The following editorial appeared June 12 in the Olympian newspaper of Olympia.

A nonpartisan group has formed to keep a watchful eye on state judicial races this election season.

The Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns grew in large part out of a rancorous 2006 state Supreme Court campaign in which nearly $3 million was spent on three races marred at times by nasty, negative and inaccurate ads offered up on behalf of candidates by outside interests.

The new committee hopes to nip this disturbing trend in the bud by having candidates sign pledges committing to campaigns that promote a fair, independent and impartial judiciary.

The committee’s chairman is retired state Court of Appeals Judge William Baker, and it includes several attorneys and citizens with resumes filled with public service.

Candidates who sign the pledge would also agree to withdraw campaign advertising that violates those standards of fairness and disavow in a public statement any third-party ads found to violate the pledge.

It’s a noble goal worth pursuing, as long as the work of the watchdog group does nothing to stifle meaningful debate and discourse during the campaign.

Judicial campaigns already are constrained, compared to partisan political campaigns. One key reason is Canon 7 in the state Code of Judicial Conduct, which attempts to distance judicial candidates from political activities, bars them from soliciting campaign contributions and restricts what they can talk about, all to promote integrity and independence in the judiciary.

Members of the committee admit they have not devised a perfect system to ferret out false political advertising.

“Our objective is not to weigh in on every nuance in a campaign,” said committee member Dick Thompson, a Cabinet member for former governors Gary Locke and Booth Gardner. “We don’t see ourselves as the opinion police.”

Neither the committee nor its members will evaluate candidates or endorse candidates or become involved in any appellate court campaigns.

The committee will review complaints about campaign advertising and candidate conduct, and rule on them as quickly as possible, preferably within 24 to 48 hours.

The work of the committee does not carry the force of law. Ideally, the very existence of the committee will act as a deterrent to mudslinging campaigns.

Admittedly, the committee walks a fine line here. Whether the committee plays a meaningful role in the 2008 judicial elections depends in large part on its ability to distinguish false assertions in a campaign from opinions that voters, not self-appointed election-watchers, should be left to evaluate for themselves.

Nevertheless, the committee has a chance to be a useful watchdog, exerting public pressure that keeps judicial candidates and their supporters from campaigns that tarnish the judiciary.

That said, all candidates for the state Supreme Court and state Court of Appeals should sign the pledge and conduct their campaigns accordingly.