Spokane Spokesman-Review

Endorsements

Our view: District Court picks

Cooney, Logan, Tripp, Nelson best for bench

October 31, 2006 — Spokane County District Court is the only court many residents ever come in contact with. In addition to handling such serious matters as domestic violence and drunken driving offenses, District Court also handles routine traffic tickets.

Some citizens judge the entire justice system on their District Court experiences, making it additionally important that the judges adhere to professional standards and behavior. Traditionally, incumbents in judicial elections at all levels have usually run unopposed, but this election season four of eight District Court incumbents in Spokane County face challengers. (The ninth incumbent on the court, Mike Padden, decided to retire.) Competition is always healthy, but the sudden plethora of candidates could be indicative of deeper problems on this bench.

The campaigns have exposed tensions simmering in the court for years, including political polarization (even though the judges run in nonpartisan races), personality conflicts, an ambiguous vacation policy, workload inequities and the inability of the judges to solve these internal problems together. This election has the potential to change these dysfunctional court dynamics.

Position 3: This race pits two solid candidates vying to replace Padden. Mark Laiminger, 48, is a senior deputy prosecutor for the Spokane County Attorney's Office. John O. Cooney, 33, is from a well-known family of lawyers and politicians. He works in the law office of his father, former District Court Judge John C. Cooney. He is the grandson of late state Sen. John L. Cooney.

Laiminger has been a prosecutor for 19 years, helping to create the Drug Court. Cooney passed the bar six years ago. Experience would seem to heavily favor Laiminger, but Cooney has taken many more criminal cases to trial and is more familiar with civil law.

Both candidates want to bring more efficiency to the court. Cooney has made an issue of closing the divide among the District Court judges and wants to increase public access by taking another look at night court and increasing day reporting. Laiminger notes the challenges the criminal justice system faces with substance abuse. Both support a special court to deal with the mentally ill.

Turning to endorsements, Cooney has gathered an impressive array, including eight of the 12 sitting Superior Court judges and many retired judges. Laiminger points to the endorsements of the deputy prosecutors union and retired Superior Court Judge Harold D. "Pete" Clarke.

Cooney was rated higher in the Spokane County Bar Association poll, getting better marks than Laiminger in three out of the four categories – legal ability, judicial temperament, integrity and relevant legal experience. Cooney has impressed judges with his preparation and professional demeanor in court. He may be young, but he shows great promise and the kind of leadership potential that Spokane County's District Court needs. Voters should let him start exercising it now.

Position 4: Incumbent Patti Connolly Walker was elected four years ago, despite coming in last in a Bar Association poll ranking the candidates. She fared much better in this year's poll, but her opponent, Mary Logan, also did well. Logan is campaigning on the need for change in the court, especially in showing more respect for low-income and indigent defendants. She knows this population well, because she has been a city public defender for nine years. She believes reviving a night court would make it easier for day laborers to keep their court appointments.

Logan garnered two key endorsements that speak to her change-agent potential. The union that covers some of the courthouse employees endorsed her, as did Superior Court Judge Harold Clarke III. He understands the dynamics in District Court, because he served on it for six years with almost all the current judges.

Connolly Walker, 43, diminishes the seriousness of the court's internal problems by blaming District Court candidates for bringing up the problems, despite the fact lawyers and judges throughout the community have been expressing similar concerns for a long time.

Logan, 46, has promised to provide a fresh voice and perspective on the District Court bench. Voters would be wise to give her a chance to deliver.

Position 5: Of the eight candidates running in four contested District Court races in Spokane County, Judge Gregory J. Tripp is the only one ranked "exceptionally well qualified" by a special judicial evaluation panel assembled by the Spokane County Bar Association.

And in the poll of bar members, he had the highest or second-highest rating in all four categories.

Tripp's rival, assistant public defender Jeffrey Leslie, was rated "qualified" by the evaluation panel, and his scores from bar members were below Tripp's in every instance – and no higher than sixth among all eight candidates on the ballot.

