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:
- Opinion: 18th District Sen. Adrian Cortes explains positions on legislation he voted on
Dick Rylander shares responses from Sen. Adrian Cortes about his votes and reasoning on major legislation this session. - Opinion: ‘I’m more than just a little skeptical that IBR officials are doing everything they can to limit the cost of this project’
Ken Vance shares his concerns over rising costs and limited contractor interest in the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. - Letter: ‘IBR has relied on this video to instill fear in the public and government officials to promote the construction of a new bridge’Bob Ortblad questions IBR’s use of a seismic video and urges a shift toward tunnel alternatives in this critical letter to the editor.
- Letter: ‘This is a time for bold leadership, clear advocacy, and strong representation’Justin Forsman of Vancouver announces his candidacy for mayor and outlines a bold new platform focused on rights, infrastructure, and local governance.
- Opinion: Stand up for fair play in WashingtonNancy Churchill calls on Washington parents to defend girls’ sports and parental rights as common sense comes under fire.
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!!