We recently sat down with former Justice Richard Sanders and discussed his judicial philosophy, his approach for interpreting the constitution, several memorable cases he worked on, and finally, the last days of his 2010 campaign.
Supreme Court of Washington Podcast - Interview with Justice Richard Sanders
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in three cases today.
Bird v. Best Plumbing Group, LLC v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 86109-9. Does an insurer have a constitutional right to a jury trial on the reasonableness of a covenant judgment, under RCW 4.22.060, between an insured defendant and a plaintiff?
State v. Patrick Jimi Lyons, aka Jimi Luke Andring, No. 85746-6. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution, article I, section 7 require probable cause before a search warrant may be issued. The Court must decide if the affidavit for search warrant in this case provided sufficient information for the magistrate to find probable cause.
State v. Rowland, No. 86117-0. Rowland received an exceptional sentence above the standard range before Blakely v. Washington was decided. After Blakely, Roland was resentenced following a correction to his offender score. The Court must decide whether Blakely applied at Rowland’s resentencing.
*Summaries prepared by the Washington State Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office.
Justice Tom Chambers, the Supreme Court's Renaissance man, announced recently that he won't seek another term on the high court's bench. The Seattle Times has the story here. We'll have more on his tenure in months to come.
The announcement opens another seat at the rapidly-changing court. Justice Charles Wiggins replaced Richard Sanders last year, and Justice Stephen Gonzalez was sworn in this month to replace retiring Justice Gerry Alexander. By law Gonzalez must run again this fall.
Former Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg and King County Superior Court Judge Bruce Hilyer have both announced their bids to replace Chambers.
Our unique statistical analysis of the Supreme Court's annual activity is complete for 2011. Every year we track the opinions and votes of each justice and provide a case-by-case breakout, along with some analysis. For comparison purposes see:
In 2011, the Supreme Court of Washington issued opinions in 117 cases, down from 140 in 2010. The Court continues to enjoy a high level of agreement: 59 percent of all decisions were unanimous (including unanimous-in-result-only opinions and per curiam opinions). This is up from 54 percent in 2010.
Chief Justice Barbara Madsen was the most prolific writer this year, with 35 total opinions. Debra Stephens came in second with 27 opinions. wrote the most majority opinions (23). Susan Owens wrote the most majority opinions (17) as well as the most unanimous opinions (9). Owens and Mary Fairhurst were in the majority in 93.6 percent of all cases they participated in.
Looking at the rates of agreement between justices, the justices who agreed with each other most often were Charles Wiggins and Madsen (96.3%), Wiggins and Fairhurst (92.7%) and Wiggins and Stephens (92.7%). The justices with the lowest rates of agreement were Tom Chambers and Jim Johnson (73.1%), Chambers and Madsen (74.3), and Jim Johnson and Stephens 75.7%).
The Court had a change in 2011, with Charlie Wiggins replacing former Justice Richard Sanders. Wiggins only participated in 55 of the cases with an opinion this year; while Sanders served as a temporary justice on 52 cases. In that time Sanders wrote two majorities, one concurrence, and seven dissents.
| Justice | Majority Opinions | Concurring Opinions | Dissenting Opinions* | Total Written |
| Madsen | 14 | 12 | 9 | 35 |
| C.Johnson | 12 | 2 | 14 | |
| Alexander | 11 | 6 | 6 | 23 |
| Chambers | 14 | 4 | 5 | 23 |
| Owens | 17 | 1 | 18 | |
| Fairhurst | 13 | 3 | 16 | |
| J.Johnson | 7 | 4 | 12 | 23 |
| Stephens | 13 | 4 | 10 | 27 |
| Wiggins | 7 | 4 | 11 |
*Excludes partial dissents.
