Chris Corry says the results are not surprising because a statewide vote elects the Washington State Supreme Court
Chris Corry
Washington Policy Center
An analysis released today by Ballotpedia and reported on by The Center Square demonstrates remarkable bias in donations and outcomes at The Washington State Supreme Court.
Of donations given to winning candidates, over 99% of significant contributions were from progressive sources, while donations given to losing candidates 97% of significant contributions were from conservative sources.
The sources for both winning and losing candidates fell largely into ideologic divides.
The study also examined court case outcomes based on parties and amici analysis. It found that progressive parties received 72% favorable decisions from the Washington State Supreme Court. Conservative parties were much lower at 15% favorable rulings. Similar numbers were found in amici results, with progressives seeing 75% favorable rulings and conservatives with 13%.
The results are not surprising. A statewide vote elects the Washington State Supreme Court. There is no representation based on community, population, or geography. The Washington Policy Center has long promoted a policy to change the Washington State Constitution to allow for district elections. Currently only one justice is from east of the Cascades, and that was because of an appointment by Governor Gregoire. As noted in our latest policy guide:
“To improve geographic representation on the supreme court, elections should be changed to district elections. This would provide more regional diversity and help reduce the cost of running for office, while providing candidates more time to focus on voter outreach, debates and forums in their area of the state.”
Chris Corry is the director of the Center for Government Reform at the Washington Policy Center. He is also a member of the Washington House of Representatives.
Also read:
- Letter: ‘People who have entered illegally must face the consequences of their actions’
Vancouver resident Debra Kalz argues the County Council should not pass immigration-related resolutions and says laws must be followed or changed through proper channels. - Opinion: IBR’s systematic disinformation campaign, its demise
Neighbors for a Better Crossing challenges IBR’s seismic claims and promotes a reuse-and-tunnel alternative they say would save billions at the I-5 crossing. - Letter: ‘Our forefathers warned us to assemble when government rules over We The People’
La Center resident Kimberlee Goheen Elbon criticizes the County Council’s handling of immigration-related meetings and urges residents to assemble and speak out. - Opinion: ‘County Council meetings have become an embarrassment to our community’
Ken Vance criticizes recent Clark County Council meeting conduct and calls for increased security and stronger leadership from Chair Sue Marshall. - POLL: Did the council’s debate and resolution help unite or divide the community?
The Clark County Council’s 3-2 vote to move forward with a modified ICE-related resolution followed heated public comment and sharp debate among councilors.
This was a great article. The Courts in Washington are corrupt as I have proven before. Heck, look at the Superior Court Family Law Courtrooms. A commissioner sit on the bench – his/her time on the bench is re-reimbursed by DSHS. The prosecutors on the case are 100% funded by DSHS as well. How does that work? Could Microsoft or some other Corporation hire their own judge and prosecutor to take care of their cases? Of Course not, but a Washington Agency can and does. Judges are aware and turn a blind eye to this massive corruption in the Courts. Imagine, a Commissioner filling out a time sheet to demonstrate their work for the agency!
Keep up the great work!!