Today's P-I reports "New PAC to back judges on the left".
The new PAC's supporters include former Gov. Gary Locke, King County Executive Ron Sims, Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, Naral Pro-Choice Washington, Washington Conservation Voters, Washington State Labor Council, Service Employees International Union, the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Washington.
Expect them to be most active this year on behalf of liberal statist incumbents Susan Owens and Gerry Alexander.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 29, 2006 03:52 PM | Email ThisPAC money to support candidates on the right would be corrupting to any judge accepting it, and would by definition mean that the person running is a puppet of the groups behind the PAC.
Posted by: Janet S on April 29, 2006 04:20 PMI say bring it on - it's about time we had something other than vacuous 'candidate statements' on which to judge these candidates.
Posted by: Cheryl on April 29, 2006 05:09 PMWhile I would prefer that judicial races were truly nonpartisan, I wholly agree with the post above that sees this whole PAC vs PAC scenario as a positive move. I too am sick of the vacuous candidate statements that now characterize judicial races. At least with competing PACs we will better be able to determine the political positions of judges by looking at who each PAC is backing. More information is a good thing in any democratic election.
In short, unless we're willing to ban all contributions to, and limit spending on, judicial races, we should applaud this move by the "left".
And by the way, I italicize "left" and "conservative" because it's not all that clear that many of the posts on this site have any idea what either term really means in the context of US or Washington state politics.
Posted by: MJ on April 29, 2006 06:09 PMnoun - Those that favor a strategy of electing judges who will write decisions that reinterpret and ignore the plain language of the state constitution, for example, to make it easier for government to seize private property without (by definition) just compensation. See also "pinko commie puke".
Posted by: ewaggin on April 29, 2006 07:42 PMWhat do liberals mean when they describe judges as being "on the left"?
Posted by: ScottM on April 29, 2006 08:38 PMI agree - let's have full disclosure of judges' views. They are just as biased as anyone else in our great society, so what is wrong with knowing just what that bias is?
Personally, I decide which judge to vote on by reading who endorses who.
Posted by: Janet S on April 29, 2006 10:23 PMIt seems that our only chance of beating the left in judicial elections is for someone like Evergreen Freedom Foundation to research these candidates and provide that info on a website. That will enable all of us to know something about these candidates and cast an informed ballot for the good guy and against the bad guy.
Posted by: Paul on April 29, 2006 10:44 PMJudges are appointed at the Federal level for good reaason. I don't see why judges are elected in WA. The WA Constitution should be more similar to the US Constitution. A side effect of appointing judges would be getting higher quality judges. A judge as poor as Barbara Madsen should never have made it on the court. Getting judges like that on the court is only possible when there's a true democracy.
There's very good reason why we live in a representative republic and not a democracy. Allowing the average idiot to elect a supreme court judge as if they were a run of the mill politician is a major flaw in WA law.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 29, 2006 10:56 PMI think this system would take the politics and PACs out of it, but also put a check on the executives ability to put forward out of touch canidates.
However politics is war and in war you fight with the tactics of the present not of what you would like to see in the future. So I will be supporting my PAC to get the judges I want.
Posted by: Giffy on April 30, 2006 08:17 AMLocke has a personal interest in this PAC as well. He's eventually going to prison as well for racketeering, as is Gregoire and many, many others.
Posted by: Don on April 30, 2006 11:57 AMNon-partisan races for any office are a joke. Honesty in our elections and in the offices demands they be open about partisan sponsorship of candidates.
In that vein, I am supportive of the libs being open about their PAC. Let the right do the same too. It makes it easier on all of us who vote, when we know ahead of time where a candidate draws their support.
Posted by: deadwood on April 30, 2006 11:58 AM
In fact, given who is contributing to them, I'm reasonably confident the judge candidates these two PAC's will support would end up being predisposed against me personally, my individual rights, and my right to use property I own.
I thought there was no limit to contributing to judicial campaigns.
PAC's to me seem like effective tools for other offices where campaign limits apply.
Posted by: Andy on April 30, 2006 04:43 PMWhile in general the King County superior court bench is filled with competent, intelligent, hard working individuals -- the majority of them (it seems to me) have a leftward tilt (sort of like the tower of Pisa -- you are amazed that its still standing despite how far it leans).
Often a criminal case will live or die by how a judge interprets a statute, case law, or court rule. The person who makes those interpretations of course comes to the bench with their own experiences, biases and the like. Judges are supposed to be neutral of course, but they are human.
If a liberal PAC is supporting liberal candidates, then, naturally, you will tend to get liberal rulings. (What do I mean by liberal? Say for example a credibility call comes down to a judge deciding whether they believe the testimony of a 15 year police veteran or the career crminal defendant. I've seen it happen time and again where the judge (at least who I consider liberal) sides with the defendant. Its maddening and happens every day. )
As someone who works everyday in the criminal justice system, let me offer this thought: if you care about what happens with YOUR courts and who presides over trials concerning the most egregious of crimes -- get involved. Know who is running for judge. Go hear them speak. Vote.
Posted by: X O on April 30, 2006 06:52 PM
While in general the King County superior court bench is filled with competent, intelligent, hard working individuals -- the majority of them (it seems to me) have a leftward tilt (sort of like the tower of Pisa -- you are amazed that its still standing despite how far it leans).
Often a criminal case will live or die by how a judge interprets a statute, case law, or court rule. The person who makes those interpretations of course comes to the bench with their own experiences, biases and the like. Judges are supposed to be neutral of course, but they are human.
If a liberal PAC is supporting liberal candidates, then, naturally, you will tend to get liberal rulings. (What do I mean by liberal? Say for example a credibility call comes down to a judge deciding whether they believe the testimony of a 15 year police veteran or the career crminal defendant. I've seen it happen time and again where the judge (at least who I consider liberal) sides with the defendant. Its maddening and happens every day. )
As someone who works everyday in the criminal justice system, let me offer this thought: if you care about what happens with YOUR courts and who presides over trials concerning the most egregious of crimes -- get involved. Know who is running for judge. Go hear them speak. Vote.
Posted by: X O on April 30, 2006 06:53 PM
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/washrecall/gregoire61305pet.pdf
Posted by: don on April 30, 2006 08:20 PMI know some of the SC judges have been giving speeches about the difference between them and the "others".
It comes down to their belief in the Constitution. There are those who believe the Constitution is "living and breathing" and they should interpret the law and change legislative intent.
Then, there are those that believe in the written word. It is their opinion that if a law is bad, then the "legislative" branch needs to fix it and it is not their jobs.
It seem to me that this new PAC prefers the "living and breathing" definition of the Constitution.
Posted by: swatter on May 1, 2006 07:23 AMRelax, prosecutor. Neither of these PACs gives a rat’s patooie about what kind of evidentiary rulings a Superior Ct. judge makes in a criminal case. These PAC’s are designed for money to go to the Supreme Court races. That is because what those judges do matters a great deal to the financial interests of a few wealthy entities.
Get back to work prosecutor – you don’t have a dog in this fight.
The interests that are threatened by these two PACs are those of citizens who will become subject to greater taxes and having their property rights curtailed, and both of these PACs WANT that to happen. For example, a leader of the new "conservative" PAC is Slade Gorton. He is an attorney with Preston Gates - they make many, many millions every year representing local governments against taxpayers and property owners.
"FairPAC's initial supporters also include such generally left-of-center organizations as Naral Pro-Choice Washington, Washington Conservation Voters, Washington State Labor Council, Service Employees International Union, the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Washington."
Generally left-of-center? You don't say!
Posted by: Gary on May 1, 2006 01:11 PM