Cleaning up judicial elections

Really, the whole state could use a shower after one of the dirtiest campaign seasons ended with last week's election.

But more disturbing this year than the run-of-the-mill partisan mud fights for Congress and the Legislature, is the slop sloshed into the state's judicial campaigns. So much for the whole truth and nothing but the truth in campaign advertising.

This can't go on. Judges should be beholden to the law, not to the special interests — and their campaigns should be shielded from the lying, dirty, obfuscating fray.

Friday, you could imagine the rains soaking Seattle University's campus as a metaphorical cleansing of the election residue.

Inside Sullivan Hall, the King County Bar Association's Bench-Bar Conference considered the judicial election spectacle and what, if anything, could or should be done about it. Conspicuously absent were any of the state's Supreme Court justices, several of whom usually attend.

"I don't blame them," said John Ruhl, president of the King County Bar, as he convened what amounted to an autopsy on the election just concluded.

Washington is the latest state to see a dollar deluge from special-interest groups attempting to distract the electorate with salacious sound bites rather than consideration of qualifications and judicial philosophies.

Candidates for three Supreme Court positions raised a record $1.46 million through Oct. 30, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission. Beyond that, special-interest groups shelled out $2.73 million for advertising supporting or opposing the candidates.

Conservative special-interest money, especially from the building industry, poured into the Supreme Court races, which also attracted liberal money, mostly from unions.

The problem was severe enough during the primary that, within two weeks, the Washington state Public Disclosure Commission directed staff to look at options. The commission is expected to meet Nov. 30 to consider possible legislation.

Some political observers argue nothing needs to be done — the special-interest agitation didn't work. Despite the bruising campaign, all three state Supreme Court justices on the ballot won re-election. Some suggest the unwarranted smearing of Chief Justice Gerry Alexander in the primary backfired, creating a backlash against his challenger.

Probably. But how long can we expect voters to sift through the mess? Besides, the judiciary should be above the muck.

I like Rep. Shay Schual-Berke's approach. She is drafting legislation to embrace public financing of some judicial campaigns. Similar to a 2002 law enacted by the North Carolina Legislature, the law would apply only to races for Supreme Court and state Court of Appeals.

Candidates who raise an amount of grassroots money and agree not to take special-interest money could qualify for public funds to run the campaign.

"I'm a politician. I prejudge things all the time," said Schual-Berke, who easily won re-election to her fifth term. "But when I go to court ... my hope is the judge won't have pre-judged my case."

Under her still-evolving proposal, a Supreme Court candidate would get a certain amount during the primary, possibly 50 times the position's filing fee, or $70,697, and twice that during the general election. State Court of Appeals candidates would get less.

Candidates could opt not to take the public money and go the old way of business, union or other special-interest financing. That could make good fodder for their opponents. If "clean" candidates are targeted by additional money from opponents or special-interest groups, limited amounts of additional public money could be appropriated.

The change has been an improvement for North Carolina.

"We think this nutty system is better than the nutty system it replaced," said Jack Betts, associate editorial page editor of the Charlotte Observer. His editorial board would prefer appointed judges who stand for retention elections.

I like appointed judges, too. But, in populist Washington, we are stuck with electing them, so we need to figure out a better way. The phenomenon of this past campaign season will only grow in coming years. Public financing of judicial campaigns could be a way to make sure the judges remain focused on the people's business of applying the law impartially and not for the benefit of special interests.

That would be a good public investment.

Kate Riley's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. Her e-mail address is kriley@seattletimes.com