What do Washingtonians think of their Courts?

Released in 2009 by Washington State University “Public Attitudes Regarding the Selection of Judges in Washington State” this is a great read document. I always appreciate others opinions of the Judiciary, mine has become fact based over the last few years but I still look for opposing views in hopes I am wrong.

1-2009 WSU Judicial Approval Study

While there is plenty of Glass half full insights from likely Lawyers or Law Students, the statistics are revealing the public feels there is lots of room for improvement.


For example on page 21-

“It is clear from the results set forth in Table 14 that registered voters in Washington tend to view their judges favorably. Washingtonians tend to believe that their judges are somewhat accountable to the public, they are fair and impartial in their judgments, they can be relied upon to be honest and trustworthy, and they get high marks for being qualified to serve. With respect to negative traits, there is limited sentiment that special interests exercise undue influence and that justice can be bought. However, among the negative traits, the criticism that Washington’s courts are overly “political” tends to strike a chord with Washington’s registered voters. As noted above, a common theme identified in the comments recorded on the current system of nonpartisan elections related to the “excessive political influence” present in the timing of resignations from the bench and the making of interim appointments.”


Well I guess you could look at the percentages in the above light, or I offer this:

When asked if their Judges were qualified? 45% surveyed responded NO

When Asked if Their Judges were Honest and Trustworthy? 41% responded NO

When asked if they were Fair and Impartial? 42% responded NO

When asked if they were Accountable to the Public? 49% responded NO

Are your Judges Controlled by Special Interest? 22% said YES

Are your Judges “For Sale”? 16% said YES

Are your Judges “Political”? 41% Said YES

I know if I take the BAR exam and score a 65% I have failed, if a person only provides truthful responses on 59% of their IRS 1040 they will get audited and maybe prosecuted, and a quarter of the people think you are controlled by someone or some other group in your job performance, you get fired.

My take on this study is that the Registered Washington State Voters who participated gave the Judges a FAILING grade.

The topic of RETENTION VOTING for Judges seems popular, most people do not know what this is, simply on every election every Judge would face a YES or NO vote regardless of a opponent “SHOULD THIS PERSON REMAIN BEING A JUDGE? YES OR NO.” I am a huge supporter of this, this would allow the people to clean house on some bad apples or bad orchards.

At a recent meeting Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens inquired (pleasantly and certainly no offence meant or taken) as to why I attend Judicial meetings or if I was looking for evidence of the evil empire, at the time I really did not have a substantive answer, having mulled it over I conclude the reason I attend such meetings is not to look for BAD Behavior from Judges it is to look for evidence of GOOD behavior because I have plenty of fact based material covering the abuse of office, misconduct under the color of law, and all around out of control actions of Judges from the Superior Court to the highest Supreme Court Judicial Officers.

I already know the BAD Justice Owens I am looking for the Good, still looking however.



One comment

  1. kelsie richter says:

    I am having great concern as to the behavior of Snohomish county superior courts judicial commissioners. it pertains to a parental case filed in that court. the petitioner has yet to have his/her day in court to speak his/her side. the petitioner started a parenting plan action months ago. 1 week before the first hearing was to take place the respondant with a attorney went to court with a motion to immediately return child to respondant. now if anyone has any knowledge that a guardian ad liden sealed confidential report(from a tottaly separate case #) is all about, they know in order for anyone to get the report if they were not a party to the actual case, a court order signed by a JUDGE ordering it be unsealed is the only legal way to obtain such a document. So it would be assumed a Commissioner would be well aware of and not allow someone whom illegally obtained said document, and allow the document to filed in a completely different case. mind you it was filed attached to the respondants declaration. leaving this sealed confidential report open for the public to view for over a month. how is it that any COMPITANT judicial officer can act so ignorant. im sorry but there is a reason these type of reports are ordered sealed. even though the petitioner made it clear at this hearing the report was illegally obtained and that it is a sealed confidential report, the commissioner still allowed , and as well ordered the petioner return child to respondant. This is the worst issue comes into play…..the respondant never has had the child (who by the way is less than 10 mo. old)alone for more than 2 hours, let alone ever had a child at all. never given the child a bath, never changed a messy diaper, on rare(very rare) occassion did the respondant take part in any parental function ,never on a daily basis. so what do you think this child went thru when all of a sudden the one person whom this child spent everyday, hour since birth was suddenly gone for a day, two , three. on day 3 the child gets a suppervised visit with the one they learned everything of security, LIFE from. So sad how unemotional this child was at the visit. and to this day even though the court issued a temp. rest order on the petitioner behalf,(due to the fact of the declaration stated fear the respondant would keep this parent from seeing the child as threats had been made numerouse times)and when the resp attorney requested the gaurdian ad liden report be redacted and sealed….the petitioner objected, for reason it was not properly brought in form , nonetheless the commissioner acted out of negligence allowing the request. now even though the last order was that the visits between child and petitioner stay the same, no stipulation/condition. yet no visit has taken place as the respondant refuses to bring child. ok now the petitioner has no representation, the respondant has from day one. the respondant has the right to keep child from the other parent, NO, but if contempt motion is brought on and petitioner says or does one little wrong word, or mispelled word would/could be held liable to pay for the others attorney fees and not be granted . so look at all the wrong/ILLEGAL acts of respondant ….why is that person not held liable to pay for the petitioners attorney or some reprecussion. its not bad enough this child has been emotionally traumatized and will more likely than not have some seriouse issues from this