Selecting judges: We can do better

TUESDAY'S elections sparked another round of tsk-tsking about this state's system of electing judges.

The criticism misses the mark. Voters are doing OK. But the insiders--media, judges, lawyers, candidates--could do a better job of helping voters. Attorney General Christine Gregoire spoke for many when she said strong showings by little-known candidates over better-qualified rivals suggests a need for changing the system.

Gregoire was reacting to the strong showing by Clallam County District Court Judge Susan Owens in the race for Position 2 on the Supreme Court and by Olympia attorney Jim Foley in the campaign for Position 9.

The problem with arguments made by Gregoire and others is they don't offer much evidence, beyond a few surprises, that the current system routinely produces bad judges. Years ago, a Gig Harbor lawyer named Charles Johnson defeated Supreme Court Justice Keith Callow. Callow was a good judge with an unfortunate name. The race was won by someone with a pleasant-sounding name who didn't campaign, but did turn out to be a pretty good judge.

Some critics assume voters don't know what they're doing, but a look at the ballot shows a drop-off in voting for judicial races. Voters who don't know, often don't vote. On Tuesday, they managed to avoid confusing Richard L. Jones, who was a poor candidate, with Richard A. Jones, a good incumbent.

It's also worth noting that the controversy around King County Superior Court Judge Robert Alsdorf's Initiative 695 ruling did not produce a challenger wanting to punish him for political reasons. Alsdorf is an outstanding judge. The system worked, at least with respect to him. The system did produce a challenge to King County Superior Court Judge Donald Haley, who drew low ratings from lawyers who practiced in his court. Haley's challenger was not as good; the voters picked Haley, who got a message to improve.

Sometimes, voters make choices this page doesn't like, such as electing King County Superior Court Judge Jeanette Burrage, who may have lost re-election Tuesday in a squeaker. But that's insufficient evidence the system as a whole needs changing. In fact, a Burrage loss argues against the voters-knew-nothing theory.

Washington could try different approaches: more appointive powers to the governor; appoint judges and have them face a "retention" vote; have a panel screen potential candidates. Each reform proposal has its own problems.

Before changing the system, ask whether important players in the current system adequately do their job. They don't.

The news media could do a better job covering courts, especially the Supreme Court. Regular, prominent coverage of decisions would help raise awareness of the court's importance and the role played by individual justices. The King County bar association, which issues influential ratings, needs to do much more to improve its credibility. The bar's panel works hard, but needs to be more thorough on backgrounding and should shake its image as a group that favors downtown lawyers.

The judges themselves could be more mindful of their own role in judicial elections. It's questionable whether sitting judges should do endorsements in the first place, but they certainly don't help matters by sprinkling their names among backers of marginal candidates, whom they often don't know well, and before they've had a chance to assess the competition. Three supreme court justices endorsed Burrage, whom the bar had rated "not qualified." If the bar and three justices are that far apart, it's unfair to pick on the public if a bad choice is made.

Voters are the last to blame for any flaws in the system.