These rating systems have always favored candidates who come out of big firms and prosecutors offices, and have always given lawyers like Hong Tran, who represent ordinary people, short shrift. I'm glad this is finally coming to light.

Well obviously if women and "furriners" are going to try to be judges the dudes, and their ever so lily white female enablers, at KCBA will have to let the public know they are unqualified. What would you have them do? You let those people get on the bench and who'll look after the interest of old, straight, rich, white men. Snort.

Aurora: not sure if you had been been following this story prior to Mr. Sanders's article, but there are a lot of people who are concerned about the KCBA's judicial ratings' process. From the Seattle Times: "Seattle attorney David Koch, a former co-chairman of the [KCBA judicial screening] committee who served on it for 10 years, said 'not-qualified' ratings typically are reserved for people who are newly out of law school, those with little or no experience in the courts they're running for, and those who have a history of ethics violations or sub-par work." He goes on to say "I know Hong, I've worked with her in the past, and I was extremely impressed in the work that I saw... I have no idea what information the committee received on Hong that would lead them to rate her not qualified, and there's no way for me to find out." In a different article, Ms. Berns describes a series of significant errors that the committee made during her evaluation process which, frankly, are an embarassment. I'm an attorney myself and I agree that the process the KCBA committee supposedly follows is very thorough, however, for whatever reason, they seem to have dropped the ball this year. Also, although judges in WA are elected officials, many of the judges who have come forward in support of Ms. Tran and Ms. Berns are retired, and Judge Doerty is not running for re-election. Judge Lum, who actually endorsed Ms. Tran's opponent, still stepped forward to question her "not qualified" rating. So it seems like a stretch to say that they are speaking up for "political reasons." If these candidates had been rated as just "qualified" I don't think anyone would have given it a second thought. But a "not qualified" rating is a slap in the face and, based on Mr. Koch's statements, it is highly unusual for an experienced attorney with no history of ethics complaints to receive such a harsh judgment from the screening committee. So when it happens 3 times in one year, I think some increased scrutiny is called for. I'm glad the Stranger and the ST have at least tried to raise some awareness about this issue. Moreover, although you correctly point out that the committee members serve voluntarily, let's be honest: the vast majority of them do it for entirely self-serving reasons (resume boosting, ego feeding, professional networking, etc.). Those who do it for the right reasons should be commended but unfortunately, they seem to be out-numbered. So, perhaps before you issue such a scathing and condescending directive to "Eli" (are you and he really on a first-name basis?) you should take some time to dig a little deeper and realize that this isn't just about a couple candidates not liking their ratings and a few judges supporting them. I for one, agree with Judge Doerty and Mr. Sanders that the KCBA committee should evaluate their own process; hopefully, they realize that their credibility has been seriously damaged in the eyes of many members of the bar and the public in general by this year's debacle.

Aurora: not sure if you had been been following this story prior to Mr. Sanders's article, but there are a lot of people who are concerned about the KCBA's judicial ratings' process. From the Seattle Times: "Seattle attorney David Koch, a former co-chairman of the [KCBA judicial screening] committee who served on it for 10 years, said 'not-qualified' ratings typically are reserved for people who are newly out of law school, those with little or no experience in the courts they're running for, and those who have a history of ethics violations or sub-par work." He goes on to say "I know Hong, I've worked with her in the past, and I was extremely impressed in the work that I saw... I have no idea what information the committee received on Hong that would lead them to rate her not qualified, and there's no way for me to find out." In a different article, Ms. Berns describes a series of significant errors that the committee made during her evaluation process which, frankly, are an embarrassment. I'm an attorney myself and I agree that the process the KCBA committee supposedly follows is very thorough, however, for whatever reason, they seem to have dropped the ball this year. Also, although judges in WA are elected officials, many of the judges who have come forward in support of Ms. Tran and Ms. Berns are retired, and Judge Doerty is not running for re-election. Judge Lum, who actually endorsed Ms. Tran's opponent, still stepped forward to question her "not qualified" rating. So it seems like a stretch to say that they are speaking up for "political reasons." If these candidates had been rated as just "qualified" I don't think anyone would have given it a second thought. But a "not qualified" rating is a slap in the face and, based on Mr. Koch's statements, it is highly unusual for an experienced attorney with no history of ethics complaints to receive such a harsh judgment from the screening committee. So when it happens 3 times in one year, I think some increased scrutiny is called for. I'm glad the Stranger and the ST have at least tried to raise some awareness about this issue. Moreover, although you correctly point out that the committee members serve voluntarily, let's be honest: the vast majority of them do it for entirely self-serving reasons (resume boosting, ego feeding, professional networking, etc.). Those who do it for the right reasons should be commended but unfortunately, they seem to be out-numbered. So, perhaps before you issue such a scathing and condescending directive to "Eli" (are you and he really on a first-name basis?) you should take some time to dig a little deeper and realize that this isn't just about a couple candidates not liking their ratings and a few judges supporting them. I for one, agree with Judge Doerty and Mr. Sanders that the KCBA committee should evaluate their own process; hopefully, they realize that their credibility has been seriously damaged in the eyes of many members of the bar and the public in general by this year's debacle.