Here’s hoping that this is the last you’ll hear about the Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns.
Nothing against the group. It’s an impressive bunch of civic-minded folks who seem genuinely concerned about preserving the dignity and integrity of the state judiciary.
We just wish they weren’t needed. Heck, even they wish they weren’t needed.
The committee was born of a concern over the tenor of recent Supreme Court campaigns. The 2006 races, particularly the contest between Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and challenger John Groen, were downright nasty.
Committee members look around the country and see the increasing politicization of state judiciaries. They worry that Washington hasn’t seen the last of third-party groups slinging mud in hopes of electing a sympathetic ear to the bench.
So the group, headed by retired state Appeals Court Judge William Baker, is asking candidates for state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to sign a pledge to play fair.
The pledge is largely a restatement of the rules that already govern the campaign conduct of judges and judicial candidates. Judicial canons bar them from prejudging cases that may come before them and from misrepresenting their opponents’ positions or qualifications.
By and large, candidates themselves adhere to the canon. But there are no such strictures placed on special interest groups that stand ready to do the dirty work on a candidate’s behalf. That’s where the committee’s pledge comes in. It asks candidates to be willing to “publicly disavow advertisements that impugn the dignity, integrity, or independence of a candidate” and to use their “best efforts to have such advertising modified or discontinued.” In other words, candidates who sign the pledge cannot stand idly by while their opponent is unfairly attacked and say, “It wasn’t me.”
The only stick the 14-member committee has to enforce compliance is publicity. Members will confer among themselves and issue a press release if they decide a candidate has violated the pledge. Likewise, they will tell the public if a candidate declines to sign the pledge.
Inevitably, there will be the question of just who these committee members think they are, appointing themselves the arbiters of clean judicial campaigns.
The group risks fueling such criticism if it takes too hard of a line. Judging campaign conduct is tricky, especially since much of the pledge is open to interpretation. Exactly how far does a candidate have to go to “harm the public faith in the integrity of the judicial system?” What exactly is and isn’t “thoughtful discourse?”
At the end of the day, however, a scolding from the Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns would be another piece of information that voters can consider alongside a candidate’s statements, qualifications, record, peer ratings and endorsements.
If it comes to that. A better outcome would be for judicial candidates – and their allies – to give the committee nothing to do by steering clear of the muck this year.
On the Web
To read the pledge, go to blogs.thenewstribune.com/oped.
To follow judicial races, go to www.votingforjudges.org.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.