Yakima Herald-Republic

Endorsements

• Alexander's experience merits final term on court
• Wapato's Chambers qualified for return to Supreme Court

Alexander's experience merits final term on court

Monday, August 28, 2006 — Time was, state Supreme Court races were about as exciting as watching the paint dry, often walkovers for incumbents who didn't even draw opponents.

But not anymore, as issues coming before the nine justices on the court are increasingly complex and controversial. Now unopposed re-election is the exception and well organized and financed campaigns the rule in races that aim to maintain or change the makeup of a high court.

One such high-profile race pits Chief Justice Gerry Alexander against John Groen, a noted Bellevue property-rights attorney who lives in Redmond.

We're making our endorsement in the race now because the winner of the primary goes onto the general election ballot alone, which is tantamount to election.

We'll go with Alexander because we feel his extensive experience after 33 years on the bench — at Superior Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court levels — is badly needed at this point in time. Groen has no experience as a judge, though he has argued 17 cases before the state's high court.

Only four of the nine current justices — Alexander, Barbara Madsen, Susan Owens and Bobbe Bridge — had experience on the bench before joining the high court. The others were attorneys from the public or private sector. Groen would further tip the balance away from bench experience.

Now let's settle a nonissue the Groen campaign has been floating. If he's elected to a third six-year term, Alexander would have to step down in the final year (2011) because he will turn 75 that year, which is the mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court justices.

Groen and his supporters are concerned that will allow whoever is elected governor in 2008 plenty of time to ponder a "political appointment" (Groen's phrase) to the bench in 2012, allowing that person to subsequently run for election as an incumbent.

They're right. It will.

But we have no problem with an appointment and, in fact, can look back on some of the better justices arriving on the court via that route. The late James Dolliver, former chief of staff of Republican Gov. Dan Evans, immediately comes to mind. Evans appointed Dolliver to the high court in 1976, and he won re-election in 1980, 1986 and 1992 before retiring.

There have been nine appointees on the court since Dolliver. Going back to statehood in 1889, 51 of 91 justices were appointed, according to the state Administrative Office of the Courts.

Gubernatorial appointments are hardly precedent-setting, and we'll take our chances with an 11th-hour gubernatorial appointment to keep Alexander's expertise and experience on the panel another five-plus years.

There are more substantive issues than Alexander's future replacement. Groen and his supporters say the chief justice represents an activist judicial style that too often leads to bad rulings. He points in particular to the so-called "Andress case," in which the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled in 2002 that an assault that leads to an unintended death cannot be called a murder. It would be manslaughter, a crime that carries a lesser sentence.

From the Seattle Times archives: "The court's reasoning went like this: In most murder cases, a prosecutor has to prove the defendant intended to kill. The exception is the felony-murder statute ... that covers deaths that occur while the defendant was committing another felony, such as rape or arson. In the Andress case, the court ruled that prosecutors could no longer use assault as the basis for a felony-murder conviction.

"That's because every homicide, by definition, includes an assault, the justices wrote. So if assault could be the basis for a murder conviction, every criminal case that results in death could be called a murder — something the Legislature did not intend."

Alexander voted in the majority and still strongly defends it as a "correct decision" under the law.

"One of the most important things the court does is interpret statute," Alexander told this newspaper's editorial board, adding that he abhors "results-oriented" rulings that are what some people want, rather than what the law and state Constitution require.

A good example of the court's role was evident in a recent ruling that upheld a ban on gay marriage in this state — a 5-4 decision that says the Legislature, not the courts, has the right to deal with such issues on a definitive basis. Alexander, one of the five, made that clear in a short, concise concurring opinion. That does not seem to square with someone bent on legislating from the bench.

All things considered, and after questioning the candidates and looking at the issues they raise in their campaigns, Groen does not make the case for unseating a seasoned, solid and respected jurist.

We think Alexander has earned this, his last, term on the state Supreme Court.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins and Bill Lee.

Wapato's Chambers qualified for return to Supreme Court

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 — When the Herald-Republic endorsed Tom Chambers when he first campaigned for a position on the state Supreme Court in 2000, members of the Editorial Board worried that our endorsement would smack of parochialism.

Now-Justice Chambers, who won the 2000 election over an Olympia lawyer, is the only member of the state's highest court who has his roots east of the Cascades.

He was born and raised in Wapato and atitended Yakima Valley Community College before going off to Washington State University, followed by the University of Washington School of Law and 30 years in private practice.

So, yes, he is the favorite son.

But he is also clearly more qualified, thoughtful and informed than his opponent in his bid for a second six-year term on the Supreme Court.

Chamber's challenger is Jeanette Burrage, also a graduate of the UW School of Law, a one-term state legislator and a one-term King County Superior Court judge.

Since there are only two candidates in this nonpartisan race, the winner will advance to the general election alone.

Burrage, who lives in Des Moines, south of SeaTac, definitely has some name recognition in the Puget Sound region, but that is not necessarily to her advantage. She has been an unsuccessful candidate in a number of judicial races — most recently in surprisingly nasty 2002 campaign for a seat on the state Court of Appeals — and has been rated "not qualified" five times by the King County Bar Association. This time Burrage says she is not seeking a rating from the association: "I've played that game," she told the Herald-Republic editorial board.

She is probably best known her 1999 threat from the Superior Court bench to sanction women attorneys if they appeared in her courtroom wearing pantsuits. Burrage told the editorial board that incident, which earned her the nickname "the skirt judge," had been "completely overblown."

What she has to offer voters and citizens in Washington, she said, is "a passion for individual and property rights." And, in criticizing what she called "activist judges," she said, "I've been a legislator and I've been a judge — and I know the difference."

There is some appeal in that kind of sloganeering, but there is much more appeal to Chambers' well-reasoned approach to both his campaign and his tenure on the high court.

Chambers is not one given to short, snappy answers. But it is clear that he has considered every aspect of the law and how it applies in each case brought before the Court.

He was one of four justices in the minority in the much-anticipated Defense of Marriage Act ruling earlier this month, when the majority upheld the ban on gay marriage in the state.

In their editorial board meeting, we had expected Burrage to challenge Chambers' vote, which would have overturned the gay-marriage ban. But she said that while the DOMA case "may have been a factor" in her decision to run against Chambers, it was not the deciding factor. She did add, however, that she agreed with the majority opinion.

In defense of his minority opinion, Chambers explained it carefully, clearly and thoughtfully, saying that he had focused on the "equal protection" portion of the state Constitution.

It was equally clear that while voters in the state may not agree with every opinion Chambers issues (or joins) as a Supreme Court justice, they should know that he makes them based on his own careful research, his legal experience and his respect for our state's laws and our Constitution.

And that, after all, should be what we are seeking most in those who sit on the state's highest court.

We strongly recommend Tom Chambers be returned for a second term as a Supreme Court justice.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins and Bill Lee.

VotingforJudges.org, P.O. Box 1460, Silverdale, WA  98383
Email your comments 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.