On What Basis to Cast a Vote?
For most of my life I believed that judges did their work above the political fray, discharging their judgements based on dispassionate interpretation of the law. Of course, counter to that and like many in my age group, I was exposed to the John Birch Society’s billboard campaign to “Impeach Earl Warren,” accusing Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969, of “legislating from the bench.” The call for impeachment began with his writing of the majority opinion in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education declaring segregation of public schools unconstitutional. Even so, judicial appointments never seemed to be partisan issues. A “well qualified” rating by the American Bar Association (ABA) seemed to be a sufficient proof of integrity of a judicial nominee to merit bipartisan support for federal judicial appointments.
In contrast, the last two Republican federal administrations (George W. Bush and Donald Trump), made it clear that for federal judicial nominations they would rely on the imprimatur of the Federalist Society. Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society is a group of conservative and libertarian lawyers and legal scholars founded in 1982 and funded by a who’s who of wealthy members of the Koch donor group. The Federalist Society is dedicated to enhancing the supply and support of lawyers and judges who favor limiting the role of the federal government in regulation of business as well as the judiciary’s role in guaranteeing certain civil rights. Of course, all of this is glossed over in terms like textualism, originalism, and judicial restraint. Currently six of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, a robust majority thanks to the dishonest political machinations of Mitch McConnell, are justices put forward by the Federalist Society. We see the results in the overturning Roe v. Wade’s half century of reproductive freedom and the less noted undercutting of the power of federal agencies to regulate (Chevron Deference).
I no longer believe that judges come to conclusions based solely on dispassionate interpretation of the law. Their worldview and
Washington State Judge Elections 2024
In the judicial system of Washington State, unlike the federal judiciary, judges are elected by the people. This fall three of the nine Washington State Supreme Court justice positions are on the ballot, but only one of them, Position 2, is contested. Position 2 is for a seat to be vacated by Justice Susan Owens, who, at age 75, faces mandatory retirement at the end of 2024. The ProgressiveVotersGuide recommends voting for Sal Mungia, and has this to say about his opponent:
Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson is also in this race. Before joining the Municipal Court, Larson worked as a trial attorney. Larson is the endorsed candidate by Washington state’s MAGA Republican Party, known for its far-right positions and aggressive opposition to abortion access. Progressives are backing Mungia in this race.
For me the right wing endorsement of Dave Larson was sealed by a fundraising letter for Mr. Larson I received with the signature of Spokane Prosecutor Larry Haskell. From my perspective that is a strong negative endorsement.
In Spokane County we have two contested Superior Court Judgeships. Both feature challengers to incumbent judges, Marla Polin and Timothy Fennessy. The ProgressiveVotersGuide recommends retaining both incumbents. From what I can gather from talking with friends who understand the county court system and from briefly meeting both of the incumbents I agree that the incumbents should be retained.
Keep to the high ground,
Jerry