Voters to decide on judicial discipline change

OLYMPIA – By now, you’ve most likely heard about the initiative to repeal a recent gas tax hike, and the one to ban public indoor smoking. But how about that constitutional amendment?

Huh?

Yup. Trailing the list of controversial ballot measures this year is a little-known amendment to the state constitution. It’s so obscure, in fact, that the folks who put together the Secretary of State’s voters’ pamphlet were unable to find anyone to write a statement opposing the measure.

In a nutshell, the change would allow a municipal court judge to sit on the state panel that disciplines judicial misbehavior.

And they do misbehave. In just the last two years, the Commission on Judicial Conduct has disciplined judges for accepting free Mariners tickets and a $287 dinner, skipping five out of six seminars at a taxpayer-paid conference in Maui, sleeping with a married court employee, bullying people without attorneys, and writing NTG (allegedly “Nail This Guy”) on court paperwork.

One judge was disciplined for allowing – or failing to prevent – “posting of potentially undignified materials of himself and a family member on a site on the Internet.”

Of the board’s 11 members, three are judges, two are lawyers, and six are non-lawyers appointed by the governor. One of those judges comes from a court of appeals, one from a superior court, and one from district court.

Under the proposed ballot measure, that district court judge seat on the commission would be shared between district court judges and municipal court judges. The number of seats – and the number of judges on the commission – would not change.

“It’s just more democratic,” said state Sen. Stephen Johnson, R-Kent. “It gives voice to that group of (municipal) judges, a feeling that they’re in the loop and not excluded.”

Only two of 147 state lawmakers voted against the measure. One of them, Rep. Jim Dunn, R-Vancouver, said his vote was simply a protest against legislative “meddling” in judiciary matters.

“I believe in separation of powers,” Dunn said. “I do really believe that the Legislature should stay out of the judiciary’s business, and vice versa.”