Judicial elections continue to serve Washington state citizens well

WASHINGTONIANS have had the constitutional right to elect their judges since statehood in 1889. This system has served us well. A Washington State University study this year found that registered voters had a "very positive view of the Washington judiciary as a whole." A "commanding majority" viewed Washington's judges as "honest and trustworthy, qualified, and fair and impartial."

That is, after all, what we want — an independent, fair and well-qualified judiciary. In sharp contrast to the government's two political branches, the only promises Washington's nonpartisan judicial candidates may make are to be fair and impartial, uphold the Constitution, issue timely decisions, and treat everyone with courtesy and respect. Being accountable at the ballot box fosters these qualities.

But in Washington and elsewhere, concerns have arisen about special-interest money and voters not casting votes in judicial elections. Recently, special-interest groups have spent significant sums through Political Action Committees (PACs), independent of the candidate's campaign committee. This special-interest money can make it appear that justice can be bought. Also, without enough information, many people don't vote when it comes to judges on the ballot. These concerns can be addressed without discarding the people's constitutional right to choose their judges.

To resolve the money problem, a rule requiring judges to remove themselves from a case if a party contributes too much through a PAC is now pending before Washington's Supreme Court. If adopted, this rule would remove that incentive, while preserving the right to make reasonable PAC contributions. In 2006, the Legislature also passed a law restricting the contribution amount made directly to a judge's campaign committee. Another option is publicly financed judicial campaigns.

Public education is one answer to the drop-off in citizens voting for judges — whether it's the Web site, votingforjudges.org, or voters pamphlets. Voters also want judicial performance evaluations, available in some areas.

Some states choose judges through a commission system with candidates reviewed by a group of citizens including lawyers. A few names are sent to the governor, who is required to appoint from that list. That judge's name may later appear on a ballot — with no opposition candidate — to decide whether the judge should be retained. Rather than informed voters electing judges, both the selection of the commission members and behind-the-scenes contacts with them create opportunities for special-interest groups to have substantial influence over who the judges ultimately are.

In Washington, we have the best of all worlds. A majority of Washington judges first reach the bench through carefully vetted appointments, with the added "fail-safe" of contested elections, providing the public with a real choice between two or more people.

Before recent special-interest spending, judges who did a good job were rarely challenged, leading to a stable and experienced judiciary. If a judge does not perform well, the voters usually have the opportunity to elect someone else in a contested election. In addition, attorneys who haven't been appointed have a chance to run for election.

It is a privilege to serve the public as a judge. Judges have tremendous power over people's lives, liberty and property. We must make tough decisions that sometimes run counter to public opinion. With our current election system, if a judge is challenged because of an unpopular decision, at least the public has candidates to choose from. Under the other system, judges may hesitate to make correct but unpopular decisions, knowing they may be judged on that decision alone in a retention election, rather than on their qualifications.

Washington's election system provides the people with capable judges who tend to have a degree of humility that balances their broad powers, in part because they are accountable to the voters.

The Board for Judicial Administration and the state bar association governors have each studied both systems and voted overwhelmingly to support Washington's election system. A legislative effort to remove the voters' right to select judges is unlikely. We should improve our election system by addressing special-interest money and voter "falloff," rather than move to a less-transparent commission system that restricts voter choice.