| C.Johnson | Alexander | Chambers | Owens | Fairhurst | J.Johnson | Stephens | Wiggins | |
| Madsen | 87.1% | 78.0% | 74.3% | 78.9% | 86.1% | 85.0% | 80.5% | 96.3% |
| C.Johnson | 81.8% | 86.4% | 87.3% | 87.2% | 79.6% | 82.6% | 87.3% | |
| Alexander | 76.4% | 85.5% | 81.7% | 79.6% | 79.9% | 81.8% | ||
| Chambers | 91.8% | 84.4% | 73.1% | 79.8% | 87.3% | |||
| Owens | 90.8% | 75.9% | 80.7% | 89.1% | ||||
| Fairhurst | 80.4% | 84.3% | 92.7% | |||||
| J.Johnson | 75.7% | 85.2% | ||||||
| Stephens | 92.7% |
| Justice | Majority Votes* | Total Votes** | % in Majority | Unanimous Opinions*** |
| Madsen | 91 | 109 | 83.5% | 8 |
| C.Johnson | 99 | 110 | 90.0% | 8 |
| Alexander | 93 | 110 | 84.5% | 4 |
| Chambers | 98 | 110 | 89.1% | 8 |
| Owens | 103 | 110 | 93.6% | 9 |
| Fairhurst | 102 | 109 | 93.6% | 8 |
| J.Johnson | 89 | 108 | 82.4% | 6 |
| Stephens | 93 | 109 | 85.3% | 7 |
| Wiggins | 50 | 55 | 90.9% | 3 |
*Including concurring votes
**Analysis is limited to signed opinions
***Including unanimous in result
| Justice | Majority Opinions | Majority Votes | % in Majority |
| Madsen | 3 | 7 | 50% |
| C.Johnson | 1 | 8 | 53% |
| Alexander | 3 | 7 | 47% |
| Chambers | 3 | 8 | 53% |
| Owens | 2 | 9 | 60% |
| Fairhurst | 2 | 10 | 66% |
| J.Johnson | 10 | 66% | |
| Stephens | 1 | 9 | 60% |
| Wiggins | 1 | 33% |
| Splits | Number of Cases | % of Total |
| 9-0* | 16 | 13.7% |
| 9-0 | 45 | 38.5% |
| 8-1 | 8 | 6.8% |
| 8-0 | 1 | 0.9% |
| 7-2 | 8 | 6.8% |
| 6-3 | 17 | 14.5% |
| 5-4 | 15 | 12.8% |
| per curiam** | 7 | 6.0% |
| TOTAL | 117 |
*Unanimous in result only (concurrence or partial dissent filed)
| Vote Split | Days Pending |
| 9-0 | 116 |
| 9-0* | 192 |
| Court average | 203 |
| 8-1 | 254 |
| 7-2 | 258 |
| 6-3 | 299 |
| 5-4 | 316 |
*Unanimous in result only
(Note: Feel free to use any of these numbers, but please credit the Supreme Court of Washington Blog.)
Yesterday's ruling that the state needs to provide more money for public education set off a chorus of responses. Here’s a round-up of several reactions.
Governor Chris Gregoire
“Along with the Legislature, I’ve worked hard to ensure that every student across our state is afforded a quality education. It’s what our children deserve, and what our economy requires. I’m pleased today’s ruling by the Supreme Court recognizes our significant work to improve our education system, and acknowledges the critical reforms now being implemented.
“With that said, the Court ruled we must do more – and I agree. The Court made it clear – the Legislature, and all of us as a state, must provide dependable funding to implement the reforms we have worked so hard to develop. This ruling reinforces my call for a half-penny sales tax increase to invest in education. If we don’t, we take a step backward and not only threaten a violation of the court’s ruling, but make it more difficult for students to gain the skills and knowledge needed to compete in today’s global economy.”
Attorney General Rob McKenna (who defended the State)
“The state appealed this case to the Supreme Court to receive clarification and direction to guide the Legislature in meeting its constitutional duty — and this decision is helpful. We’re pleased the Court continues to recognize the primary role of the Legislature in determining how to meet its constitutional duty and that the Court recognizes the Legislature’s progress in fulfilling the state’s obligation in passing its 2009 education reforms.”
