Growing rancor a chilling effect on court races

Nobody doubted that it was happening, they just disagreed over whether it was a good thing or a bad thing.

Each election cycle, races for state Supreme Court have taken on higher profiles with more money, more rancor, more negative campaigning. The types of hit pieces commonplace in partisan races showed up in droves in races for the top court.

Some thought it was about time that voters were given real information, while others declared it a threat to an independent judiciary.

In 2006, $1.65 million was spent on three races. That’s not a lot for partisan statewide races, but it’s a lot for a nonpartisan Supreme Court.

With three incumbents up this year, challenges were expected in two of the three races. Mary Fairhurst had been in the middle of several prominent cases involving initiative powers, gay marriage and public record. And Debra Stephens joined the bench this year as an appointed justice.

Justice Charles Johnson was not considered a target.

Yet with just one week before the filing period begins, only one challenger has registered with the state Public Disclosure Commission. And that candidate, Michael Bond of Mercer Island, was not recruited by any of the interest groups that have become involved in Supreme Court races.

So what happened to the Great Supreme Court Wars?

The short answer is that nobody wanted to run.

Well-known names like former Seattle City Attorney Mark Sidran, former U.S. Attorney John McKay and former Yakima County Prosecutor and current U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan were all mentioned. None is running.

The groups that believe the current court is too active or too liberal or both still feel that way. And they are still interested in changing the makeup of the court.

It’s just that the candidates interested in running didn’t interest them, and the candidates they wanted to run weren’t interested in running.

“We are still in the process of talking to candidates, although frankly it is getting late,” said Elliot Swaney, the political affairs director for the Building Industry Association of Washington. “A number of folks chatted with us, but for whatever reason they’ve decided not to run.”

The builders association was heavily involved in Justice James Johnson’s unsuccessful campaign in 2002 and his successful run in 2004, as well as two challenges of incumbents in 2006 – Steve Johnson’s campaign against Susan Owens and John Groen’s campaign against Gerry Alexander. Neither challenge was successful, but the builders association has been intent on finding someone to run against Fairhurst.

Groen said he considered a campaign but decided against a repeat for personal reasons.

Former Sen. Slade Gorton thinks the difficulties of running might have kept good candidates from trying. Gorton, chairman of Justice for Washington, a group pushing for less-activist courts, said he, too, has not been successful in recruiting candidates this year.

The group’s main target seems to be Stephens, someone it criticized as being too closely affiliated with the state’s personal injury lawyers.

“Out of personal experience, I don’t think there is any office more difficult to run for than a down-ballot office,” said Gorton, who ran successfully for state attorney general three times.

The inability to get attention or money, plus judicial canons that make it difficult to run the type of campaign that voters are used to, makes the races difficult to wage.

Certainly the builders association gets the credit or the blame for increasing the rancor surrounding Supreme Court cases. But groups defending incumbent justices jumped in with equal vigor and venom and money.

The aggressive tone of recent campaigns may have kept some out of the race.

“That may have had an impact on some,” Gorton said. “No one has said that directly, but it is very tough.”

Peter Callaghan: 253-597-8657

peter.callaghan@thenewstribune.com

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics