A postcard warned me against re-electing Jim Johnson for Washington Supreme Court Justice, so I wondered how could citizens evaluate judges? A good start is www.votingforjudges.org, which won the American Bar Association’s award for “Best New Media Source in 2007.” That website warns the August 17 primary election could decide winners because judges who receive more than 50 percent of votes have no opposition on the November ballot.

    Johnson is accused of special interests because the conservative Building Industry Association of Washington donated $100,000 in 2004 and he’s supported their position 16 of 17 times. He says the charge “is a bum rap,” because he campaigned to support “property rights, religious rights and free speech. Our business is to not rewrite the law, [but] to enforce the Constitution and interpret and enforce the laws.”

    The postcard came from unions that quickly raised $93,000 after Johnson wrote the majority opinion against a SEIU lawsuit. The union demanded the governor include cash funding for an arbitration award in her proposed budget. She postponed payments. The Court wisely declined to review line items in proposed state budgets. 

    The opposition is Stan Rumbaugh, an attorney for 30 years who’s often opposed Johnson. Rumbaugh defeated Johnson’s position when the Court compassionately decided, “injured workers could depend on health care to minimize suffering and economic loss related to an on-the-job injury.” Rumbaugh claims he’s won other victories to limit minor’s possession of firearms, strengthen consumer protection, protect Chinook salmon and permit police to restrict contractor actions.

Rumbaugh’s problem is no editorial board in Washington’s eleven major newspapers supports him. Part of Johnson’s appeal is he wrote the law that created Washington’s popular top-two winners primary system and is respected for his seasoned skills writing Supreme Court opinions.

    The other contest pits Justice Richard Sanders against exceptionally qualified Charlie Wiggins. Sanders’s website emphasizes Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution that states, “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Newspapers applaud his stimulating voice and bedrock support for public disclosure laws. He reports “support across the spectrum … from more than 1,000 endorsers.”

    Sanders is accused of taking individual rights too far. The Tacoma News Tribune reported on Sanders’s unsuccessful support for a wife-beater’s position. He wanted his conviction dismissed because he wasn’t given his constitutional right to confront the witness, his wife. She called 911 to say, “He’s beating me.” The US Supreme Court has ruled the right to confront witnesses does not apply to witness calls for police help from the accused. 

    The Seattle PI reports Sanders’s position failed in a case where a jury in West Virginia awarded $50 million against a mine operator when 29 miners were killed. The CEO then raised $3 million to elect a new judge who cast the deciding vote to overturn the award. Wiggins wrote an amicus brief for 27 former state Supreme Court justices in 19 states arguing the judge should have recused himself. The US Supreme Court agreed.  Sanders disagreed, challenging anyone to find a case proving a judge was influenced by campaign contributions.

    Wiggins points out that Sanders supports individuals against prosecuting attorneys 94 percent of the time. “He is right some of the time, but the prosecution is not wrong 94 percent of the time.”

    Wiggins’s record has given him the highest ratings possible by independent evaluators, higher than Sanders. He’s endorsed by 60 judges, 30 county prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats and diverse special interest groups.

    I’m supporting Rumbaugh and Wiggins, but make your own choice and enjoy reading about judges at www.votingforjudges.org. It’s the most important vote on our primary ballots.