Bar polls are not infallible, but the consistent disparity between Tripp, 57, and Leslie, 37, is backed up by a compelling list of endorsements from legal professionals in the county and across the state, including retired Supreme Court Justice Richard Guy and 11 sitting Spokane County Superior Court judges.

Clearly, in his nearly 10 years on the District Court bench, Tripp has made a favorable impression on his peers. And that may be especially needed for one of the reasons Leslie has stressed in his campaign: "The judges are not getting along very well."

Indeed, reports of strife on the bench have been a recurrent theme in several of the campaigns, which underscores the need for a respected figure to bring divided parties together. Tripp, in fact, is said to be one judge able to transcend the gap.

For his part, Leslie seems competent, but his 12 years of practice in one office don't match the breadth of legal experience Tripp brought with him to the bench in 1997. And, of course, Leslie can't match Tripp's decade on the job. The steps Leslie recommends for cost-saving alternatives to confinement are efforts Tripp and his colleagues have already launched. With his experience and the justice system's confidence in him, Tripp has earned re-election.

Position 6: Going into the September primary, the Position 6 race was the most crowded with appointed Judge Harvey Dunham facing four challengers. Two of them, Mike Nelson and Chris Carlile, struck The Spokesman-Review editorial board as the most qualified.

Now it's down to Nelson, 55, a private attorney, and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Debra Hayes, 50. Nelson still has the broad background as a former city prosecutor and undercover police officer, plus 23 years of legal practice in the state.

The only thing that's changed since the primary is that Dunham, Carlile and David Stevens, the fifth candidate in the original field, have all endorsed Nelson.

As do we.

Our View: Alexander, Chambers and Stephen Johnson best

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 — The Temple of Justice in Olympia, where the Washington state Supreme Court does its work, is a place of tradition. Its walls and floors are marble. Robed and somber justices file in and out of the courtroom amid much decorum.

The three races for Supreme Court this election season, however, have a put-up-your-dukes feel, especially the race between Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, 70, and John Groen, a 47-year-old property-rights litigator who lives in Redmond.

Position 8

First elected to the Supreme Court in 1994, Alexander has become known for his gentle-spoken questions and answers inside and outside the courtroom. He's more professor than pugilist. But Alexander's on the defensive this election.

Before campaign finance laws changed June 7, limiting individual, corporate and party donations to $1,400 in judicial primary campaigns, Groen garnered several large donations from home builders and construction companies, some ranging from $12,500 to $25,000 each.

Groen said he's running because Alexander legislates from the bench and erodes the rights of property owners to determine the fate and value of their property. Groen has focused on a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Seattle Monorail Authority to condemn private property it might never have needed.

Alexander, if re-elected, won't be able to serve out the six-year term. Under Washington's Constitution, justices must retire at the end of the year in which they turn 75. The governor would then appoint a replacement, and Groen thinks that injects partisan politics into a judicial race and is unfair to voters.

The intense campaign has generated at least one positive for voters: Both candidates have been forced to speak in depth about specific cases, rather than in legal generalities. Groen is smart, well-informed and an experienced litigator; he has argued 17 cases before the state's Supreme Court.

But his property rights focus, besides being too rigid, seems too narrow for a court that grapples with cases ranging from same-sex marriage to newspaper joint-operating agreements. His assertion that Alexander and others on the current court legislate is a charge commonly leveled by those who disagree with court rulings.

And for an attorney who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Groen should recognize the Constitution doesn't forbid a 70-year-old justice from running for a final term, just from completing it.

Alexander, the longest serving chief justice the state Supreme Court has had, gets the endorsement for Position 8. He brings nonpartisan support to a nonpartisan race, important lower court experience, institutional memory and a judicial temperament best-suited to the state's highest court.

