This Washington
PubliCola TV: State Supreme Court Candidates Debate Controversial Justice's Voting Record
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZIPJzUaIeE[/youtube]
Back in February, Bainbridge attorney Charlie Wiggins announced he was running for state supreme court, against the controversial Justice Richard Sanders. Last night at the regular meeting of the 36th district Democrats in Phinney Ridge, the two candidates debated before the elected officials and PCOs of the 36th, mostly skirting political issues like gay marriage and a state income tax and instead fiercely debating Sanders' record as a libertarian judge who often votes, as he puts it, "in favor of the rights of criminal defendants."
Sanders, who was elected to the supreme court in 1995 and has been reelected twice, is known principally as a champion of the rights of prison inmates and violent offenders. In 2006, he was reprimanded by a Supreme Court panel—he received an "admonishment," the lightest sanction possible—for visiting violent sexual offenders at the state commitment center at McNeill Island, and "creating the appearance of impropriety."
He also gained a fair amount of national media attention for standing up and yelling "tyrant!" at U.S. Attorney General Mike Mukasey at a dinner for conservative lawyers and judges in Washington, D.C. shortly before Mukasey collapsed from a fainting spell.
Wiggins, a partner at the Bainbridge firm Wiggins and Masters, was chair of the disciplinary board at the state bar association. He also filed a brief for the winning side in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Caperton vs. Massey Energy decision, seen as a major win for judicial campaign finance activists.
When questioners at the forum tried to get the candidates to give their views on gay marriage, or how they might rule with regard to I-1098, the high earners income tax initiative, the candidates addressed obliquely the legal issues behind previous rulings.
In terms of I-1098, both Sanders and Wiggins said they would respect the precedents set by prior decisions, meaning, in this case, following a 1930s state supreme court ruling that said a high-earners tax was unconstitutional. "I think it's important that the law have a measure of stability," Wiggins said.
Asked about the state supreme court's 2006 decision to upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, Wiggins said he would have supported the court's interpretation of the Constitution, but that he believes "it's the responsibility of the court to create rules that govern relationships that apply to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation." Sanders was less clear, saying his decision ultimately amounted to deferring to the legislature.
Wiggins said his judicial philosophy is to keep an open mind; he named Justice Anthony Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court's perennial swing vote, as his judicial model. Sanders named George Sutherland, an early-twentieth century justice who argued that criminals should be provided with lawyers by the state.
Mostly, the dueling barristers stuck to their lawyerly debate over Sanders' record, quoting from court decisions and newspaper articles and arguing over the minutiae of Sanders' rulings. Wiggins' criticisms of Sanders stems from his own focus on judicial ethics. He takes umbrage with both the Justice's frequent decisions in favor of the accused—he says Sanders voted overwhelmingly against lawyer discipline during his tenure as justice—and Sanders' outspoken support of unlimited campaign contributions.
"I'm not attacking Justice Sanders for being soft on crime, I'm saying there's a bias in [Justice Sanders'] decision-making, not just in the criminal cases, but also in the disciplinary cases," said Wiggins during the debate, also calling out Sanders for being "opposed to any form of campaign finance reform."
Sanders says Wiggins is misrepresenting his record—for example, before the debate, Sanders pointed me to a quote from the Yakima Herald-Republic . In the article, Wiggins accuses Sanders of ruling in favor of defendants in lawyer discipline cases 91 percent of the time. Sanders told me Wiggins' claim was "bullshit." (Wiggins insisted, three times, sorta awkwardly, that Sanders was "nibbling around the edges" by arguing numbers.)
In particular, Wiggins focused on a ruling in which Sanders voted against disbarring a lawyer who had molested an 11-year-old former client, saying the decision was "a problem."
Sanders said the decision was part of his mission to protect the rights of the accused. "There is just one question, and that is upholding legal rights."
Back in February, Bainbridge attorney Charlie Wiggins announced he was running for state supreme court, against the controversial Justice Richard Sanders. Last night at the regular meeting of the 36th district Democrats in Phinney Ridge, the two candidates debated before the elected officials and PCOs of the 36th, mostly skirting political issues like gay marriage and a state income tax and instead fiercely debating Sanders' record as a libertarian judge who often votes, as he puts it, "in favor of the rights of criminal defendants."
Sanders, who was elected to the supreme court in 1995 and has been reelected twice, is known principally as a champion of the rights of prison inmates and violent offenders. In 2006, he was reprimanded by a Supreme Court panel—he received an "admonishment," the lightest sanction possible—for visiting violent sexual offenders at the state commitment center at McNeill Island, and "creating the appearance of impropriety."
He also gained a fair amount of national media attention for standing up and yelling "tyrant!" at U.S. Attorney General Mike Mukasey at a dinner for conservative lawyers and judges in Washington, D.C. shortly before Mukasey collapsed from a fainting spell.
Wiggins, a partner at the Bainbridge firm Wiggins and Masters, was chair of the disciplinary board at the state bar association. He also filed a brief for the winning side in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Caperton vs. Massey Energy decision, seen as a major win for judicial campaign finance activists.
When questioners at the forum tried to get the candidates to give their views on gay marriage, or how they might rule with regard to I-1098, the high earners income tax initiative, the candidates addressed obliquely the legal issues behind previous rulings.
In terms of I-1098, both Sanders and Wiggins said they would respect the precedents set by prior decisions, meaning, in this case, following a 1930s state supreme court ruling that said a high-earners tax was unconstitutional. "I think it's important that the law have a measure of stability," Wiggins said.
Asked about the state supreme court's 2006 decision to upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, Wiggins said he would have supported the court's interpretation of the Constitution, but that he believes "it's the responsibility of the court to create rules that govern relationships that apply to everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation." Sanders was less clear, saying his decision ultimately amounted to deferring to the legislature.
Wiggins said his judicial philosophy is to keep an open mind; he named Justice Anthony Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court's perennial swing vote, as his judicial model. Sanders named George Sutherland, an early-twentieth century justice who argued that criminals should be provided with lawyers by the state.
Mostly, the dueling barristers stuck to their lawyerly debate over Sanders' record, quoting from court decisions and newspaper articles and arguing over the minutiae of Sanders' rulings. Wiggins' criticisms of Sanders stems from his own focus on judicial ethics. He takes umbrage with both the Justice's frequent decisions in favor of the accused—he says Sanders voted overwhelmingly against lawyer discipline during his tenure as justice—and Sanders' outspoken support of unlimited campaign contributions.
"I'm not attacking Justice Sanders for being soft on crime, I'm saying there's a bias in [Justice Sanders'] decision-making, not just in the criminal cases, but also in the disciplinary cases," said Wiggins during the debate, also calling out Sanders for being "opposed to any form of campaign finance reform."
Sanders says Wiggins is misrepresenting his record—for example, before the debate, Sanders pointed me to a quote from the Yakima Herald-Republic . In the article, Wiggins accuses Sanders of ruling in favor of defendants in lawyer discipline cases 91 percent of the time. Sanders told me Wiggins' claim was "bullshit." (Wiggins insisted, three times, sorta awkwardly, that Sanders was "nibbling around the edges" by arguing numbers.)
In particular, Wiggins focused on a ruling in which Sanders voted against disbarring a lawyer who had molested an 11-year-old former client, saying the decision was "a problem."
Sanders said the decision was part of his mission to protect the rights of the accused. "There is just one question, and that is upholding legal rights."
