Judicial races more contentious

OLYMPIA – Big money races, last-minute filings, an alleged decoy candidate … ah, the politics of winning a seat on the state Supreme Court.

That’s right: the Supreme Court. Contests that for years were yawners – non-partisan, speak-no-evil campaigns touting one’s resume and saying little else – have turned into a friction point where liberal and conservative political action committees angle for ideological advantage.

“It’s a bees’ nest. I didn’t know it would be,” said Norman Ericson, a Gonzaga graduate and longtime administrative law judge who’s in a five-way race for one of this year’s open seats. “There’s PAC money involved, and allegations of skullduggery.”

The latest alleged skullduggery stems from Thursday’s surprise candidacy of Seattle lawyer Michael Johnson.

Johnson has said publicly that he doesn’t plan to raise money or seek endorsements. But he has a political asset that’s left some conservatives gritting their teeth: his name. He has the same last name as Republican state Sen. Stephen Johnson, who’s been campaigning for the same court seat for months.

Republicans suspect that “the extra Johnson” – whose name will appear first on the ballot – is running simply to siphon votes away from their man.

“It looks fishy to me. His name isn’t Kazlowsky or something like that,” said Sen. Johnson, who calls his namesake’s candidacy “mischief” at best, and at worst “an abuse of the system.”

Michael Johnson didn’t return a call seeking comment.

One-third of the court’s nine seats are up for election this year:

“Position 2: Incumbent Justice Susan Owens is running against Stephen Johnson, Norman Ericson, Michael Johnson and another political unknown, Seattle attorney Richard Smith.

“Position 8: Incumbent Chief Justice Gerry Alexander is running against Bellevue property-rights attorney John Groen.

“Position 9: Incumbent Justice Tom Chambers also faces a surprise candidate: Des Moines attorney Jeannette Burrage, who filed less than two hours before Friday’s deadline.

Interest surged in the high court last week when the justices narrowly upheld the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. But even before that controversial ruling, interest groups were pouring money into the races and bracing for a lively campaign season.

Supreme Court campaign spending in Washington has mushroomed in recent years.

Exhibit A is conservative Justice Jim Johnson, who spent a record $420,000 in two recent runs, bankrolled largely by the Building Industry Association of Washington and its political allies. He won on the second try, taking office last year.

Not surprisingly, the Democrat-controlled state Legislature this spring decided to limit judicial campaign contributions. The new law took effect June 7.

In the three weeks leading up to that date, more than $185,000 flowed into the campaign account of candidate John Groen, a Bellevue property-rights attorney.

“He is not the incumbent, and the reality is that it’s very expensive for non-incumbents to try to win a race,” said Diane Tebelius, chairwoman of the state GOP.

The party itself hasn’t contributed to judicial races, she said, although it endorses judicial candidates.

That flurry of checks for Groen was more than double the total raised so far this year by his opponent, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. Alexander, like several other candidates this year, had pledged to abide by the limits even before the law took effect.

Gov. Chris Gregoire – who’s backing Alexander and the other two incumbents – said she was “chagrined” by the eleventh-hour infusion of cash.

“I believe the message is clear: that in the state of Washington, Supreme Court positions are not up for sale,” she said recently. “… Let us not go down the path of other states, where the courts have been totally politicized.”

To counter the influence of the conservative builders, unions and liberal groups formed “FairPAC,” an independent political group that has so far raised $101,000. Donors include the political arms of the Service Employees International Union, the abortion-rights group NARAL, and trial lawyers.

Republicans in Washington are “politically frustrated,” said Lisa MacLean, a spokeswoman for the group, which recently changed its name to “Citizens to Uphold the Constitution.” Democrats control the state Senate, House and the governor’s office.

But conservatives apparently see the courts, she said, as a relatively cheap, low-profile way to win back some political power.

“It’s lots less expensive than winning back the House or Senate,” she said.

Tebelius said there’s nothing wrong with the party endorsing like-minded court candidates, even in a nonpartisan race.

“Why shouldn’t we?” she said. “We believe in restraint by the judiciary.”

Nationwide, the money spent on supreme court races is rising, as businesses and other groups realize the impact of court rulings, said Rachel Weiss, a researcher with the Helena, Mont.-based Institute on Money in State Politics.

“A perfect storm of hardball TV ads, millions in campaign contributions and bare-knuckled special interest politics is descending on a growing number of Supreme Court campaigns,” said a 2004 report authored by the institute and two other court-watching groups.

Although it remains unclear that the money is influencing judicial rulings, Weiss said, “contributions are one way to kind of make your voice heard.”

Groen addressed the issue earlier this month at a candidates forum in Seattle. He said he’s following a judicial principle of not knowing who donated to his campaign. He said he doesn’t look at his campaign finance reports or newspaper articles mentioning his donors.

Ericson said his campaign is partly a response to concerns like the Institute’s. Like Michael Johnson, Ericson said he doesn’t intend to solicit any campaign contributions.

Nonetheless, Ericson – a former law clerk with 31 years experience as a judge – said he’s a legitimate candidate.

“I’m the real deal,” he said.