Published: Thursday, May 22, 2008
Trying to keep judicial elections on high road
A nonpartisan group that includes a retired judge, lawyers and other citizens is launching an effort to keep political speech civil and accurate in judicial races. How effective it will be remains to be seen, but we applaud the endeavor.
The Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns, whose formation was announced Monday, states a purpose that's hard to oppose: to help ensure that campaigns for the state Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals are run with integrity and fairness by candidates who adhere to the highest ethical standards. They'll try to enforce those ideals through old-fashioned public pressure, not legislation.
Recently retired Appeals Court Judge William Baker of Everett, who chairs the committee, says he and others felt a need to do something in response to what happened in the 2006 Supreme Court campaign. Nearly $3 million was spent on three high-court races that year. One in particular, between Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and attorney John Groen, was punctuated by negative and misleading third-party ads on both sides -- a trend that's been seen in other states, too.
Baker and others on the committee believe it's important to preserve public trust and confidence in the judiciary, and that having campaigns that live up to the same standards of fairness and ethical behavior expected of judges supports that goal.
So this election year, they'll ask all candidates for state Supreme Court and state Courts of Appeals to sign a pledge that "will commit candidates to conduct their campaigns in a manner that will support a fair, impartial, open-minded and independent judiciary." If the committee believes a candidate's advertising violates such standards, it will ask the candidate to withdraw it. If such an ad comes from a third party, the candidate will be asked to disavow it in a public statement. The committee will reserve the right to make its own public statement regarding any particular ad or other campaign tactic. If a candidate declines to sign the pledge, the committee will let the public know.
The idea is to have the threat of such negative publicity act as a deterrent, keeping campaigns on a high road.
The committee itself will have to be judicious in deciding when to step in. Whether a certain ad is misleading is often in the eye of the beholder. Baker admits it's hard to define in advance, but that "you know it when you see it."
The committee's reputation, and hence its effectiveness, will be determined in large part by how well it distinguishes baseless assertions from defensible opinions. It must work to avoid certain unintended consequences, like putting a chill on meaningful political speech in judicial campaigns, the kind that helps voters make informed choices.
That said, we look forward to watching the committee carve out what we hope will be a positive and lasting role in supporting civil, respectful campaigns.
For information on state judicial campaigns, the candidates and how much money they're raising, visit the nonpartisan Web site www.votingforjudges.org.
The Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns, whose formation was announced Monday, states a purpose that's hard to oppose: to help ensure that campaigns for the state Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals are run with integrity and fairness by candidates who adhere to the highest ethical standards. They'll try to enforce those ideals through old-fashioned public pressure, not legislation.
Recently retired Appeals Court Judge William Baker of Everett, who chairs the committee, says he and others felt a need to do something in response to what happened in the 2006 Supreme Court campaign. Nearly $3 million was spent on three high-court races that year. One in particular, between Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and attorney John Groen, was punctuated by negative and misleading third-party ads on both sides -- a trend that's been seen in other states, too.
Baker and others on the committee believe it's important to preserve public trust and confidence in the judiciary, and that having campaigns that live up to the same standards of fairness and ethical behavior expected of judges supports that goal.
So this election year, they'll ask all candidates for state Supreme Court and state Courts of Appeals to sign a pledge that "will commit candidates to conduct their campaigns in a manner that will support a fair, impartial, open-minded and independent judiciary." If the committee believes a candidate's advertising violates such standards, it will ask the candidate to withdraw it. If such an ad comes from a third party, the candidate will be asked to disavow it in a public statement. The committee will reserve the right to make its own public statement regarding any particular ad or other campaign tactic. If a candidate declines to sign the pledge, the committee will let the public know.
The idea is to have the threat of such negative publicity act as a deterrent, keeping campaigns on a high road.
The committee itself will have to be judicious in deciding when to step in. Whether a certain ad is misleading is often in the eye of the beholder. Baker admits it's hard to define in advance, but that "you know it when you see it."
The committee's reputation, and hence its effectiveness, will be determined in large part by how well it distinguishes baseless assertions from defensible opinions. It must work to avoid certain unintended consequences, like putting a chill on meaningful political speech in judicial campaigns, the kind that helps voters make informed choices.
That said, we look forward to watching the committee carve out what we hope will be a positive and lasting role in supporting civil, respectful campaigns.
For information on state judicial campaigns, the candidates and how much money they're raising, visit the nonpartisan Web site www.votingforjudges.org.
Comments
(