Washington Education Association (one of the plaintiffs in the case)
"Today, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what WEA and its partners in the Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS) have argued for so long: Public education in Washington is woefully underfunded. And this means students and schools can no longer bear the impact of further cuts to public education funding.
"The decision by the Court, coming just days before the start of the 2012 legislative session, clearly puts the responsibility for correcting the underfunding where it belongs: The state legislature. The legislature can no longer punt on full funding for public education. The legislature needs to act immediately to remedy this injustice against our children and students."
Rep. Marko Liias (D)
"It is appropriate that I was reading to a class of second graders at the same time the Supreme Court announced the state is not meeting our commitment to fully fund education. I look forward to working with my colleagues to raise the revenue it will take to give our kids the education they deserve!"
Rep. Cathy Dahlquist (R)
“As a member of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee, there is an ongoing discussion about how much the state is spending on certain agencies. Most recently, the Puget Sound Partnership was the subject of our review. We have spent millions on this agency since its inception in 2007, which has not outlined or achieved a single benchmark to improve the water quality in the Puget Sound. Meanwhile, the governor and majority party are all too quick to cut education funding, then tell taxpayers they can ‘buy back’ their kids’ schooling through a $500 million dollar tax increase. These budget games are irresponsible and indefensible."
Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe (D)
“The Supreme Court has affirmed what we already knew, that we must reform basic education and pay for it,” said McAuliffe. “Through HB 2261 and HB 2776 the Legislature recognized society is demanding more from our students, so we created an enhanced program of basic education to provide them with the opportunities they need to succeed. However, we can’t reach this goal alone. We now need the public’s support of new revenue to achieve full implementation of these reforms.”
Rep. Glenn Anderson (R)
“I have been advocating for several years now that the state should fund education first in the budget. This court ruling goes right to the heart of the matter: If we do not fund education first, it becomes a political football. This is evident in the governor’s current budget proposal in which she cuts education then comes out telling taxpayers they can only ‘buy back’ her education funding cuts if they approve a half billion dollar tax hike. This approach is clearly emotional extortion to hold our children’s future hostage so other tough decisions don’t have to be made. When times are so tough and so many personal sacrifices are being made, it’s offensive to suggest such an alternative."
Yakima Herald-Republic Editorial Board
"The decision, and court oversight, may reflect not so much judicial activism as judicial impatience with a Legislature that has identified problems and enacted reforms but has not backed up its action with adequate funding. The state's increasing reliance on federal grants and local levy dollars has to stop, the justices said. The court didn't spell out what the Legislature has to do, only that lawmakers have to do something."
League of Education Voters
"The decision validates what parents, students, teachers and principals have known for a long time: The state is not meeting its duty to fund the basic education every student in Washington is entitled to."
Washington State Republican Party Chairman Kirby Wibur
“The state Supreme Court ruled this morning that the state is failing in its paramount duty to adequately and uniformly fund our schools. This fiasco comes after Democrats have controlled the governor’s office for 27 straight years, while also controlling the Senate and House for 18 and 20 of those years, respectively. Their failure to prioritize state spending on our kids and our future economic health is exactly why we need fresh thinking in Olympia, starting with Rob McKenna as our next governor.”
Freedom Foundation Education Reform Fellow Jami Lund
"The Court has clearly concluded that the state has 'transitioned from a seat-based education system to a performance-based education system' and needs to do the same with the funding formulas.
"The Court appears to want to see a funding system which provides enough for the student learning targets the legislature has set, but also a system which shows a relationship between the results and the mechanisms used to fund those results.
"For those of us who seek varieties of approaches to meeting students’ needs, this finding is promising. If the state were to find ways to fund student success independent of the measures of bureaucracy (hours, ratios, staffing levels), then these ways would not violate the ruling.
