The Temple of Justice in Olympia, where the Washington state Supreme Court does its work, is a place of tradition. Its walls and floors are marble. Robed and somber justices file in and out of the courtroom amid much decorum.

The three races for Supreme Court this election season, however, have a put-up- your-dukes- feel, especially the race between Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, 70, and John Groen, a 47-year-old property-rights litigator who lives in Redmond.

Position 8

First elected to the Supreme Court in 1994, Alexander has become known for his gentle-spoken questions and answers inside and outside the courtroom. He’s more professor than pugilist. But Alexander’s on the defensive this election.

Before campaign finance laws changed June 7, limiting individual, corporate and party donations to $1,400 in judicial primary campaigns, Groen garnered several large donations from home builders and construction companies, some ranging from $12,500 to $25,000 each.

Groen said he’s running because Alexander legislates from the bench and erodes the rights of property owners to determine the fate and value of their property. Groen has focused on a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Seattle Monorail Authority to condemn private property it might never have needed.

Alexander, if re-elected, won’t be able to serve out the six-year term. Under Washington’s Constitution, justices must retire at the end of the year in which they turn 75. The governor would then appoint a replacement, and Groen thinks that injects partisan politics into a judicial race and is unfair to voters.

The intense campaign has generated at least one positive for voters: Both candidates have been forced to speak in depth about specific cases, rather than in legal generalities. Groen is smart, well-informed and an experienced litigator; he has argued 17 cases before the state’s Supreme Court.

But his property rights focus, besides being too rigid, seems too narrow for a court that grapples with cases ranging from same-sex marriage to newspaper joint-operating agreements. His assertion that Alexander and others on the current court legislate is a charge commonly leveled by those who disagree with court rulings.

And for an attorney who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Groen should recognize the Constitution doesn’t forbid a 70-year-old justice from running for a final term, just from completing it.

Alexander, the longest serving chief justice the state Supreme Court has had, gets the endorsement for Position 8. He brings nonpartisan support to a nonpartisan race, important lower court experience, institutional memory and a judicial temperament best-suited to the state’s highest court.

Position 9

In the Position 9 race, incumbent Tom Chambers is facing Jeanette Burrage of Des Moines, a private practice attorney who was a King County Superior Court judge, a Republican state legislator and the executive director of the defunct Northwest Legal Foundation, an organization that entered into “wise use” skirmishes and other property rights matters. In 1994, she lost a Supreme Court race to Phil Talmadge.

The King County Bar Association has rated her “not qualified” for the position. The Municipal League of King County reached the same conclusion. Burrage said she did not respond to the Bar Association questionnaire because she suspected her rating was predetermined. Ratings aside, voters can learn much from the answers in these surveys. Candidates should fill them out.

Burrage echoed the familiar buzz phrases “legislates from the bench” and “judicial activism” when speaking of her opponent. She says she would do a better job of protecting individual rights, particularly property rights. When asked which justices – past and present – she admired, she mentioned U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former state Supreme Court Justice William C. Goodloe.

In the mid-1980s, Goodloe, whom Burrage calls her mentor, was embroiled in a couple of ethics controversies over violations of campaign-finance laws and the marketing of a jury-selection book.

Her opponent is no stranger to controversy either. Recently, Chambers failed to report a traffic accident when he and a passenger crashed on his motorcycle. The passenger was injured and taken to an emergency room. State law requires motorists to report injury-related accidents.

That aside, Chambers has a sharp analytical mind and was given the highest ratings by the King County Bar Association and the Municipal League of King County. His dissents in the Hangartner public records case that gratuitously expanded attorney-client privilege and the recent Defense of Marriage Act decision show a methodical, reasonable mind.

Chambers has a strong property-rights record, which undercuts Burrage’s complaints on that score.

This isn’t a close contest. Though he has made some disappointing personal choices, Chambers has earned another term.

Position 2

Position 2, however, is a close call. The incumbent is Susan Owens. Among her challengers are two Johnsons, a Smith and a candidate embarking on a monk-like quest to avoid even the slightest appearance of outside influence.

Michael Johnson and Richard Smith don’t appear to be serious candidates. Suspicions are that Johnson entered to drain support from a more legitimate candidate, Stephen Johnson. Confused? That might be the point. Owens denies any part in Michael Johnson’s candidacy, but conceded he may have thought his filing would help her.

Michael Johnson has rarely responded to media inquiries. Voters should dismiss him.

Richard Smith says he’s running to point out the massive sums being contributed to other candidates. OK, but then what? He doesn’t have the experience or qualifications to be on the Supreme Court.

Norman Ericson has been a state administrative judge for 31 years. He refuses to take contributions or seek endorsements. He refused to cooperate with the King County Bar Association’s screening committee. He won’t talk to editorial boards. We appreciate the principle of avoiding outside influences, but he’s taken it to such an extreme that voters hardly know him. They would be gambling to mark their ballots for an unknown quantity.

Owens, the incumbent, offers a rural perspective to the court and is certainly up to the task. In an interview with the S-R editorial board, she wasn’t forthcoming with detailed analyses of her decisions. At times, she seemed irritated at being asked.

Her feelings and opinion about the Defense of Marriage Act case are admirable (she dissented), but her explanation wasn’t compelling.

Stephen Johnson, a Republican state senator and the ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee, demonstrated a sophisticated grasp for the position and offered persuasive examples of why he can’t be labeled merely a conservative. While he is the favorite candidate of developers and property rights, he hasn’t reflexively sided with them over the years. Johnson was rated “exceptionally well-qualified” by the King County Bar Association; Owens was rated “well-qualified.” Both are solid, but the nod goes to Johnson – Stephen that is.