Our View: Blogging for justice
The 1st District Court judge’s race between incumbent John Mitchell and aggressive Coeur d’Alene attorney Rami Amaro was one for the ages.
Not only did Amaro have the courage to take on a judge when other attorneys wouldn’t, but she had the support from citizen activists to spotlight his record. Amaro’s fortitude is underscored by the scramble among nine attorneys who eschewed a race against Mitchell or the four other incumbent judges to seek appointment to a new 1st District Court judge’s position, created by the Idaho Legislature to handle the expanding caseload in North Idaho.
In a vocation where practitioners mask their feelings for one another behind tight grins, lawyers embrace an unwritten rule that you’re not to challenge a sitting judge. Appointment is preferred to election, unless a judge’s seat is open. Often, however, a retiring judge will step down early to allow a judicial council to make, or recommend, an appointment, giving the successor a built-in advantage at the polls. Once in office, most judges are almost guaranteed job security.
The Mitchell-Amaro race, which the incumbent won handily, may have been a blip on the North Idaho judicial scene. Or it may have added a welcome wild card to the way judges are ordained and retained. In the past, individuals who were unhappy with a judge’s ruling or courtroom demeanor had little recourse but to appeal or bite their lip. Now, any advocate with an Internet site, a blog, or access to blogs can gripe publicly about a judge.
The development is a mixed bag. It empowers citizens. It challenges judges to be circumspect in their decisions because citizen bloggers are watching and taking notes. It can be misused.
During the bruising campaign, two pro-Amaro blogs, North Idaho Bloggers and SMAC’M (Strong Mothers Against Child Molesters), pressed their case against Judge Mitchell. They claimed among other things that he was soft on sentencing child molesters, was reversed too many times on appeal and was disqualified without cause an inordinate amount of times. They cited cases to back up their claims. They networked with each other. They monitored and posted comments on the growing number of North Idaho blogs. They forced the judge out of his courtroom to defend his record in debates and on radio.
On the other hand, the citizen activists sometimes went too far with their online commentary, accusing the other side of unethical behavior and the opposition candidate of monstrous things. Without an editor to check on them or a filter to block them, anyone with a personal vendetta can circulate rumor as fact online. Or demonize with impunity under the cloak of anonymity.
Some of that happened when Huckleberries Online, a Spokesman-Review blog, was caught in the cross-fire between the warring judicial camps.
Some may sniff at this new element in judicial campaigns, considering it beneath journalistic standards. Yet, the earliest journalists in this country were common citizens who wanted to be heard. Their reports were biased, imperfect, sometimes poorly written and often anonymous. They made politicians squirm.
Likewise, the citizen bloggers of the Mitchell-Amaro campaign were inexperienced, passionate and hard to ignore. If they and others like them continue on, they could bring changes to the judiciary and court system that until now has been fairly insulated.