Postman reports that
[Mrs.] Gregoire says she's worried about the escalating costs of Supreme Court races and she plans to do something about: Raise more money. What she's really worried about is the increasing amount of conservative money going into races in recent years and says she'll try to counter that by raising money for the liberal judicial PAC, Citizens to Uphold the Constitution.It's more than a bit unseemly for a partisan occupant of the Governor's office to campaign for Supreme Court candidates, who in this state are elected by the people and supposed to be independent of the Executive branch. But if Mrs. Gregoire wants to tie her favorite liberal Supreme Court Justices to her coattails, bring it on
 |  |
| Judicial Candidate [Sen.] Stephen Johnson | Justice Susan Owens |
 | |
| Judicial Candidate John Groen | Chief Justice Gerry Alexander |
Mrs. Gregoire says she is "chagrined" at a candidate [Groen's] fundraising success, even though it was perfectly legal. If that's not inappropriate meddling in the race, I don't know what is. Gregoire says that
politics doesn't have a place in that courtYet is raising money for the Citizens to Uphold the Constitution (legally registered as FAIRPAC). Bear in mind, also, that if Alexander is re-elected, he would reach the mandatory retirement age before his term is over and if Gregoire is elected in 2008, she would appoint his successor. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 18, 2006 10:48 AM | Email This
Time will tell, but I think this is a major blunder on the part of Gregoire. Those justices might appreciate the money she may bring in, I don't believe it outweighs the baggage she carries with her.
The Johnson and Groen campaigns would be wise to keep Gregoire's involvement on the front pages.
Posted by: jimg on July 18, 2006 11:36 AMSo the upshot is, if you have a poll to support your negative opinion, you post the poll along with your negative opinion. However, if a poll doesn't support your opinion, you dismiss the poll and post your negative opinion anyway.
Ah, to be a conservative who hates democrats so much. no thanks.
Posted by: Jacob on July 18, 2006 11:51 AMThere is a $1,400 per election contribution limit to a judicial candidate -- $2,800 max if the race makes it to the general election. These same limits would apply to a PAC, if it gave its money to judicial candidates.
Instead, the liberals are using the "Citizens to Uphold the Constitution" PAC to get around the new contribution limits that the liberals (including Chief Justice Alexander) just got adopted by the legislature earlier this year.
There will be a handful of large sized donations (like in the five or six figure range) made to the CUC PAC by wealthy liberal Democrats -- far in excess of the $1,400 or $2,800 candidate contribution limits. And then the CUC PAC will use its huge soft money slush fund to run negative advertising campaigns as "independent expenditures" against John Groen and Steve Johnson.
What a bunch of hypocrites! All the more reason to vote Alexander and Owens out in September and November.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 18, 2006 11:52 AMShe is supposed to represent all of us citizens, not just the Democratic Party mob. Bloody unethical, if not illegal, and serves as proof she's not fit to serve at any higher public position than dogcatcher, or to participate in any trial other than as a defendant.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on July 18, 2006 12:23 PMIt's funny how you keep changing the topic. Posted by: pseudotsuga on July 18, 2006 12:54 PM
Gregoire stinks.
Posted by: swatter on July 18, 2006 01:01 PMIf a group of people raised money for a judge she agreed with, she would see it as an example of democracy
She's just a hypocrite plan and simple
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on July 18, 2006 02:15 PMIf the governor had a hand in getting justices elected/reelected, would this not taint the proceedings? Would those justices have to recuse themselves? What if they didn't?
I believe that certain government officials (governors) should be neutral in the political races for the judiciary and that Gregoire's involvement actually shows her interest in keeping the current make up of the court as an adjunct hyper-legislature.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 18, 2006 05:53 PMYes, a governor can be sued; but not for something like this. In this instance, and I hate Gregoire with a passion, she is exercising her right to free speech. Her endorsement of Owens and Alexander may hurt their chances, but she has a right to speak out about the races.
She is a liar when she claims that there weren't political motivations in past judicial races many years ago. She owns the court and all the justices have a personal interest in maintaining the status quo.
Posted by: Don on July 18, 2006 06:51 PMShe is truly pathetic...
Posted by: Chris on July 18, 2006 08:56 PMThanks. I didn't mean to ask about suing for this. I was just curious if there could be a time where a governor could be sued and whether backing of a supreme court justice could be viewed as a conflict of interest if a suit involving the governor.
Just seems to be a strange entanglement for the separation of powers. I would think that a more disciplined governor would stay out of it for appearnce sake.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 18, 2006 09:34 PMMy understanding is that the Justices who hear the argument on the case are the ones who decide the case. The nine who heard the "gay marriage" case (the DOMA is being challenged on constitutional grounds) are the nine who will decide it, even if one or both of Johnson and Groen are seated on the bench at when that opinion eventually comes out.
Posted by: Dr. Who on July 19, 2006 09:44 AMYou are correct. The judges who heard the case will be the ones who decide it, even if they are no longer on the bench. This is different from the US Supreme Court. On the other hand, the USSC is required to decide cases within 90 after the term.
Justices in WA do whatever they want, no matter who the constitution or statutes require.
Don
Posted by: Don on July 19, 2006 03:59 PMThe Amunrud case challenging the constitutionality of the license suspension for child support law was heard in November 2005 and the Supremes have not yet rendered a decision. My petition for review challenging the same statute with additional arguments based on my status of having an old support order pre-existing to the WorkFirst Act and therefore its application to me is a bill of attainder, and other issues, has been deferred pending outcome of Amunrud. Every thing you wanted to know about licenses, child support obligors and our constitutional rights, but were afraid to ask can be found at the /586746.htm page of my website.
These are huge cases affecting everyone's rights. Posted by: Roger W. Knight on July 20, 2006 03:05 AM