Editorial: Judicious decisions

The races for statewide judicial races always pose challenges for voters. Who are these people? What do they believe? And how are we to determine who is best-qualified?

For even the best-informed voters, the judicial races can be difficult to follow. For one thing, the contests are nonpartisan. For another, the candidates are generally tight-lipped about their views on current controversies. They might talk about the legal intricacies of decided cases, but they are bound by ethical considerations and tradition to steer clear of general discussions about hot issues, such as gay rights, the environment and property rights.

(Those guidelines – or at least the way candidates interpret them – strike us as overly stringent and cripple the ability of voters to gain insights into candidates, but that’s another editorial.)

All judges and prospective judges tout their open-mindedness and obedience to the rule of law and state and federal constitutions. None of them confess to legislating from the bench or committing activism.

But the differences among them seem obvious to special interest groups, which are pouring unusually high amounts of money into the state Supreme Court races this year.

For instance, the conservative-leaning Building Industry Association of Washington has raised more than $325,000 in its bid to unseat two incumbent Supreme Court justices. Meanwhile, the liberal-leaning FAIRPAC is contributing to its favorite judicial candidates, and Gov. Chris Gregoire is engaged in fundraising.

This partisan noise only complicates matters for voters.

Fortunately, several organizations have pooled resources to create a Web site that helps voters cut through the clutter. The site – votingforjudges.org – is sponsored by the Association of Washington Business, the League of Women Voters, the King County Bar Association and several other civic-minded groups.

Once there, voters can learn if and how the candidates answered various surveys and how different groups rate them. The site also includes endorsements from editorial boards and other organizations, campaign contribution information and links to news articles and editorials.

Voters will be frustrated with the fact that some candidates have not returned surveys. In those cases, the site does what it can to cobble together information and offers links to the candidates’ Web sites if they have them.

This is the first year for votingforjudges.org, and it only covers races for the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. If the experiment goes well, the site would like to expand its reach to the lower courts as well.

The Web site is a welcome addition to the information-gathering quest voters face in judicial races. Use it and then let the sponsors know that their efforts are greatly appreciated.