Bond, Johnson for Supreme Court

IN two races for the Washington Supreme Court, this page endorses one incumbent and one challenger.

Start with the challenger, Michael Bond.

Bond has a sharp mind, he knows the law and he presents a compelling case to replace the one-term Mary Fairhurst. In a sentence, the case is this: Fairhurst, who used to have a job defending the government, accepts the government's arguments — and excuses — far too much now that she is on the court. Consider the following 10 questions, all the subject of divided rulings:

• Whether a transit agency can withhold documents by broadly asserting attorney-client privilege;

• Whether a public school that investigated the death of a schoolboy can keep the report secret;

• Whether the state has the constitutional power to rule on the truth of political ads;

• Whether a transit agency can take private property permanently to satisfy a short-term need;

• Whether a vague notice on an Internet page is sufficient for a public meeting on the taking of private property;

• Whether a prisoner may be force-fed;

• Whether a public-housing manager can ban tenants from posting signs on their hallway doors;

• Whether the death penalty remains constitutional;

• Whether a city can forbid a private hauler from picking up construction waste in order to protect a franchisee, and

• Whether the state can limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In all but the last — 9 out of 10 — Fairhurst sided with government. In a couple of these cases we agreed with her, but the pattern is troubling. With her it seems not so much an ideology as a sympathy and a habit: Her previous job was defending state agencies.

Contrast this with Bond, a private attorney who says, "My fundamental philosophy is that the role of the court is to protect the people from the power of government and vested interests." Bond hits Fairhurst's stands against individual rights to speech, public documents, property and privacy.

Bond is a partner in Gardner Bond Tabolsi, Seattle, and is a longtime civil litigator. He has been an arbitrator, and attorneys speak highly of his fairness. Early in his career, when he was a judge advocate in the Marines, he prosecuted a drill instructor for battery.

Bond has an uphill fight — he has raised less than one-tenth the cash Fairhurst has — but we believe he is the best candidate to protect the rights of the people.

In the other race, we support 18-year incumbent Justice Charles Johnson, who is challenged by attorneys Jim Beecher and Frank Vulliet. Johnson says he is "somewhat of a populist" who tends to side with the individual. He does this strongly in free-speech and public-disclosure cases, and tends to do it in criminal cases. In the Cross case, he was ready to rule the death penalty unconstitutional.

Johnson tends to side with the government in closely fought property cases, such as the fourth and fifth cases in the list above, in which we believe the owners had the stronger claims. The justice is very good on public-disclosure issues and sided with the minority in the case involving a school district's ability to withhold the names of teachers alleged to have had sexual incidents with children.

Of his two challengers, only Jim Beecher of the firm Hackett, Beecher & Hart, presents much of a case against Johnson, and in the end it is not enough. Beecher has fine qualifications, but at 68, he could serve for only one term. We'll stick with Johnson.