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?

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.

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.

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.

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)

Listed below is each justice with the candidates he or she contributed to during the 2008 election season. Justices Fairhurst, C. Johnson, and Stephens were up for election in 2008.

Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander (total: $150)

• Mary Fairhurst (Supreme Court) – $50
• Charles Johnson (Supreme Court) – $50
• Samuel Meyer (District Court) – $50

Justice Charles W. Johnson (total: $250)

• Mary Fairhurst (Supreme Court) – $250

Justice Barbara Madsen (total: $575)

• Mary Fairhurst (Supreme Court) – $300
• Charles Johnson (Supreme Court) – $125
• Debra Stephens (Supreme Court) – $100
• Theodore Spearman (Superior Court) – $50

Justice Richard B. Sanders (total: $2,300)

• Charles Johnson (Supreme Court) – $200
• Debra Stephens (Supreme Court) – $200
• Timothy Ford (Court Of Appeals) – $1,400
• Charles Williams (Superior Court) – $500

Justice Tom Chambers (total: $2,450)

• Charles Johnson (Supreme Court) – $1,000
• Mary Fairhurst (Supreme Court) – $1,000
• Robin Hunt (Court Of Appeals) – $250
• Nicholas Corning (Superior Court) – $100
• Theodore Spearman (Superior Court) – $50
• Monica Benton (Superior Court) – $50

Justice Susan Owens (total: $1,375)

• Mary Fairhurst (Supreme Court) – $500
• Debra Stephens (Supreme Court) – $250
• Charles Johnson (Supreme Court) – $300
• Robin Hunt (Court Of Appeals) – $125
• Jean Rietschel (Superior Court) – $100
• Monica Benton (Superior Court) – $50
• Mariane Spearman (Superior Court) – $50

Justice Mary E. Fairhurst (total: $550)

• Charles Johnson (Supreme Court) – $250
• Debra Stephens (Supreme Court) – $100
• Robin Hunt (Court Of Appeals) – $100
• Carol Murphy (Superior Court) – $100

Justice James M. Johnson (total: $250)

• Charles Johnson (Supreme Court) – $250

Justice Debra L. Stephens (total: $325)

• Charles Johnson (Supreme Court) – $100
• Nicholas Corning (Superior Court) – $200
• Annette Plese (Superior Court) – $25