Savvy, Evenness Will Be Restorative
This month’s brass-knuckled slugfest for Washington state Supreme Court justice is, though we tremble to say so, an improvement over the usual campaign in which judicial contenders hand out resumes, recite the Cub Scout oath to be fair and obey the law of the pack, and retire to their chambers to wait in august dignity while mystified voters try to guess who ought to win.
That there are differences of opinion between Greg Canova and Richard Sanders is as obvious as a punch in the nose.
But their legal fisticuffs are not as simple as they seem. What’s more, voters who study them will not get to the most fundamental issue in this or any other judicial election.
That issue is fair-mindedness. Justice hinges on a fair hearing from a professional analyst with an open mind.
We feel litigants more likely would get a fair hearing from Canova than from Sanders. Therefore, we endorse Canova.
A senior assistant state attorney general since 1983 and a King County prosecutor before that, Canova specializes in complex criminal cases. Deep experience in criminal law and trial work is lacking, and needed, on our Supreme Court. Canova’s fairness and centrism is evident in his broad spectrum of supporters, who range from feminists and environmentalists to rock-ribbed conservatives like prosecuting attorneys and Ken Eikenberry, former state attorney general and Republican Party chair.
Most of the campaign debate, however, focuses on Sanders, the incumbent. Appropriately so.
Sanders was elected in 1995, with backing from right-wingers entranced by his pro-life rhetoric. Today, however, his loudest backers are left-wingers who hail Sanders as a free thinker for rulings against popular anti-crime laws.
Yet Sanders is no open-minded analyst; as he himself makes clear, he’s a libertarian ideologue, on a lifelong crusade against government. Unconcerned that legislation reflects public will, he tilts against the state whether it’s trying to lock up sex predators and habitual criminals, treat mentally ill teen runaways or protect neighborhood livability with zoning laws. The only ideological inconsistency is Sanders’ politically useful stance that government should stop abortions - though he notes that in his current job he can’t undo Roe vs. Wade and therefore rules in compliance with it.
Inside the Supreme Court, Sanders brings discord, bickering even with outcomes he favors and waging such vituperative debates with other justices that judges and lawyers we interviewed worry the court will lose credibility in a descent into bloody political combat.
Maybe that’s why Canova’s slugging away like a prizefighter. A fair and credible court system is a cause worth fighting for.