An Ouster In Idaho

In Idaho last month, a trial judge unseated an incumbent state Supreme Court justice for the first time since 1944 after an extraordinarily bitter campaign.

State Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak, who had been appointed by a Democratic governor, riled conservatives by writing the majority opinion last year in a 3-2 decision that said the federal government, not the state, controlled water rights in certain wilderness areas.

Her opponent was a trial judge, Daniel Eismann, who was known for his conservatism and for being unusually open in expressing his views. Eismann described his campaign as a challenge to judges who “legislate from the bench.” And in the campaign he told local reporters that he was morally opposed to abortion.

After Eismann’s lopsided victory on May 23, in which he drew 59 percent of the vote, he answered questions about remarks he had made in the campaign about his views of creationism. “I can prove scientifically,” he said in an interview, “that evolution has not and cannot occur.”

In the election, Silak, who years ago had volunteered as a coordinator for the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, quickly became a target of conservative critics. She was a subject of advertising by proponents of term limits and opponents of gun control, and was the target of an aggressive campaign tactic known as a push poll, in which the questioner includes negative information to discourage support of an opponent.

One newspaper advertisement placed by a supporter of Eismann asked in huge letters: “Will partial-birth abortion and same-sex marriage become legal in Idaho? Perhaps so, if liberal Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak remains on the Idaho Supreme Court.”

Silak said her record as a volunteer for the civil liberties group had been distorted. She described her judicial record as moderate and said she had never expressed views about same-sex marriage or partial-birth abortion.

“You now have the active involvement of political parties and special interest groups and individuals with special axes to grind,” she said in an interview. “I think it is a way of getting some hand-selected judges on the court so you have judges whose opinions you have essentially bought.”

Eismann said Silak’s assertion did not merit a response. He said he had no connection to the activities of many of the groups that had opposed her candidacy.