"This ruling affirms notions of funding student success more directly, evaluating programs and employees in terms of student success, and even focusing on teacher performance incentives rather than teacher education."
In a major ruling issued today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Legislature has failed to fulfill the state's constitutional mandate to amply fund education. The case is McCleary v. State, No. 84362-7.
The court issued a lengthy opinion authored by Justice Debra Stephens. Justice Stephens summarized the major points of the ruling:
• The judiciary has the primary responsibility for interpreting article IX, section 1 to give it meaning and legal effect.
• The legislature has the responsibility to augment the broad educational concepts under article IX, section 1 by providing the specific details of the constitutionally required “education.”
• Article IX, section 1 confers on children in Washington a positive constitutional right to an amply funded education.
• The word “education” under article IX, section 1 means the basic knowledge and skills needed to compete in today’s economy and meaningfully participate in this state’s democracy.
• The current substantive content of the requisite knowledge and skills for “education” comes from three sources: the broad educational concepts outlined in Seattle School District, the four learning goals in Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1209, 53d Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 1993), and the State’s essential academic learning requirements (EALRs).
• The “education” required under article IX, section 1 consists of the opportunity to obtain the knowledge and skills described in Seattle School District, ESHB 1209, and the EALRs. It does not reflect a right to a guaranteed educational outcome.
• The program of basic education is not etched in constitutional stone. The legislature has an obligation to review the basic education program as the needs of students and the demands of society evolve.
• The word “ample” in article IX, section 1 provides a broad constitutional guideline meaning fully, sufficient, and considerably more than just adequate.
• Ample funding for basic education must be accomplished by means of dependable and regular tax sources.
• The State has not complied with its article IX, section 1 duty to make ample provision for the education of all children in Washington.
• The legislature recently enacted a promising reform package under ESHB 2261, 61st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2009), which if fully funded, will remedy deficiencies in the K-12 funding system.
• This court defers to the legislature’s chosen means of discharging its article IX, section 1 duty but retains jurisdiction over the case to help facilitate progress in the State’s plan to fully implement the reforms by 2018.
In a rare move, the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction of the case and gave the Legislature a six-year deadline to implement necessary reforms.
Knight v. City of Yelm, No. 84831-9. The Supreme Court has ruled that mystic teacher and author JZ Knight has standing to oppose several proposals to subdivide property into single-family residential lots in Yelm. The hearing examiner granted preliminary subdivision approvals in five decisions. Knight later filed a Land Use Petition Act challenge, and the trial court ruled in her favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that Knight could not show she would personally be harmed by land use decision, thus requiring dismissal of her LUPA petition. In a 7-2 decision by Justice Charles Wiggins, the Supreme Court held that Knight established that the land use decision is likely to prejudice her water rights and satisfies the statutory standing requirement.
In light of Justice Gerry Alexander's mandatory retirement, Jessica Bowman of the Freedom Foundation has an opinion piece in The Olympian arguing that we should reconsider booting judges off the bench when they turn 75.
Venkat Balasubramani of Focal PLLC joins us to discuss free speech and the case of State v. Immelt, in which the Supreme Court held that horn-honking constitutes protect speech.
Supreme Court of Washington Podcast - Honk if you love free speech.
Gov. Chris Gregoire has appointed King County Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez to the Washington State Supreme Court. Judge Gonzalez will replace Justice Gerry Alexander, who faces mandatory retirement at the end of this year. Read the press announcement here.
In her remarks to those in attendance at the Temple of Justice, Gov. Gregoire noted the experience Judge Gonzalez would bring to the Supreme Court -- as a trial judge and as a practitioner with civil and criminal litigation experience.
Gov. Gregoire and Chief Justice Madsen both took the opportunity to praise Justice Alexander and his decades of service on the bench.
UPDATE: Judge Gonzalez won praise from both leading candidates for governor. Attorney General Rob McKenna, a Republican, extended his congratulations and endorsed the appointment during the selection process. Likewise, Rep. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, congratulated Gonzalez on his Facebook page and also endorsed the judge.
