Don’t care about the municipal and district court elections? You’re not alone. Relatively few people vote in these down-ballot races, and even fewer do so with knowledge of who they’re voting for or what the judicial candidates stand for.
Someday you might care, though. Unless you’re a professional criminal, if you ever end up in court odds are it’ll be of the municipal or district variety. Perhaps you’ll be contesting an illegitimate parking ticket. Perhaps it’ll be something more serious and potentially life altering. Whatever it is, your day before a judge won’t be something you planned, you won’t want to be there, and you’ll sure as hell hope the person in the black robe listens to your side of things and makes a fair decision.
Which is all a political action committee called “Citizens for Judicial Excellence” says it wants—solid judges who follow the law and are respectful and fair.
In 2007, this group of 40 to 50 citizens—well, attorneys, actually—got sick of jaded judges who basically have seats for life because it’s so difficult and expensive to mount an electoral challenge to them, and decided to do something about it. They formed a political action committee that now counts among its members hundreds of defense attorneys who specialize in lower court issues like domestic violence and driving under the influence. But while CJE claims to still be serious about upping the judicial bar in King and Snohomish counties, and while it now has some serious cash to throw around—$260,000 and counting—the candidates it’s supporting this election have raised concerns, even among some CJE members.
For the November general election, CJE is backing three challengers and one incumbent in King County. The challengers: defense attorney Dawn Bettinger, who is trying to unseat King County District Court Judge Janet Garrow; former Judge Pro Tem Sarah Hayne, who is trying to unseat King County District Court Judge Ketu Shah; and Judge Pro Tem Damon Shadid, who is trying to unseat Seattle Municipal Court Judge Fred Bonner.
The one incumbent backed by CJE this year is King County District Court Judge Mark Chow, who is facing a challenge from public defender Phillip Tavel.
On October 16, CJE dropped $36,000 on direct mail campaigns on behalf of Bettinger and Hayne, who are the group’s most controversial candidates in part because Bettinger and Hayne have both refused to be rated by local bar associations. And then there’s also the matter of Hayne being married to a founding member of CJE, an issue that caused a number of the group’s members to resign earlier this year.
“Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed frequently, and I think the judicial system is like that, too,” explained CJE spokesperson Danielle Havens. “Before 2007 a lot of judges never had an opponent, and it made it so that they didn’t have to participate in the election process.”
As Havens suggests, this isn’t CJE’s first rodeo: they were heavily involved in the judicial elections in 2010, too, backing some candidates with excellent qualifications in races against unpopular incumbents. One of those candidates, Seattle Municipal Court Judge Edward McKenna, says he appreciated the group’s support.
“As a prosecutor, I had practiced against many of them over the years in very difficult, very heated trials,” said McKenna. “I took them at their word that they were supporting the best candidate.”
What’s different about CJE’s picks this year? Well, Hayne and Bettinger’s refusal to submit materials to any of the local bar associations, for one. “It bothers me if someone is afraid to appear and be evaluated by these groups,” said University of Washington law professor Hugh Spitzer. (Havens explained that CJE isn’t concerned because it believes the matrix used by the bar associations favors incumbents.)
Hayne might still get to go before the King County Bar Association, though. While writing this story I received word that a code of judicial conduct complaint is being filed against her for sending out her own mailers touting herself as “exceptionally well qualified”—a rating normally given out by the bar associations she’s been avoiding.
Hayne has kept an extremely low profile for much of her 22-year legal career. Her husband, Stephen Hayne, was one of CJE’s founding members, a fact that has fueled speculation that something scandalous is afoot. Her choice of races is also raising eyebrows. Judge Ketu Shah, whom she’s challenging, is respected, well liked, and well rated by local bar associations (all of them described Judge Shah as “exceptionally well qualified”). Judge Shah is also the first South Asian American judge ever elected in Washington State.
The criticisms of Hayne’s experience and the suggestions of nepotism in CJE’s backing of her have upset Havens, the CJE spokesperson. “It really sends me into orbit and tells me that we haven’t closed the gender gap,” she said. “The idea that this entirely accomplished woman who has been a mother, an advocate, and a legal writer… that she is more defined by being Steve Hayne’s wife than by her accomplishments.” Havens called Hayne “fabulous” and said her backstory “makes her uniquely qualified to deal with district court, where most people will have their only contact, where decisions can make the difference between a one-and-done and the first step on a road to a life of recidivism.”
But retired personal injury attorney Franklin Shoichet said someone with Hayne’s inexperience would normally be laughed out of the room. Other sources just laughed when I asked about Hayne’s experience.
“The inexperience level, the nepotism level, the below the surface bigotry level here is really worthy of strong condemnation,” said Shoichet, noting that CJE seems to be contradicting its own stated goal of promoting judicial excellence by supporting Hayne. The talk of bigotry stems from comments made by Stephen Hayne to a Seattle Times reporter in 2013. Hayne said Shah’s foreign-sounding last name might render him “unelectable” absent CJE’s support.
Some CJE attorneys seem to agree with the concerns about Hayne’s candidacy. Founding members Bill Kirk and Geoff Burg left the group citing philosophical reasons after Hayne’s endorsement was announced. But Havens, again, dismisses any concerns. “One of the best opportunities for a judge is the opportunity to run,” she said, explaining that CJE isn’t targeting anyone. “It changes how they think; it changes how they look at justice.”
King County District Court Judge Michael Finkle won against a CJE-backed opponent in 2010. He said campaigning definitely wasn’t Disneyland, but he did take some positives from the experience.
“We’re not some cabal of defense attorneys,” said Havens, noting that CJE attorneys appear before these judges regularly and have an insight that most members of the public don’t into how well they’re administering justice.
And if CJE is, in fact, a cabal of DUI attorneys with tons of money to throw behind sketchy candidates? Well, aside from the mailers the group can afford to send out, uninformed voters are CJE’s most potent weapon. So study up on the judicial candidates in a way that allows you to make a decision independent of whatever the latest PAC-funded mailers are telling you to do, and then vote for the local judge candidate you’d like to see rapping his or her gavel if you’re ever forced to show up in court. 