Becker, Sanders best for bench
Two Washington state Supreme Court seats will be decided by voters Nov. 2. One features an incumbent seeking re-election; the other is a vacancy created when Justice Faith Ireland decided not to seek re-election.
Position 1: Becker vs. Johnson
If the ideal resume could be written for a justice on the Washington state Supreme Court, Mary Kay Becker just might possess it. The Bellingham resident has served for 10 years on the Court of Appeals, Division 1, and she’s written dozens of opinions in that capacity. That kind of experience at the appeals-court level is like putting in some good years in Triple-A baseball before being called up to the majors. The skills and knowledge transfer well.
Becker also served eight years as a state legislator, from 1975 to 1982. It is the duty of the legislative branch to make the laws and the judicial branch to interpret them. Clear boundaries should exist between the legislative and legal branches of state government. Becker’s experience in both arenas has helped her understand those boundaries well.
As a Democrat in the Legislature, Becker’s votes left a record of her world view. But on the Court of Appeals, Becker has demonstrated the necessary separation of personal viewpoint and judicial decision-making. For instance, the University of Washington Law School graduate was a big proponent of women’s rights and served on a state gender-and-justice task force in the late 1980s. But in an April 2002 decision, she held that five University of Washington women professors claiming discrimination could not pursue a class-action suit on behalf of the all the rest of the women faculty.
Becker, who wrote a novel in 1974, is also a clear and concise writer with an ability to translate legal language into the language of nonlawyers, an important skill on a court whose decisions affect the daily lives of Washington residents.
Finally, Becker grew up in a small town and now lives in Bellingham. She would lend some geographic diversity to the Seattle-centric top court.
Becker’s opponent, Jim Johnson of Olympia, is trying again for the state Supreme Court. He lost four years ago to Mary Fairhurst. Johnson is no slouch in the experience department; he’s argued hundreds of big cases in front of almost every bench imaginable, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Becker’s legislative and Court of Appeals experience, as well as her demonstrated writing skill, give her the potential to be a stellar justice.
Position 6: Sanders vs. Sebring
The seat is held by iconoclastic Justice Richard B. Sanders, a libertarian with a penchant for prodigious dissents. His challenger is Terry Sebring, an assistant attorney general who was a Superior Court judge in Pierce County for 12 years and legal counsel to Gov. Booth Gardner before that.
Sebring calls Sanders “pro-criminal,” citing his numerous dissents in crime-related cases. Law enforcement and prosecutors are largely critical of Sanders, too. But it’s important to note that Sanders is in the minority on the court and that criminals are being held accountable.
Sanders says his vigorous defense of individual rights is being twisted into a simplistic label. He isn’t on the side of the criminal or law enforcement. He’s just making sure that the defendant’s rights are not trampled.
The Supreme Court needs someone like that to ensure that the majority is paying proper attention to unpopular legal points. For this, he draws fire from conservatives. Sanders also keeps the Supreme Court on its toes in property rights cases. For this, he draws fire from liberals.
Regardless of whether one agrees with him, it’s obvious that Sanders has clear principles that are constitutionally defensible and that broaden the viewpoint of the entire court.
Sanders’ candor is refreshing. His Web site includes commentary that is critical of his work. But his controversial manner has landed him in trouble with the ethics police a couple of times, such as when he spoke at a pro-life rally.
Sebring wouldn’t appear to offer anything to the court that it doesn’t already have. He has limited experience on the appellate level. And while he criticizes Sanders for advocacy, he is a strong proponent for victims’ rights, tough-on-crime laws and tort reform. He says once on the court he could set aside those preferences and listen with an open mind. All Supreme Court candidates say that.
Both men are qualified, but we think Sanders’ differences with his colleagues translate into strength, and that the court as a whole benefits from his presence.