This Washington
Is Wiggins Really the Great Liberal Antidote to Sanders?
One of the last undecided electoral races is for the Washington State Supreme Court. Controversial incumbent Richard Sanders is in danger of being unseated by challenger Charles Wiggins based mostly on an overwhelming vote for Wiggins in King County where Wiggins is currently taking 57 percent of the the vote. In light of the high number of uncounted King County votes, Wiggins may well ride the progressive King County enthusiasm swell to victory. That same swell carried Senator Patty Murray to victory. The progressive voters of King County know what they are getting with Patty Murray and their enthusiasm for her is well-placed, but can the same be said for Charles Wiggins? Do voters have any idea what kind of Supreme Court Justice Wiggins would be? I doubt it.
During his campaign, Wiggins ran on standard judge stuff: Integrity, impartiality and independence. He also told his personal story: “a life-long Christian, having been raised by parents of faith;” son of a chief warrant officer who delivered newspapers as a kid; a boy scout; an ROTC scholarship to Princeton where he worked to earn extra money; army captain in the Intelligence Corps; MBA and law degree; long time appellate lawyer; bar association service focusing on ethics issues; strong community service (Indian Guides, Habitat for Humanity); and a brief stint as an appellate judge.
He also emphasized his impressive work advancing the cause of judicial independence such as fighting for campaign limits in judicial elections and in trying to educate voters about judicial elections by starting the website votingforjudges.org. But none of this really tells us what kind of justice he will be. And these themes do not explain why Wiggins is winning King County so strongly but losing in most of the State.
That's probably explained by the anti-Sanders vote. Sanders is probably the most controversial member of the Washington State Supreme Court in its history. He is a self-proclaimed staunch libertarian—anti-government power, pro-property rights, who is incongruously anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.
Consistent with his anti-government bias, he has been the strongest advocate on the Washington State Supreme Court for the rights of criminal defendants. He has been open about these viewpoints and his opinions reflect them. He is also the first Supreme Court Justice to receive an ethical sanction and has been the subject of other claims of ethical improprieties. Sanders, along with Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson, has been the scourge of the progressive coalition of labor, environmentalists, and woman and gay/lesbian rights advocates.
The anti-Sanders campaign was given new fodder just before the election when the Seattle Times ran a front-page story reporting on comments by Justices Sanders and Jim Johnson reflecting their belief that the criminal justice system is not biased and that the statistics showing disproportionate incarceration rates for African-Americans in Washington can be explained by higher rates of crime in that community. Sanders thereafter stood by his comments. To anyone who knows Justice Sanders, the comments were not at all surprising. Nonetheless, the Times and others treated the comments as some new revelation—resulting in the Times changing its endorsement from Sanders to Wiggins. (That the Seattle Times found the comments surprising reflects poorly on their editorial board and shows that judicial endorsements are not well-informed.)
Thus, the anti-Sanders campaign was effective, especially in King County, and explains Wiggins' large majority here. But does it tell us what Wiggins would do as a Justice?
No one, including Wiggins, pointed to any case where Sanders beliefs lead to an unfair result for African-Americans. Indeed, some in the African-American community came to Sanders’ defense noting his record as a lawyer and judge on cases involving African-American defendants. But the flap clearly had an effect as Wiggins' lead in King County seems to be growing with the later mailed ballots.
Much of Wiggins’ anti-Sanders rhetoric is a simple recitation of opinions by Sanders with which the progressive coalition would disagree. But what is missing in almost all cases is a statement from Wiggins saying he thinks Sanders wrongly decided those cases. To be fair, Wiggins has criticized Sanders’ statements about a “fundamental right to work,” arguing that it was an improper effort to impose his personal views. Wiggins also clearly differs from Sanders on campaign finance law. Wiggins is in favor of campaign limits and Sanders is not. Wiggins is also for judicial recusal when a party before the court has donated to the campaign of a judge on the court. He submitted a recommendation to the court, but it was gutted.
However, Wiggins rarely states that Sanders was wrong or that he would have decided a case differently than Sanders. We know that with respect to same-sex marriage, Wiggins has stated he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision not recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. (Wiggins would have supported the Justice Madsen plurality opinion, not the Justice Jim Johnson/Sanders opinion.)
So what can we expect from Wiggins? In comparison to Sanders, an absolutist when it comes to individual liberties, I expect he will in general be more deferential to the State legislature, not being particularly protective of individual First and Fourth (privacy) Amendment rights, Sanders' strong suit. And Wiggins will more likely to side with the state on issues ranging from the rights of criminal defendants to government regulation of private property. Sanders has been fairly pro-plaintiff in personal injury cases often siding with Justice Chambers (a former president of the plaintiffs’ bar) and indeed Sanders was supported by some leaders of the plaintiffs’ bar.
Wiggins may be more receptive to discrimination claims in the workplace. And Wiggins will undoubtedly be tougher in lawyer discipline cases, but is Wiggins the progressive voice that has been missing from the State Supreme Court since Justice Bobbie Bridge left? I doubt it. I expect him to be pretty middle-of-the-road. And King County voters and the progressive coalition that supported Wiggins are likely to be disappointed at the end of day if Wiggins is elected.
