A Judgeship Fight and the Spirit of the Primary Law
A Democratic editor accuses two local politicians of scheming to defeat the nonpartisan primary and warns that voters are onto their "underground methods."
The primary law was originally advocated by the Democrats of the state and the body of the people have always been of the opinion that the election of judges, county commissioners and school superintendents should be made nonpartisan. Therefore the Democrats should be the first to show that they are going to support the spirit of the primary law and vote for the best man regardless of politics. In connection with this, no man knows the innermost thoughts of Messrs. Slater and Allen, but their moves in the judgeship matter certainly look like demagoguery of the most malignant type, intended to defeat the purposes of the primary law and to fool the people. Dr. Slater may have an idea that Democrats do not scent the underground methods pursued, but they do and we believe they will see that he is not elevated to the bench. Judge Carey has been satisfactory in every way, and the voters in this neighborhood will give him practically unanimous support. — Northport News (Dem.)
“No man knows the innermost thoughts of Messrs. Slater and Allen, but their moves in the judgeship matter certainly look like demagoguery of the most malignant type, intended to defeat the purposes of the primary law and to fool the people.”
Washington's primary law was meant to take judges and county officers out of party hands; this 1908 squabble over a bench seat shows how quickly that ideal ran into machine politics. A century later Washington still elects judges and still argues over whether nonpartisan races are genuinely nonpartisan.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.