|
Frank Vulliet |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Washington Supreme CourtPosition FourCurrent Occupation/Employer: Third generation Washingtonian; self-employed, semi-retired lawyer closely following national affairs and writing a book tentatively entitled "Taking Stock . . .: What’s Still Right and What’s Gone Wrong in America: What YOU Can Do About It". Legal/Judicial Experience: Over 30 years of varied, diverse trial and appellate experience in federal and state courts representing clients from individuals to Fortune 500 companies. Frequent arbitration and mediation service. Served as a Military Magistrate in the 13th Naval District. Education: BA, University of Washington; JD, University of California Hastings College of the Law; continuing independent study of politics, history, and economics. CANDIDATE STATEMENT: I want to improve the quality and output of decisions from the Supreme Court and lower courts and increase efficiency in our judicial system. The first goal can be accomplished through intellectual honesty ensuring all decisions accurately describe the facts and the issues the parties present, not something of a court’s creation. A decision that does not meet these standards does not decide the case presented, but one of the Court’s creation. The end result may or may not be just. Unfortunately, only the parties and their lawyers usually realize this. Moreover, gross (and easily avoided) errors by a court leads to more litigation and additional, avoidable cost to the parties and the taxpayer. I will work to implement a meaningful evaluation system of appellate judges so citizens can cast their votes intelligently and with understanding. I will urge the Court to take up and decide more cases, particularly involving differences between Court of Appeals divisions. Leaving such issues undecided leaves uncertainty as to the law and creates unnecessary and/or more costly litigation. The number of cases decided by the Supreme Court today is far lower than in the past when there were only seven Justices with less staff and without the advantages of computer research and word processing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Official web site: www.Vulliet4Justice.org | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Opponents: Jim Beecher and Charles Johnson | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Streaming video: For Position 4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Video Voters' Guide:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Candidate ratings:
Important note! Each of these organizations uses its own standards and rating terms when evaluating candidates; please check their pages for further information. We do not have ratings for candidates with an asterisk (*), and the reasons vary. Some evaluations may still be in process, or we might not have received them yet; some candidates may not have been offered an opportunity to participate, or they may have declined to participate. Again, please check the organizations' pages for further details. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newspaper endorsements (click paper for details):
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Finance report: (Click a dollar figure for detailed data from the
Public Disclosure Commission. Note that summary numbers here might not match
detailed data for various reasons.)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Media stories:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
VotingforJudges.org, P.O. Box 1460, Silverdale, WA
98383 As the election approaches, Votingforjudges.org will include 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. |