Exactly how far does a judicial candidate have to go to “harm the public faith in the integrity of the judicial system?” What exactly is and isn’t “thoughtful discourse?”
Those were our exact words in June when we endorsed an effort by an impressive bunch of civic-minded people to preserve the dignity and integrity of state judiciary. Turns out, those are exactly the questions being raised by the group’s first forays into state judicial campaigns.
The Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns was the outgrowth of legitimate concern over the tenor of recent state Supreme Court races, in particular the slugfests of 2006.
The idea – that respected lawyers and other community leaders remain above the fray so they can to bring pressure to bear on judicial candidates to campaign ethically – remains a great one in theory. The execution bears some scrutiny though.
The committee has issued two decisions, both in the Court of Appeals race between Judge Robin Hunt and challenger Tim Ford, the state attorney general’s open government ombudsman.
Last week, Hunt’s campaign complained to the committee about a campaign mailer financed by the Building Industry Association of Washington and mailed to voters in Hunt’s district, which covers Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason and Thurston counties.
The mailer accused Hunt of having “a record of hiding the truth” and criticized three of her decisions. Hunt’s campaign said the mailer mischaracterized the cases. The committee agreed, and asked Ford to disavow the BIAW mailer. He declined, arguing that the ads were factually accurate.
The next day, the BIAW struck back, filing its own complaint against Hunt for a July fund-raising appeal that characterized Ford as a shill for the building industry and calling him “inexperienced and ambitious and a threat to the cause of injured people.”
This time, the Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns declined to call foul. The committee cited several reasons, among them the fact that the letter was sent to trial lawyers, not the general public, and that the BIAW requested a remedy (the return of campaign donations) beyond the committee’s power.
The committee also said, “We note that your complaint does not allege any factual inaccuracies in the July 2 letter. The letter appears to be within the parameters of ‘fair comment’ about the candidate and the BIAW.”
Perhaps, but to the average person, “a record of hiding the truth” is only shades worse from “a threat to the cause of injured people.”
What is more troubling is the distinction the committee seemed to make between a campaign mailer and a fund-raising letter. Both are public appeals intended to drum up support for a candidate.
In an e-mail Thursday, retired Judge William Baker, who chairs the committee, said the committee has not established any precedent that would prevent it from considering a fund-raising letter in different circumstances.
In this case, “the intended recipients of the letter were unlikely to read more into the letter than what it was – an attempt to ‘rally the troops.’”
Deciding what constitutes fair play is always more art than science, but when committee members begin to judge campaigning by reading the minds of its audience, they are on slippery ground. Fair comment is fair comment, no matter who is listening.
Such apparent inconsistencies in the committee’s decisions give rise to critics who would have voters dismiss its work wholesale. That is an unfortunate setback for a promising effort.
