Bittersweet victory in high-court battle

Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens' easy re-election Tuesday to a second term left the state's high court unchanged, if battered.

An uncharacteristic and record surge of special-interest money poured into what were once sleepy judicial races, reflecting a national trend of special interests trying to influence judges when legislative efforts fail. The bald efforts to mislead voters in campaigns for positions ideally held by independent, impartial judges are disturbing. But the efforts could not swamp the three incumbent justices up for re-election this year. Owens and her opponent, Sen. Stephen Johnson, faced off in the general election because neither received more than 50 percent of the vote among five primary candidates. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Tom Chambers won their seats in the primary against single challengers.

The primary campaign, especially, was a dirty battle of half-truths. The tenor of the general election improved with only one race left to decide and Johnson's call for a cleaner campaign.

The challengers were assisted by independent expenditures from more-conservative interests, while the incumbents were supported by money from more-liberal groups. Even the governor pledged to raise money for the incumbents.

The experience has left many concerned about the future of the judiciary. Judicial elections and evaluations will be discussed at Friday's King County Bar Association Annual Bench/Bar Conference.

The state Public Disclosure Commission is exploring what other states have done to limit the influence of special-interest money in judicial races.

Solutions are elusive and potentially in conflict with constitutional concerns. But given the bitter and obfuscating tone of the judicial campaigns this year, attention to the problem is a worthy effort.