Washblog

You can get some insight into what's important to a candidate from the open-ended question where they're asked to list some significant cases from their careers.
Go to http://www.kcba.org/judicial/ratings/2008_ratings.aspx and click on the "Questionnaire" links.

For the Supreme Court, I'm actually leaning against both incumbents. Mary Fairhurst's list of the cases she thought were important included
defending the government from prisoners who challenged bad medical care or "deductions" from funds they received. The Seattle Times is of course especially alert to cases about public disclosure,
and thought she was on the wrong side of at least some of those. They also mentioned a case in which she held that public housing could forbid tenants to post political material on their doors.
(The editorial seems to have scrolled off their web site).

Charles Johnson is said to have a good record of upholding individual rights, but as near as I can tell he voted with the majority on the stadium case in 1996.
That's the one where the court decided that the legislature could prevent a referendum by declaring an emergency and that the court would "defer" to the legislature's claim that a
new sports stadium was immediately necessary to public safety.
That's the decision with words to the effect "we cannot define the limits of the police power of the state". (If I'm wrong about his vote PLEASE let me know).

Johnson's challengers include one guy rated "Not Qualified", namely Frank Vulliet, whose bar association questionnaire seems really defensive and who has a paucity of recent legal experience
(his bar association membership lapsed for not meeting continuing education requirements). The other challenger is James Beecher, who is only rated "Qualified" but seems reasonable.

For Superior Court position 1, they all look good. Susan Amini's list of significant cases includes heartrending immigration cases, showing compassion.
Tim Bradshaw has incredibly diverse endorsements, which is a great thing in a judicial candidate, and wasn't afraid to haul a Seattle police officer into court for assault.

In position 10, again I'd be happy with any of them. Jean Bouffard is proudest of cases where she had to learn new stuff, which is a good mindset to have.
Regina Cahan was a pioneer in DNA evidence, so she understands what it means to grasp a technology. She has an endorsement from one of my heroes, Faith Ireland.
Les Ponomarchuk's questionnaire shows a drive to achieve justice in awkward situations. He likes to talk about situations in which he had to be evenhanded between highly emotional parties.

For position 22, no argument with Noemi that Rebecca Graham would be a fine choice. Her list of significant cases shows a thoughtful and compassionate approach.
I'd like to speak up for Holly Hill, though. She was a federal civil rights attorney back when that meant something, but what really impressed me was her answer to one question on the questionnaire.
The bar association asks whether the candidate has ever been subject to disciplinary action. Holly Hill got cited for contempt of court when she was a public defender. Her offense?
She wouldn't bring a case to trial that she had been handed three hours earlier. (The contempt citation was reversed on appeal). I like people who are tough in good causes.

Position 26 leaves no real room for debate. Laura Gene Middaugh's opponent lists no accomplishments or experience, and he didn't even submit a questionnaire to the bar association. Middaugh, period.

Position 37 is another where all the candidates are good. I'm leaning toward Nic Corning, who is all about consumer protection (and has a Faith Ireland endorsement).
Jean Rietschel writes about handling complicated cases, but it wasn't clear how they reflect her philosophy. That can be good: there's a lot to be said for judges without a philosophy,
who handle each case individually.
Barbara Mack is a prosecutor who "gets" rehabilitation: she seems like the sort who would go for alternative sentencing when it makes sense.

Position 53 features two candidates rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified". It's hard to choose between Danieli and Spearman, but
Danieli is the only one who mentions judicial oversight in her stated philosophy, and I thought her list of significant cases had more depth.

by Fred on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 03:48:48 PM PST

---