Have you filled out your Aug. 17 primary ballot? (Ballots were mailed last week; if you haven’t received yours by Friday, call the Clark County elections office: 360-397-2345.) Here’s a deeper question: Did you know that, in all but one of the judicial races (and possibly all of them), this will be your last chance to vote this year on the judges? That’s right. In Washington state, judicial races are subject to a complex set of rules that generally declare the summer primary and not the fall election as decisive for judges.
Several technicalities — whether two or more candidates are involved, whether the primary is in an odd- or even-numbered year and whether a local population is more than or less than 100,000 — complicate the issue. Don’t worry about all of that; elections officials can be trusted to keep track of those details.
For voters, it’s crucial to know that — unlike other primary races where two finalists advance to Nov. 2 — in two-candidate judicial races, winners will be decided on Aug. 17. And in three-candidate races, any candidate receiving a majority of votes will advance solo to the fall ballot. (One such race is on the ballot: Incumbent Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders is facing challengers Bryan Chushcoff and Charlie Wiggins.)
Two other judicial races on the Clark County ballot will be determined this month: incumbent Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson vs. Stan Rumbaugh and Jill Johanson and Joseph Daggy battling for an open Washington Court of Appeals post.
So it’s foolish for any voter to decide: I’ll just wait until Nov. 2 and pick up the action then. To wait is to deny yourself the opportunity to participate in judicial elections. (To be clear, there is an extremely minor chance that a two-candidate judicial race could advance to the fall. If a large enough write-in vote materializes and no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the top two would advance.)
About half of the states — many in the East — appoint judges, and about half — mostly in the West — elect them. An ongoing discussion about whether judges should be appointed or elected makes for an interesting civics lesson and an enjoyable debate. We encourage students in government classes to explore the topic, and we urge voters to fully understand the process in Washington.
Both arguments center around the independence of the judiciary, a concept both sides endorse. The pro-appointment side stresses that elections can be made overly political and corrupted by campaign contributions. Very true. But the pro-elections crowd insists that appointments can be made overly secretive and corrupted by cronyism, elitism and good-ol’-boy networks. That, too, is true.
So we see this as a fairly even debate. Then comes a proposed compromise: a hybrid of both systems in which judges would be appointed by a blue-ribbon commission of judicial experts as well as private citizens who closely explore qualifications before making appointments, and then appointees later — after serving — are placed before the voters in a retention election.
We support the status quo in this state for two reasons. It is well-nigh impossible to convince the people that fewer elections will be in their best interest. Second, even if that were possible, our state’s judicial election system is so deeply anchored in the state constitution, we don’t see any way reform could successfully wend its way through the elaborate amendment process.
Obviously, both processes — elections and appointments — have flaws. But if the system allows people to have their say, as is the case in our state today, then the people should be happy with that plan, flaws and all.
For an online voters guide, visit http://www.vote.wa.gov. To review Columbian endorsement editorials, visit http://columbian.com/news/opinion.
