Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Evergreen Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

One of the unique features of Washington's 2010 judicial elections will be the role of social media in helping candidates get out their message. Three state Supreme Court justices are up for reelection – Madsen, Sanders, and Jim Johnson – and already candidates are employing social media in ways never before used in Washington Supreme Court elections. Justice Jim Johnson announced his reelection bid on his Facebook page and attracted dozens of fans within a few hours. Justice Sanders also has a Facebook page which announces campaign events. Attorney Charlie Wiggins, who is challenging Sanders, is on both Facebook and Twitter.

Last November the Washington Ethics Advisory Committee issued an opinion that stated judicial blogging is permitted under the Code of Judicial Conduct, provided the judge can do so in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Presumably the same guidance would apply to newer forms of social marketing as well.

This trend is not unique to Washington. Attorney and blogger Don Cruse (@doncruse) covers the state Supreme Court in Texas, where voters just completed a primary for open Supreme Court seats. Don created a feed of the Twitter accounts of each candidate -- a fascinating stream-of-consciousness resource for voters. 

LexBlog CEO Kevin O’Keefe is the Aristotle of legal bloggers – he spends his time wandering around the country training lawyers how to blog. (Read, for example, his blog post “Focus on the possibilities of blogging and social media, not the challenges.”) The legal profession is embracing the potential of social media, so it's logical that the judiciary would eventually follow.

Judicial candidates are no longer speaking through intermediaries like campaign literature or editorial boards. They’re appealing directly to the members of the public who will vote for them. What impact will social media have in these races? Is this a good development? 

What do you think?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A bill that would have created a pilot program for publicly-financed state Supreme Court races died in the Washington Senate yesterday. The proposal has been introduced annually since the state's hotly-contested judicial elections of 2006. Brad Shannon of The Olympian has the story here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we reported last week, attorney Charlie Wiggins announced his candidacy for Position 6 of the Washington Supreme Court, currently held by Justice Richard Sanders.

Justice Sanders was expected to run for another term on the court, and he recently filed the necessary candidate registration form with the Public Disclosure Commission. Justice Sanders won a special election in 1995 and was re-elected for two six-year terms in 1998 and 2004. He describes his understanding of the job on his campaign website: 

These have been good years on the court. It is a great privilege and joy to attempt to protect and maintain the individual legal rights of every single individual who comes to court. That, in my opinion, is the job description of a judge, and, as it says in Article 1, Section 1 of our state constitution, the purpose of state government as well.

Stay tuned. We'll continue to bring news and information about the various candidates for the Supreme Court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We have our first challenger in a state Supreme Court race.

Bainbridge Island attorney Charlie Wiggins has officially thrown his hat into the ring, filing a candidate registration form with the Public Disclosure Commission. He is running against Justice Richard Sanders.

Wiggins’ campaign website can be found here, where Wiggins states he is running against Sanders because of violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct  and because "his decisions are not fair and impartial, and he opposes positive reforms to improve the process of electing judges." Should be a colorful campaign.

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen and Justice James Johnson are also up for re-election this year.

As election season approaches, this blog will provide information about candidates for the Supreme Court, including links to the evaluations and endorsements of other organizations.

UPDATE: The race is covered by the Olympian, Seattlepi.com, and the Kitsap Sun.

Note: The Supreme Court of Washington Blog neither endorses nor supports any candidate for judicial office.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently spoke at Seattle University Law School, and she had some advice for Washingtonians. As the AP reports: "The first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court says there's a serious problem with the government in Washington and many other states: They elect their judges." Justice O'Connor says judicial independence is threatened with the amount of money that is poured into judicial races. She questioned whether cases such as Brown v. Board of Education would have had the same ruling if those justices had to face an upcoming election.

Interestingly, Washington State Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who won a hotly-contested reelection in 2006, disagreed. He said that while the process is not perfect, it has worked well in the past. Alexander said it is beneficial ("humbling") for judges to go through an election.

UPDATE: And speaking of judicial elections...the topic will be discussed today on The Conversation (KUOW 94.9 FM) at noon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This morning a group of voters and the Green Party of San Juan filed a writ of mandamus with the supreme court against Secretary of State Sam Reed and San Juan County.

The plaintiff's attorneys (Smith & Lowney) sent out a press release describing the cause of action:

The suit alleges that actions of Secretary of State Sam Reed required approximately one million voters to vote on ballots that contained unique bar code identifiers, in violation of the State Constitution’s guarantee of “absolute secrecy” of the ballot and statutes requiring uniform ballots within a precinct.

The suit also claims that Reed has encouraged and subsidized an uncertified ballot tracking “audit” system that links the ballot identifiers to voters’ identities, further undermining ballot secrecy by potentially permitting vendors and officials to inspect how a citizen voted.

The case name is White v. Reed. The petition is available on the firm website.

(hat tip: Rick Hasen)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The issue of money in judicial elections is a hot one right now. It’s the subject of Supreme Court cases, John Grisham novels, and legislative proposals. But what about the issue of judicial money in elections? Turns out Washington State Supreme Court justices contribute modest sums during campaign season. Who do they give money to? Who gives the most? Who gets the most from colleagues? (Details after the jump.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link