Editorial: High court elections should stay nonpartisan

A bipartisan group of legislators has come up with a bad way of expressing their exasperation with the Washington Supreme Court.

They have pre-filed HB1051, which would require candidates for seats on the court to declare a political party preference, as does every candidate for statewide office except the superintendent of public instruction. After all, there’s nothing political about education policy in this state, right?

Wrong, of course.

And there should be nothing political about justice, and how the court’s nine justices try to frame legislation and litigation within the confines of the Washington Constitution. How well justices suppress their prejudices as they examine the cases before them often depends on who won, and who lost.

In the case of McCleary v. State of Washington, it was not how the justices ruled. Fundamentally, the court was simply ordering the state to honor commitments already made to shrink class sizes and make other reforms that would bring it into compliance with a constitutional responsibility to make ample education funding a paramount duty.

But the justices took the additional step of retaining jurisdiction over McCleary until they are satisfied legislators are toeing their own line. It did not sit well with lawmakers who had to sacrifice other programs in deference to education, only to be found in contempt for falling short – in the court’s judgment.

So, Section 1 of the new law reads:

“The legislature finds that because the supreme court has decided to act like the legislature and has thus violated the separation of powers, the supreme court should be considered partisan like the legislature.”

Lower state courts are specifically exempted from the law, as if justice donned the robes of partisanship only in the Temple of Justice.

And why any Republican would sign on to this bill – if their intent is serious – escapes understanding.

There is one Republican holder of stateside office, Kim Wyman, who as secretary of state occupies what should be – and has been – the least partisan of offices. Put “prefers Republican” behind a candidate’s name for state office, and he or she may as well throw themselves under a King County Metro Transit bus.

If the intent is to assure a place for conservative voices on the court, the better strategy would be one that reserves two or three seats for justices from east of the Cascade Mountains – where such candidates would have a larger constituency – perhaps based on district lines for the courts of appeal.

The bigger problem with Supreme Court elections is the power of incumbency. Four incumbents ran in November; two unopposed and two who rolled up majorities greater than 73 percent. Too often, they started as appointees by the governor, and coasted in subsequent elections.

If HB1051 puts court elections in play, fine, but let’s not make them a matter of “R” and “D.”