Governor Christine Gregoire is appointing a new justice to the State Supreme Court today to replace outing Justice Gerry Alexander, who is required to step down having reached mandatory retirement age. The appointment ceremony will occur at the Temple of Justice in Olympia and will be televised live on TVW.
The Freedom Foundation is pleased to announce its latest publication, a pocket-sized edition of the Washington State Constitution accompanied by the United States Constitution.
This unique publication includes a foreword by Washington State Supreme Court Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, an introduction by Freedom Foundation General Counsel Michael Reitz, and an essay by retired Washington Supreme Court Justice Robert Utter.
The constitution tells us: "A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government." But how many of us take the time to read our state's founding documents?
To order a copy order online or call the Freedom Foundation at (360) 956-3482.
The Supreme Court issued opinions in two cases today.
State v. Hecht, No. 86078-5. The Supreme Court rules that a former judge is entitled to public assistance in his appeal after he was convicted of patronizing a prostitute.
Shortly after being elected as a Pierce County Superior Court Judge, Michael Hecht was convicted of felony harassment and patronizing a prostitute. On appeal he requested an order of indigency in order to receive public funds for his representation on appeal. The trial court denied Hecht’s motion for an order of indigency. The Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion, holds that Hecht is “presumptively indigent” because he receives food stamp benefits, and may be entitled to some assistance on appeal. RCW 10.101.010(1)(a). The court remanded the case to the trial court for further consideration.
In re the Detention of Danforth, No. 841527. Robert Danforth is a sex offender with a history of offenses against young boys, including rape. In 2006, he went to the King County Sheriff’s Office and said that he was going to reoffend unless he was taken into custody. He said that if he was not confined he would go to a bus stop and try to have sex with boys, and also that he would go to an arcade where young boys were and “rub up against them.” He was taken into custody and committed as a sexually violent predator. This required proof that he was currently dangerous “with evidence of a recent overt act.” Overt acts can include some threats.
Danforth argues that his statements were not “threats” because his motive was to prevent harm, not cause it, and that using his statements against him would violate his free speech rights under the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that his statements were a threat, irrespective of motive, and rejected his First Amendment argument.
In a three-vote lead opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. Justice James Johnson wrote: “A reasonable jury could find that Danforth committed a threat when he gave explicit descriptions of his plans to molest boys at a bus stop and have intercourse with a child at a mall video arcade. Danforth repeatedly said that he would act on his plan if not committed as a sex offender. Former RCW 71.09.030(5), as defined by former RCW 71.09.020(10), is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague. Former RCW 71.09.030(5) satisfies our due process requirement that the State show an offender is presently dangerousness before he or she is involuntarily committed. We affirm the summary judgment here.”
Justice Tom Chambers concurred in part and dissented in part, while Justice Charles Wiggins wrote a dissenting opinion.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases today.
State v. Jasper, No. 85227-8. Whether the trial courts in these prosecutions for driving with a suspended license and unlicensed contracting violated the defendants’ right of confrontation by admitting letters from records custodians stating that the defendant’s license was suspended or that the no contractor’s license was found.
Estate of Bunch v. McGraw Residential Ctr., et al., No. 85679-6. Whether RCW 4.24.010 requires a parent of a deceased child to have regularly provided support to the child up to or near the time of the child’s death in order to bring a wrongful death action.
Bus. Servs. of Am., Inc. v. WaferTech LLC, No. 85654-1. Whether the trial court properly dismissed this action for want of prosecution under CR 41(b)(1) after the case had been noted for trial, on grounds that the plaintiff had taken actions suggesting that the case was closed.
In re Pers. Restraint of Heidari, No. 85653-2. Whether after reversal of a conviction for second degree child molestation based on insufficient evidence the trial court may enter a conviction for the lesser included offense of attempted second degree child molestation even though the jury was not instructed on that offense.
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
Podcasts