Interest groups targeting state Supreme Court races
OLYMPIA — Sixteen years ago, it was a big deal when an incumbent state Supreme Court justice raised more than $100,000 in campaign cash to fend off a challenge from a far-better-known former governor.
A hundred thousand dollars. How quaint.
In 2004, one candidate for an open seat on the Supreme Court raised nearly $540,000, and three other candidates topped $150,000. Though the Legislature recently approved new fundraising restrictions for judicial candidates, it appears campaign spending in Supreme Court elections will keep escalating.
Special-interest groups on both ends of the political spectrum — including the powerful homebuilders lobby on one side and labor unions on the other — are preparing to do battle over at least two of the three Supreme Court seats on this year's ballot.
"I feel sort of helpless in all of this," said Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, who faces a re-election battle this year. "I feel like I'm in the eye of the hurricane."
Alexander and Justice Susan Owens both face at least one prominent challenger. No one has signed up yet to run against Justice Tom Chambers.
The dramatic increase in campaign spending in judicial races has some people fearing that big-money politics will scare off good potential judges. Worse, they worry the state's Temple of Justice will be tainted by special-interest money.
"If people don't trust the courts, don't believe the courts are impartial, we've got a major problem," said Bainbridge Island attorney Charlie Wiggins, president of the state chapter of the American Judicature Society, a nonpartisan group that works to maintain the integrity of the courts.
Campaign cash pours in
Campaign spending in Supreme Court races has risen sharply in most of the 38 states that elect justices, according to a report by Justice at Stake, a Washington D.C.-based nonpartisan group.
Two years ago in Illinois, two candidates for a single seat raised $9.3 million. In both Alabama and Ohio, total spending on Supreme Court races topped $6 million.
By comparison, the top two candidates in Washington's 2004 governor's race spent $14 million, a record amount. But spending for most other statewide offices was less than $1 million.
Jesse Rutledge, spokesman for Justice at Stake, said two factors are driving the spending surge in judicial elections.
One is the long-running war between trial lawyers and business groups over tort-liability laws. Meanwhile, culture-war combatants on issues such as abortion and gay marriage are getting more involved.
"I definitely see this as a trend that's going to get worse before it gets better," Rutledge said.
In Washington, money has clearly played a role in the outcome of some races, but not all of them. Of the nearly 30 contested Supreme Court races since 1978, the candidate who spent the least wound up winning more than a third of the time.
The big infusions of cash often came from the candidates' personal savings.
Special-interest money didn't really begin flooding into Supreme Court campaigns until the past few elections. Much of it came from one source: the building industry, perhaps the state's most powerful conservative lobbying force.
The Building Industry Association of Washington and its allies made a successful foray into Supreme Court elections in 1995, when they helped elect Richard Sanders — a property-rights advocate and devout libertarian.
But it was during the 2002 election that the builders really began reshaping judicial elections in Washington.
That year, builders put up more than half of the $411,000 raised by Jim Johnson, an attorney who had represented builders in land-use fights and other legal battles.
Johnson lost, despite heavily outspending his general-election opponent, Mary Fairhurst.
So Johnson ran again in 2004 for another open seat. That time the building industry poured more than $220,000 into Johnson's campaign. He also got $112,000 from Cruise Specialists, a Seattle-based cruise company that had lost a multimillion judgment written by Appeals Court Judge Mary Kay Becker, Johnson's opponent for the Supreme Court.
Johnson won with a $540,000 campaign that dwarfed Becker's $155,000 effort.
In March, the Democrat-controlled Legislature responded by passing a law that requires justice candidates to abide by the same campaign-finance limits as candidates seeking other statewide offices.
Starting next month, the maximum that an individual or group can give to a Supreme Court or Court of Appeals candidate is $2,800 — $1,400 each for the primary and general elections.
More than three-fourths of Johnson's campaign funds during the past two elections came from donations that would have exceeded those limits.
Supporters think the new limits will sharply reduce the influence of interest groups on judicial elections. But critics predict it will simply redirect the money: Instead of donating directly to candidates, interest groups will mount aggressive independent campaigns.
Competing PACs formed
The builders are eager to help two more property-rights advocates win seats on the Supreme Court.
John Groen, a prominent Bellevue attorney with close ties to the building industry, is running against Alexander. And Republican state Sen. Steve Johnson of Kent is trying to unseat Owens.
Tom McCabe, the Building Industry Association's executive vice president, said the group hasn't decided how to spend its political money this year — but court races likely will be a top priority.
He said builders are angry over several recent rulings in which the court sided with the government in property-rights and public-disclosure cases.
"The direction of the court has forced us to re-evaluate what we're going to be doing for the next few years," McCabe said.
Meanwhile, two new political-action committees plan to focus largely on Supreme Court races. Instead of making direct contributions, they will run their own campaigns for or against targeted candidates.
One is the Constitutional Law PAC, launched late last year by Alex Hays, Jim Johnson's former campaign manager. Former Republican U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton is the PAC's chairman. Groen was one of the committee's founders but is no longer listed as a member.
Despite the addition of Sanders and Jim Johnson, Hays said, the Supreme Court remains hostile to business, is cavalier about protecting property rights and too often sides with the government over the individual.
"The majority is overly sympathetic to the political establishment," Hays said.
After all but ignoring Supreme Court races in the past, many of the state's most powerful liberal groups are joining forces. They've formed a committee called FairPAC to counter the anticipated spending by conservative groups.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the state's largest labor union, has never dabbled in Supreme Court elections. But the union plans to play a big role in FairPAC.
"We're very concerned about the attempt by the right wing to politicize the court and spend whatever money it takes to put right-wing ideologues on the court," said Adam Glickman, spokesman for SEIU Local 775.
Other groups lining up behind FairPAC include the Washington State Labor Council, trial lawyers, teachers and environmentalists.
Ron Ward, past president of the Washington Bar Association, said he views FairPAC as a chance to "buy time" until the Legislature can change the way judges are selected.
One idea is to have publicly financed judicial campaigns. Another is switching to a system in which justices are appointed and then have to stand for retention elections.
But Alexander, the chief justice, said he doesn't see the political will for either idea.
"I'm just hoping that these new PACs will be sensible and not push for agenda-driven justices," he said.
Ralph Thomas: 360-943-9882 or rthomas@seattletimes.com
Supreme Court facts
Washington is one of 38 states that elect Supreme Court justices, and one of 17 with contested races this year. Three court seats are up for election in Washington in 2006.
The Legislature recently set new campaign fundraising limits for Supreme Court candidates: $1,400 per donor for the primary election and $1,400 for the general election.
Supreme Court candidates face additional restrictions under the state's judicial-conduct code, such as a ban against personally soliciting campaign donations.
The annual salary for Supreme Court justices is $145,636.