BILL REQ. #: H-3486.2
State of Washington | 62nd Legislature | 2012 Regular Session |
Read first time 01/23/12. Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
AN ACT Relating to the election of judges; amending RCW 29A.04.110, 29A.36.171, and 29A.52.231; adding a new section to chapter 29A.04 RCW; creating a new section; and providing a contingent effective date.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 The legislature finds that the debate over
how judges should gain the bench has gone on since the founding of our
nation and state. State judicial selection basically occurs by one of
two methods, either appointment or election. In Washington, we
currently use nonpartisan elections as the way to select judges. When
a state supreme court justice, state court of appeals judge, or a
superior court judge resigns or dies during a term of office, the
governor appoints a new judge to fill that position and the appointed
judge must run in the next election.
Over the past four decades, numerous citizens have become seriously
concerned about the judiciary overstepping its constitutional
boundaries and infringing on the rights of the people and the
constitutional prerogatives of the other two branches, particularly the
legislative branch, the people's branch. Because the judiciary has
used the doctrine of judicial review to override the self-expression of
free people and to override duly enacted laws, even those of long-standing in both form and practice, and to impose itself directly into
legislative affairs and deliberations, the legislature is compelled to
establish a better method of electing judges for our time in order to
better protect the will of the people, defend its constitutional
prerogatives, and restore the balance of powers established in the
fundamental and paramount law.
It is critical that we have judges who are independent and apply
the law fairly and without favoritism, and we have judges who are
accountable to the public and who do not exercise their power
arbitrarily or unjustly. Knowledge is power. But many, if not most,
voters do not know much about a judicial candidate's legal philosophy
or where judges stand generally on issues of critical public importance
because of restraints imposed by the judicial branch itself. Although
judicial candidates should not state how they would decide a particular
case that is before the court, they should have the right to freely
express and incorporate their beliefs and opinions in any statement
made regarding any campaign or potential campaign for judicial office
or any issue pertaining thereto without legal or professional
retribution, negative consequence, or penalty to the standing,
evaluation, or privilege of the judge or the judicial candidate.
Article I, section 1 of the Washington state Constitution provides
that, "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are
established to protect and maintain individual rights." The election
of judges by the people is the best way to ensure judges who are both
independent and accountable at the same time.
Political scientists have determined that party label is probably
the most important factor in voters' decisions in judicial races.
Research has repeatedly confirmed that there are basic differences
between the democratic and republican judges who sit on state appellate
courts. Democratic judges tend to support a more liberal, expansive
view of the law compared to republican judges who tend to support a
more conservative, limited view of the law. In partisan judicial
races, the political party labels give most voters the information they
seek, and especially if judicial elections are highly competitive and
controversial, with the use of party labels, voters demonstrate an
ability to learn about candidates, correctly match them with their
positions on issues, and vote accordingly. There is much empirical
support for this common sense approach taken by most voters in casting
votes for partisan judicial candidates.
The legislature finds that partisan judicial elections have
substantial advantages over nonpartisan elections in that they provide
an additional, significant measure of self-government to voters. This
additional element of accountability to the public is critical. As the
legal system comes under increasing destructive pressures from the more
aggressive elements of well-financed activist groups, including various
sections of the legal profession, legal associations, legal educational
institutions, and other special interests, the people will be better
able to rein in the judiciary and block the continued deterioration of
the justice system.
Under these circumstances, informed voters will more than ever want
to know the party affiliations of judicial candidates, so as to avoid
those judicial candidates whose rulings would be more likely to result
in judges making public policy based on their personal preferences
rather than on the law itself. Modern legal scholars and social
scientists no longer deny that judges make policy. In a republican
system of government that Washington has established, policymakers must
be accountable to the people, either directly or indirectly.
Accountability requires institutional arrangements that strengthen
voters' ability to select officials who will, in the main, govern
consistently with the majority's policy preferences. Scheduled
partisan judicial elections more readily allow voters to hold judicial
policymakers accountable than do nonpartisan voting arrangements.
It is the intent of the legislature by this act to establish a more
appropriate and necessary means of electing judges in Washington state
in order to ensure that all political power is retained by the people,
to restore the balance of powers between and among the branches of
government as established by the people in the state Constitution, to
protect, maintain, and secure individual rights and the perpetuity of
free government, and to guarantee the right of self-government.
Sec. 2 RCW 29A.04.110 and 2005 c 2 s 4 are each amended to read
as follows:
"Partisan office" means a public office for which a candidate may
indicate a political party preference on his or her declaration of
candidacy and have that preference appear on the primary and general
election ballot in conjunction with his or her name. The following are
partisan offices:
(1) United States senator and United States representative;
(2) All state offices, including legislative, except (a) judicial
offices and (b) the office of superintendent of public instruction;
(3) All county offices except (((a) judicial offices and (b)))
those offices for which a county home rule charter provides otherwise.
Sec. 3 RCW 29A.36.171 and 2004 c 271 s 170 are each amended to
read as follows:
(((1))) Except as provided in RCW 29A.36.180 ((and in subsection
(2) of this section)), on the ballot at the general election for a
nonpartisan office for which a primary was held, only the names of the
candidate who received the greatest number of votes and the candidate
who received the next greatest number of votes for that office shall
appear under the title of that office, and the names shall appear in
that order. If a primary was conducted, no candidate's name may be
printed on the subsequent general election ballot unless he or she
receives at least one percent of the total votes cast for that office
at the preceding primary. On the ballot at the general election for
any other nonpartisan office for which no primary was held, the names
of the candidates shall be listed in the order determined under RCW
29A.36.131.
(((2) On the ballot at the general election for the office of
justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, judge of
the superior court, judge of the district court, or state
superintendent of public instruction, if a candidate in a contested
primary receives a majority of all the votes cast for that office or
position, only the name of that candidate may be printed under the
title of the office for that position.))
Sec. 4 RCW 29A.52.231 and 2004 c 271 s 174 are each amended to
read as follows:
The office((s)) of the superintendent of public instruction((,
justice of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeals, judge of
the superior court, and judge of the district court)) shall be
nonpartisan and the candidates therefor shall be nominated and elected
as such.
All city, town, and special purpose district elective offices shall
be nonpartisan and the candidates therefor shall be nominated and
elected as such.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 5 A new section is added to chapter 29A.04 RCW
to read as follows:
All judicial elections must be held at a November general election.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 6 This act takes effect January 1, 2013, if
the proposed amendment to Article IV, section 29 of the state
Constitution (HJR .... (H-2485)) is validly submitted to and is
approved and ratified by the voters at a general election held in
November 2012. If the proposed amendment is not approved and ratified,
this act is void in its entirety.