This item doesn't seem to be in the major local media yet, but it probably should be. King County Superior Court Judge Terry Lukens has filed papers with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission to run against State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen.
Madsen deserves to be thrown off the bench. She voted with the majority in two recent cases that were a slap in the face to the state's voters. Last June the court gutted the anti-discrimination ballot measure I-200 by ruling that public school districts could use race as a factor in assigning students to schools. Last month Madsen voted to nullify the wishes of the voters to place limits on Sound Transit's authority, thus allowing the rail operator to function as an unaccountable rogue agency.
I don't yet know enough to, er, judge whether or not Judge Lukens would be a better Justice than Madsen. Lukens was appointed by Gov. Locke, whose judgment on judicial appointments I would tend to question. Lukens was on the Sound Transit "citizen's oversight panel" at the time of his appointment to the bench. Did Sound Transit's fatal flaws become apparent during his period of oversight? I don't know. Lukens was in the news most recently for ruling in favor of the teacher's union that the legislature acted illegally to shorten the school year. Supporting the WEA against the people's representatives should raise eyebrows, but Lukens' reasoning leaves room for hope:
Judge Terry Lukens said by eliminating that teacher workday, the Legislature failed to honor Initiative 732's mandate of a 3.6 percent pay raise for teachers. Voters passed I-732 in 2000, giving teachers automatic cost-of-living pay increases.I wonder how Lukens would evaluate the abovementioned Supreme Court rulings in light of his commitment to honor the will of the voters in this case. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 28, 2004 12:28 PM
The Supremes have been over-ruling initiatives for quite a while without consequence to their re-election campaigns. (The car tabs initiative and the sports stadium vote are two such examples.)
Supreme Court Justice elections are at the bottom of the ballot and non-partisan. Incumbents always sweat these races because they are as close to a crap shoot in politics as you can get. Chief Justice Callow was heavily favored and upset by a relatively unknown attorney by the name of Charles Johnson.
Neither experience nor poor decisions will be determinative in a race. Party affiliation is not a factor. Richard Sanders' campaign in 1995 placed radio ads criticizing Justice Pekelis as a "Lowry appointee." Being associated with Lowry and having a distinctly un-anglo name was likely mortal to Pekelis' re-election hopes.
With a name like "Sharkansky", all you need is a law degree and you too could be a Supreme.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Ford on May 11, 2004 01:39 PMI saw your comment on Judge Lukens running for the State Supreme Court. I can't wait for this race. I recently had a case in Lukens court where I sued the WSDOT.(I lost) I can prove that Lukens was in bed with the DOT for over 10+ years and refused to recuse himself from the case. He also had a ex parte meeting with the state's attorney on the case and once again refused to recuse himself. I can't wait to make this public! Gregoire is involved in this also.
Posted by: William D. Webster on May 29, 2004 02:43 AMAn update on Judge Lukens. Because of judge Lukens decision in my case against the state, I'm now in Appeals Court (in sports they would call him a ringer.)
As a last ditch effort the state has brought out ex parte communications between Judge Lukens and Christine Gregoire(and attorneys in her office.)
Do we really want a supreme court justice that hides evidence and ex parte communication with one side?