But, said reaction panelist Diana Kramer, getting information on judicial candidates is not a problem for voters outside of King County.

“For the most part, judges in small counties are widely known because voters grew up with them, see them at ball games, and most are aware of their opinions. Opinions on the candidates are already formed, and articles or voter’s pamphlets will not change that, ” Kramer said, listing responses from weekly newspaper professionals she talked with across the state. Due to this, she suggested the Walsh Commission not implement state-wide changes, because information problems are not the same in every county.

Is the public satisfied?

Is the public satisfied with its judiciary?

Alex MacLeod, managing editor of The Seattle Times asked, “If there is such a problem with public information, how do the voters do such a good job of picking judges?”

Most appointments are good ones, he contended, and when they’re not, the appointees are usually voted out at the next election. Because of this, most people trust their judges, and there is a widespread public support for the judiciary, he said.

White disputed MacLeod’s logic. “You’re talking about a ‘de-selective process,’” he said. The judicial system and the public should not be satisfied with getting ‘good-enough’ judges,’ he said. “We should be looking at how can we make (the process) better.”

Seattle attorney Kathryn Ross agreed people are generally satisfied with the bench, because, she ssaid, the Governor usually appoints them upon recommendation of a bar association. But increasingly, newly incumbent judges are being challenged at the polls. Lawyers are more apt to throw their hat in the ring, she said, figuring there is a “50/50 chance” of winning the seat for themselves.

The future

Commission chair Ruth Walsh concluded the session by reiterating her goal for the group’s effort: “What is a system for the state of Washington that is not just adequate, but excellent?” She said this may include recommendations to keep the current system, or to make changes in the way state judges are selected.

Either way, she said, Commission recommendations, due by the end of this year, will only be made after “a long, thought-out process.”