Evan Smith on Politics: Finally, a rational system for electing judges
Saturday, June 15, 2013
By Evan Smith
When Washington voters have elected Supreme Court or court of appeals judges or a State superintendent of public instruction, we usually have decided the winner in the primary.
That's because any candidate for those offices who got a majority of the primary vote has run unopposed in the general election.
So, when there were only two candidates, the voters in the primary determined the winner by putting only one name on the ballot for the general election, when about twice as many people vote, and, when there is only one candidate, we have to vote twice to ratify that candidate’s election.
That will change as a result of a bill that State legislators passed near the end of the regular legislative session.
Now, Washington voters will elect judges of the Supreme Court and courts of appeals and the superintendent of public instruction the way that we elect candidates for any other non-partisan office.
When there are only one or two candidates, there will be no primary, with the election decided solely in the general election; when there are three or more candidates, the top two primary vote getters advance to the general election, even if one candidate gets a majority in the primary.
Some people question whether we should elect judges at all, but a King County Superior Court judge told me last year that he doesn’t believe Washington voters will give up their right to vote on anything,
Posts
2 comments:
You're probably right, voters won't give up their right to vote on anything. However, we get so little information about judges as well as many other offices of a specialized nature that we either should have more information or allow those within their specialty vote for them. With judges, judicial ratings by peers is a useful tool, it seems, but who knows if that's ruled by politics? But, at least that info could be more readily disseminated, as judges hold a lot of power for a long time.
Further, it makes no sense to this voter to have a primary and a general election where one candidate gets over 2/3rds of the vote in the primary election, as has been the case with legislative candidates. What's the point of the person with the <1/3 of the vote (less than, as the candidate/s that were eliminated got some votes, too) campaigning in such circumstances? And, why crowd the ballot further?
Dear Anonymous, the whole problem with our election system is no one looks into the candidates, most vote for a D or R and never look into the facts. The good thing about electing Judges is it's non partisan and people do need to research. There is a lot of information about Judges if you do your home work. The role of Judges is a very important role and I would never trust someone other than myself to cast my vote. In case your not aware Judges over turned the will of the people in there interpertation of the 2/3 majority vote. They also made the ruling of the MaCleary decision. As you can see they have more power than the people and our State Legislators.Being active in politics is how you stay informed. This is my point of view and everyones point of view holds valve in my book. Having run for office gives you a whole different perspective. Randy Hayden
Post a Comment