Wiggins followed the road of most judicial candidates—trying to say as little as possible about their judicial philosophy and leanings. He claims to have “no political agenda.” The analogy often cited is that a judge is like a baseball umpire just calling balls and strikes. But some umpires have a high strike zone, some a low zone, some a large zone and some a small zone. With Sanders you know exactly what strike zone you are getting. With Wiggins we will have to wait and see.
During his campaign, Wiggins ran on standard judge stuff: Integrity, impartiality and independence. He also told his personal story: “a life-long Christian, having been raised by parents of faith;” son of a chief warrant officer who delivered newspapers as a kid; a boy scout; an ROTC scholarship to Princeton where he worked to earn extra money; army captain in the Intelligence Corps; MBA and law degree; long time appellate lawyer; bar association service focusing on ethics issues; strong community service (Indian Guides, Habitat for Humanity); and a brief stint as an appellate judge.
He also emphasized his impressive work advancing the cause of judicial independence such as fighting for campaign limits in judicial elections and in trying to educate voters about judicial elections by starting the website votingforjudges.org. But none of this really tells us what kind of justice he will be. And these themes do not explain why Wiggins is winning King County so strongly but losing in most of the State.
That's probably explained by the anti-Sanders vote. Sanders is probably the most controversial member of the Washington State Supreme Court in its history. He is a self-proclaimed staunch libertarian—anti-government power, pro-property rights, who is incongruously anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.
Consistent with his anti-government bias, he has been the strongest advocate on the Washington State Supreme Court for the rights of criminal defendants. He has been open about these viewpoints and his opinions reflect them. He is also the first Supreme Court Justice to receive an ethical sanction and has been the subject of other claims of ethical improprieties. Sanders, along with Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson, has been the scourge of the progressive coalition of labor, environmentalists, and woman and gay/lesbian rights advocates.
The anti-Sanders campaign was given new fodder just before the election when the Seattle Times ran a front-page story reporting on comments by Justices Sanders and Jim Johnson reflecting their belief that the criminal justice system is not biased and that the statistics showing disproportionate incarceration rates for African-Americans in Washington can be explained by higher rates of crime in that community. Sanders thereafter stood by his comments. To anyone who knows Justice Sanders, the comments were not at all surprising. Nonetheless, the Times and others treated the comments as some new revelation—resulting in the Times changing its endorsement from Sanders to Wiggins. (That the Seattle Times found the comments surprising reflects poorly on their editorial board and shows that judicial endorsements are not well-informed.)
Thus, the anti-Sanders campaign was effective, especially in King County, and explains Wiggins' large majority here. But does it tell us what Wiggins would do as a Justice?
No one, including Wiggins, pointed to any case where Sanders beliefs lead to an unfair result for African-Americans. Indeed, some in the African-American community came to Sanders’ defense noting his record as a lawyer and judge on cases involving African-American defendants. But the flap clearly had an effect as Wiggins' lead in King County seems to be growing with the later mailed ballots.
Much of Wiggins’ anti-Sanders rhetoric is a simple recitation of opinions by Sanders with which the progressive coalition would disagree. But what is missing in almost all cases is a statement from Wiggins saying he thinks Sanders wrongly decided those cases. To be fair, Wiggins has criticized Sanders’ statements about a “fundamental right to work,” arguing that it was an improper effort to impose his personal views. Wiggins also clearly differs from Sanders on campaign finance law. Wiggins is in favor of campaign limits and Sanders is not. Wiggins is also for judicial recusal when a party before the court has donated to the campaign of a judge on the court. He submitted a recommendation to the court, but it was gutted.
However, Wiggins rarely states that Sanders was wrong or that he would have decided a case differently than Sanders. We know that with respect to same-sex marriage, Wiggins has stated he agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision not recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. (Wiggins would have supported the Justice Madsen plurality opinion, not the Justice Jim Johnson/Sanders opinion.)
So what can we expect from Wiggins? In comparison to Sanders, an absolutist when it comes to individual liberties, I expect he will in general be more deferential to the State legislature, not being particularly protective of individual First and Fourth (privacy) Amendment rights, Sanders' strong suit. And Wiggins will more likely to side with the state on issues ranging from the rights of criminal defendants to government regulation of private property. Sanders has been fairly pro-plaintiff in personal injury cases often siding with Justice Chambers (a former president of the plaintiffs’ bar) and indeed Sanders was supported by some leaders of the plaintiffs’ bar.
Wiggins may be more receptive to discrimination claims in the workplace. And Wiggins will undoubtedly be tougher in lawyer discipline cases, but is Wiggins the progressive voice that has been missing from the State Supreme Court since Justice Bobbie Bridge left? I doubt it. I expect him to be pretty middle-of-the-road. And King County voters and the progressive coalition that supported Wiggins are likely to be disappointed at the end of day if Wiggins is elected.
Wiggins followed the road of most judicial candidates—trying to say as little as possible about their judicial philosophy and leanings. He claims to have “no political agenda.” The analogy often cited is that a judge is like a baseball umpire just calling balls and strikes. But some umpires have a high strike zone, some a low zone, some a large zone and some a small zone. With Sanders you know exactly what strike zone you are getting. With Wiggins we will have to wait and see.