Position 9

In the Position 9 race, incumbent Tom Chambers is facing Jeanette Burrage of Des Moines, a private practice attorney who was a King County Superior Court judge, a Republican state legislator and the executive director of the defunct Northwest Legal Foundation, an organization that entered into "wise use" skirmishes and other property rights matters. In 1994, she lost a Supreme Court race to Phil Talmadge.

The King County Bar Association has rated her "not qualified" for the position. The Municipal League of King County reached the same conclusion. Burrage said she did not respond to the Bar Association questionnaire because she suspected her rating was predetermined. Ratings aside, voters can learn much from the answers in these surveys. Candidates should fill them out.

Burrage echoed the familiar buzz phrases "legislates from the bench" and "judicial activism" when speaking of her opponent. She says she would do a better job of protecting individual rights, particularly property rights. When asked which justices – past and present – she admired, she mentioned U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former state Supreme Court Justice William C. Goodloe.

In the mid-1980s, Goodloe, whom Burrage calls her mentor, was embroiled in a couple of ethics controversies over violations of campaign-finance laws and the marketing of a jury-selection book.

Her opponent is no stranger to controversy either. Recently, Chambers failed to report a traffic accident when he and a passenger crashed on his motorcycle. The passenger was injured and taken to an emergency room. State law requires motorists to report injury-related accidents.

That aside, Chambers has a sharp analytical mind and was given the highest ratings by the King County Bar Association and the Municipal League of King County. His dissents in the Hangartner public records case that gratuitously expanded attorney-client privilege and the recent Defense of Marriage Act decision show a methodical, reasonable mind.

Chambers has a strong property-rights record, which undercuts Burrage's complaints on that score.

This isn't a close contest. Though he has made some disappointing personal choices, Chambers has earned another term.

Position 2

Position 2, however, is a close call. The incumbent is Susan Owens. Among her challengers are two Johnsons, a Smith and a candidate embarking on a monk-like quest to avoid even the slightest appearance of outside influence.

Michael Johnson and Richard Smith don't appear to be serious candidates. Suspicions are that Johnson entered to drain support from a more legitimate candidate, Stephen Johnson. Confused? That might be the point. Owens denies any part in Michael Johnson's candidacy, but conceded he may have thought his filing would help her.

Michael Johnson has rarely responded to media inquiries. Voters should dismiss him.

Richard Smith says he's running to point out the massive sums being contributed to other candidates. OK, but then what? He doesn't have the experience or qualifications to be on the Supreme Court.

Norman Ericson has been a state administrative judge for 31 years. He refuses to take contributions or seek endorsements. He refused to cooperate with the King County Bar Association's screening committee. He won't talk to editorial boards. We appreciate the principle of avoiding outside influences, but he's taken it to such an extreme that voters hardly know him. They would be gambling to mark their ballots for an unknown quantity.

Owens, the incumbent, offers a rural perspective to the court and is certainly up to the task. In an interview with the S-R editorial board, she wasn't forthcoming with detailed analyses of her decisions. At times, she seemed irritated at being asked.

Her feelings and opinion about the Defense of Marriage Act case are admirable (she dissented), but her explanation wasn't compelling.

Stephen Johnson, a Republican state senator and the ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee, demonstrated a sophisticated grasp for the position and offered persuasive examples of why he can't be labeled merely a conservative. While he is the favorite candidate of developers and property rights, he hasn't reflexively sided with them over the years. Johnson was rated "exceptionally well-qualified" by the King County Bar Association; Owens was rated "well-qualified." Both are solid, but the nod goes to Johnson – Stephen that is.

VotingforJudges.org, P.O. Box 1460, Silverdale, WA  98383
Write to [email protected] or fill out our form.

Votingforjudges.org includes ratings and endorsements from numerous organizations. We provide this information so that voters will be better informed about the candidates. We do not rate or endorse any candidates; the ratings and endorsements of organizations included at this site reflect the views of those individual organizations and not necessarily the views of votingforjudges.org or its sponsors.