The scales of justice are supposed to be balanced.

In politics it’s a different story, and the contest for Position 3 on the Washington Supreme Court is clearly weighted in one candidate’s favor.

Seattle attorney Michael J. Bond wants to replace Justice Mary Fairhurst, who is seeking a second six-year term. He asserts that the courts’ job is to protect the people from government abuse, and he touts his 28-year career as a military and private lawyer as broader and more relevant than Fairhurst’s preparation for the position.

Except for an early stint as a judicial clerk, Fairhurst’s experience between law school and the Supreme Court was all with the state attorney general’s office. But she served with distinction under both Democratic and Republican attorneys general and had responsibilities in a wide range of legal areas, including criminal and civil cases.

And Bond can’t top the most relevant experience of all – Fairhurst’s six years in the job they both seek.

She has performed well, moreover, earning top ratings from a variety of bar associations – from qualified to extremely well qualified. Bond’s ratings have been mediocre or lower. The Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys considers him unqualified.

At least one other thing should matter to Spokane-area voters. In a state where the Western Washington population concentration leaves only limited opportunity for Eastern Washington viewpoints on the nine-member Supreme Court, Fairhurst boasts solid connections with this area. She lived here as a child and still has family ties; she went to Gonzaga University and Gonzaga Law School. Later she clerked for Supreme Court Justice William H. Williams, previously a prosecutor and respected judge in Spokane County.

When Washington’s highest court makes decisions, the values and experiences of the entire state need to be reflected in the deliberations. Keeping Fairhurst’s experience and proven ability in the Temple of Justice would contribute to that outcome.