In the only race on the Aug. 2 primary ballot, Kittitas County Prosecutor Greg Zempel and disbarred lawyer John “Zamboni” Scannell are looking to replace Chief Justice Barbara Madsen. The two top vote-getters will move on to the general election.
Law professor David DeWolf hasn’t been shy in declaring that Washington’s high court has veered into dangerous territory.
The Gonzaga University professor has testified to that effect three times before a legislative committee, at the invitation of a Republican state senator who agrees the state Supreme Court has gone too far in the 2012 school-funding case known as McCleary.
Now, DeWolf is one of three candidates looking to unseat sitting justices on the court, encouraged by a conservative-led coalition that thinks the judiciary needs to take a step back.
A coordinated recruitment effort has helped make 2016 the first year in recent memory that all three justices up for re-election are facing challengers. In every state Supreme Court election since at least the 1990s, at least one of the justices facing re-election has run unopposed.
Most Read Local Stories
- In Seattle's Sodo district, frustration mounts amid RVs, drugs and skyrocketing crime VIEW
- What explains Seattle's streetcar fixation? Look at who really benefits | Danny Westneat
- Seattle is home to two women's marches this weekend amid divisions within local, national orgs
- Outrageous! Seattle isn't the best coffee city in the country, says new survey
- Where to see the total lunar eclipse Sunday
Not this year. In addition to DeWolf challenging Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu, Kittitas County Prosecutor Greg Zempel is looking to replace Chief Justice Barbara Madsen.
A third candidate challenging Madsen, disbarred lawyer John “Zamboni” Scannell, has run for the court before and wasn’t part of this year’s recruitment effort.
Meanwhile, David Larson — a Federal Way Municipal Court judge — is challenging incumbent Justice Charlie Wiggins.
The two-person races will appear only on the Nov. 8 general-election ballot. Madsen, Zempel and Scannell appear on the Aug. 2 primary ballot, with the top two vote-getters moving on to the general election.
In the past, if one candidate garnered more than 50 percent of the primary vote, he or she solely advanced to the general election with victory assured.
But out of concern that a nonactive candidate potentially could win in a lower-turnout primary, the state Legislature in 2013 passed a bill, signed by Gov. Jay Inslee, that required that the two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary run in the general election.
The races for the six-year terms are nonpartisan, but all three challengers share the view that the court has failed to respect the autonomy of the Legislature by holding the state in contempt in the McCleary case — a criticism frequently lobbed by Republican lawmakers over the past two years.
The three judicial candidates also take issue with the court’s September 2015 decision striking down the state’s voter-approved charter-school law, which created chaos for hundreds of families whose children had already started classes. The state Legislature passed a fix that became law this year.
“Perplexed” by court
Madsen, the chief justice, said it is unusual for Washington’s court to retain jurisdiction, as it did in the McCleary case to monitor the Legislature’s progress on school funding. The court did so, she said, because a similar ruling in a school-funding case in the 1970s didn’t prompt the Legislature to fix the unconstitutional way it pays for schools.
“In a sense, it was the idea that we’ve done this before, and we did not retain jurisdiction at that time, and we find ourselves 30 years later, 40 years later, with a noncompliant school system,” Madsen said.
Zempel, the Kittitas County prosecutor who is challenging Madsen, said he “doesn’t have a real ax to grind” on either McCleary or the charter-schools case. Many of his concerns about the court relate to the justices overturning legal precedents in criminal cases, which he said makes it hard for prosecutors and law-enforcement officers to do their jobs.
Still, Zempel said the court’s reasoning in the two high-profile education cases “made me a little perplexed.”
“It was just another example of where it seems this court is just unpredictable, and they’re willing to not really be bound by the constitution and the statutes that are in place,” he said.
DeWolf, who has taught law at Gonzaga for 28 years, said the entire chain of events in the McCleary case shows the state Supreme Court is venturing into policymaking in ways that are inappropriate. Budget-writing is the responsibility of the Legislature, not the court, he said, as the elected lawmakers are the ones who must balance competing demands for state resources.
Yu, who became a justice in 2014, dismissed concerns about the court usurping the role of the Legislature as “fabricated.” She said the court has given lawmakers plenty of leeway to decide how they’re going to solve education-funding problems.
“If we were really telling them how to fund it, we wouldn’t be where we are,” Yu said. “Stepping over the bounds would be us saying, ‘Here’s where you should take $10 million.’ We haven’t done that.”
In Larson’s case, he decided to run against Wiggins primarily because he thinks the Supreme Court misinterpreted legal precedent when striking down charter schools last year.
But the Federal Way judge also worries the court is violating the separation of powers in government. He said the court’s overreach in the McCleary case has actually made it more difficult for lawmakers to solve school-funding problems.
“If all of a sudden another party comes and says, ‘Do it or else,’ it skews the debate,” Larson said.
Yet Wiggins, who was elected to the court in 2010, said he’s proud of what the court has done in McCleary. He said it’s the court’s job “to look out for those who can’t look out for themselves.”
“One of those groups is children,” Wiggins said.
Expert opinions vary
Whether the court has “gone sideways” in McCleary is a matter of debate among legal experts. Andrew Siegel, a professor who teaches constitutional law at Seattle University, said it’s common for courts in other states to retain jurisdiction and monitor the progress of government agencies to ensure they follow court orders.
Even after Washington’s court justices found the state in contempt in 2014, they waited a year to impose any sanctions, something Siegel said shows restraint and respect for the legislative process.
Yet Scott Bauries, an associate professor of law at the University of Kentucky who studies state constitutions, said there’s “at least a strong argument that the court has gone too far” in Washington.
Enforcing an order that guarantees a right to something — like a uniformly funded statewide education system — is more difficult than intervening to halt policies that could do harm, and can result in courts meddling in areas that typically are the province of the legislative branch, he said.
That can result in an escalating standoff where a court is either unable to enforce its orders or is faced with the choice of having to back down — something that would damage the court’s ability to have its orders carry weight in the future, he said.