The Legal Battle Over Seattle's Courtroom Seats
A local attorney argues that all three Superior Court seats in King County must be contested in the upcoming election, challenging current term limits.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
There has been considerable doubt as to whether one or three judges of the superior court should be elected at the general election in November. John R. Humphries has carefully prepared a compilation of authorities on the subject in a letter addressed to Judge Humes, concluding that there will be three vacancies in January. Humphries argues that the act of March 1890, which attempted to fix a four-year term for the two additional judges created by the legislature, is unconstitutional because it violates the state's requirement that judges fill only the remainder of an unexpired term until a general state election. He contends that all three Superior Court judges must be elected to align the court with the state constitution’s election cycle.
“The term of office is fixed and limited by the Constitution; there is no power in the general assembly to extend the term or tenure of an office beyond the time so limited.”
This 1892 dispute reflects a classic struggle between legislative convenience and constitutional mandate, a theme that remains central to Washington’s judicial politics today. The tension over whether judicial terms should be staggered or synchronized to a general cycle highlights the recurring question of how to best balance judicial independence with democratic accountability.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.