Washblog

30. Jason Osgood spews:

Hi Goldy.

There's something deeply wrong with WA's system of electing judges. I'm kind of ignorant on the issue, but have a suggestion.

I met lots of judges while campaigning in 2008. We'd all stand in back, accosting any fresh face, ask for their support. You get to know people you see night after night.

When stumping, judges can only talk about themselves. They can't talk about any issues, because they're supposed to be impartial. For the same reason, they can't ask for money.

Judicial candidates can't even say if their a Democrat, Republican, or otherwise.

So they talk about their past. You have to infer their judicial philosophy (abortion, bill of rights, corporate personhood, etc.) from their CV and their endorsements.

It's a ridiculous system.

Everyone running knows it's a ridiculous system. It's a huge distraction from their day jobs. (Most candidates are currently judges or practicing law.)

Being ignorant, I asked pretty much everyone how they thought things should be done.

A few suggested Missouri's system of retention elections.

The basic idea is that Missouri got sick of the money corrupting judicial elections, decided to appoint judges (with a confirmation process), and then judges face the voters for a retention election.

I kind of like this idea. Regular retention elections puts the onus on the judges to show their worth. Versus impeachment process, to remove horrible judges, which puts the burden on the opposition.

So, now for my suggestion:

All judgical election campaigns should be publicly financed.

Washington Public Campaigns has been working on this for our supreme court races.

I have no doubt that Missouri's system of selecting judges is superior to Washington's. I think I'd be happy with retention elections, if they were publicly financed.

09/27/2009 at 9:42 am