July 7, 2012 — Voters have three choices to
make in the Washington Supreme Court races, but only one
of the contests calls for a difficult decision. Justice
Susan Owens isn’t facing serious opposition, and neither
is Justice Steven Gonzalez. Both are experienced and
qualified.
Meanwhile, four candidates are vying to replace retiring
Justice Tom Chambers, and all have passed muster in
various bar association surveys. We base our endorsement
on the belief that justices should review cases to
ensure that constitutional rights are protected, even if
that means issuing unpopular rulings.
For that reason – and others – our endorsement goes to
Sheryl Gordon McCloud,
a veteran attorney who has persuaded appellate courts to
make controversial but appropriate rulings. She has
argued criminal justice cases in front of the Supreme
Court for two decades and has demonstrated that she will
address cases on their merits. Because her cases have
been disruptive, she does not have the institutional
constituency of other candidates. McCloud’s record is
wide-ranging, from defending Second Amendment rights to
winning a recent reversal of a death penalty conviction.
The consistent thread running through her work is that
rights ought to be protected. Period.
Richard Sanders, who served three terms on the Supreme
Court before his defeat in 2010, has a similar
philosophy. His rulings on upholding the 1972 Public
Records Act have been important in the fight for greater
government transparency. However, he has made some
questionable ethical decisions. Plus, Sanders, who is
67, is only eligible to serve one six-year term, because
retirement is mandated at age 75.
Bruce Hilyer is a former prosecutor and a veteran judge
on the King County Superior Court, which is where
Gonzalez was plucked from. He points to his
administrative accomplishments, such as raising fees to
keep the courts open during a budget crunch. He is the
clear favorite in the King County legal community.
However, he says as a justice he would consider the
consequences of his rulings and how they would affect
other branches of government.
This issue has come up repeatedly since the 2002 and
2004 felony-murder cases in which the Supreme Court
struck down murder convictions that in most states would
have resulted in lesser charges, such as manslaughter.
In 2002, the court overturned a felony-murder
conviction. Two years later, it decided that all such
cases should be overturned going back to 1975, when the
statute was written. This affected scores of cases.
Prosecutors were outraged. But the alternative would
have been to deny equal treatment because it would’ve
been messy.
John Ladenburg, formerly a county executive and head
prosecutor for Pierce County, also criticizes the court
for not considering the consequences of its rulings.
Like Hilyer, he would consider the impacts on other
cases. He also touts his administrative abilities.
We have endorsed Sanders in the past. Ladenburg and
Hilyer are impressive public servants. But we prefer
McCloud for her understanding of the proper role of the
court, and the knowledge, temperament and independence
she can bring to its deliberations.