Three important seats on state supreme court

Three incumbents on the Washington Supreme Court, all who tend to lean moderate-to-liberal, face more-conservative challengers. The Times supports two of the incumbents, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Tom Chambers, and one of the challengers, state Sen. Stephen Johnson.

Our recommendations are based on philosophy, credentials, competence and personality. Philosophy, first. The Supreme Court's most important job is to limit the overreaching of the executive and legislative branches of government, particularly when it damages the rights of the people. In our view, the court has been too deferential to those in authority, particularly in regard to:

• Sound Transit's power to shorten its light-rail project without having to ask voters (the Sane Transit case);

• The Seattle Monorail Authority's power to take more private property than it needed for a station, giving itself the option to develop the property later at a profit to itself, (the "Sinking Ship parking garage" case);

• The power of public agencies to deny information to the public (the Hangartner case) and to deny an owner reasonable notice of a meeting about condemnation of his property (the Miller case);

• The Legislature's power to nullify the right of public referendum by declaring a public emergency (the emergency-clause cases);

• The Legislature's power to deny children the protection of the marriage laws if the couple raising them happens to be of the same sex (the Defense of Marriage Act case).

Justice Susan Owens, who is the most liberal of the three incumbents, sided with government in all the above cases except the gay-marriage case. Alexander sided with government in all the above cases except Miller. Chambers was more protective of individual rights, voting to limit governmental overreaching in Sane Transit, Hangartner, Miller, in a key emergency-clause case and in the marriage case.

Chambers is the easy choice. He is an eclectic justice in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor. He will support property rights for owners and marriage rights for gays — and can cite the reasons for both. His dissent in the gay-marriage case offered a genuine constitutional argument for same-sex marriage, citing the privileges and immunities clause, rather than arguing that his more-conservative colleagues had no reasons for their beliefs other than bigotry.

Chambers also has the weakest challenger, Jeannette Burrage, who served one term as a Superior Court judge and is unready for the Supreme Court.

Our endorsement of Alexander comes with some caveats. On most of the cases cited above, we favor his opponent's thinking rather than his. But Alexander has the widest judicial experience of anyone on the court. He has the backing of his colleagues as chief justice. He has an exemplary judicial manner. He is nearing the end of his career — this would be his last term — and he offers stability and continuity to the institution.

His challenger, John Groen, is a private attorney who took over the client list of Richard Sanders when Sanders was elected to the court in 1995.

Like Sanders, Groen would be a champion of property rights, but in criminal cases would side more with prosecutors than Sanders does.

Groen is smart and well-spoken, and has appeared many times before the court as an attorney. But he is new on the public scene and it is a leap of faith to choose him over the chief justice.

Owens is the weakest of the incumbents: Her opinions have been the least persuasive and her background — she was a judge in Forks, Clallam County — is the least stellar.

In Johnson, she faces this year's most-qualified challenger. As the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee of the state Senate, Johnson has been respected on both sides of the aisle. People know him and are comfortable with him. Johnson is a conservative whose doctrine is moderated by experience and temperament. This page endorses him.