Who Decides Our Judges?
Lawyers in the legislature are moving to strip the public's right to nominate Supreme Court justices.
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.
Whenever the ethics of the legal profession run counter to the best interests of the general public, it may be relied upon that the lawyers will contend for and uphold their ethics. The removal of supreme bench nominations from the primary law is a sample of the working of this principle. The dignity of the bench—that unwritten law that the court can do no wrong—was invoked by lawyers in the house successfully and diplomatically. In reality, the legislature has bluntly told the people of the state: 'You do not know enough to nominate supreme judges.' Grudgingly, the people were conceded enough knowledge to nominate all other candidates, but the supreme bench is considered too high to be nominated by the intelligence of the rank and file. When the governor signs this direct primary bill, the nomination of supreme judges will go back to the old convention system. And why? Simply because these lawyers considered this old, corporation-led convention more dignified.
“In reality, the legislature has bluntly told the people of the state: 'You do not know enough to nominate supreme judges.'”
The tension between 'expert' control of institutions and direct democratic participation remains a core debate in modern Washington politics. Over a century later, debates regarding how we select our judiciary—and the influence of corporate interests versus public voice—continue to shape the state's civic dialogue.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.