The state Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in McCleary v. Washington has generated as much discussion as any in recent memory. Unfortunately, that discussion has failed to carry over to this year’s election, as the four court positions on the November ballot have failed to draw viable challengers.
Because of that, The Columbian recommends votes for the incumbents in all four races. As always, these are simply recommendations. We trust that voters will study the candidates and the issues involved before casting an informed vote.
This should have been a time for robust debate over the role of the court in enforcing the laws of the state. At the forefront of that debate would be the McCleary decision, in which the state Supreme Court determined that the Legislature has not been meeting its constitutionally mandated “paramount duty” of providing adequate funding for public education.
Following that ruling, the court retained jurisdiction over the case, serving as the enforcement arm to ensure that the decision is followed. Jurists declared that lawmakers must provide progress reports to the court and spell out a plan for full funding by 2018. In September, the court held legislators in contempt, but declined to hand down any sanctions for the time being.
All of this has led to important questions about the court’s power and, in some cases, to accusations that it has violated the constitutional separation of powers. With a potential constitutional crisis facing the state, the hope would be that viable challengers would step forward to elevate the discussion. That has not been the case.
For Position 1, Mary Yu, a recent appointee to the court, is running unopposed. She is a former King County Superior Court judge who was selected in the spring to replace the retiring Jim Johnson.
For Position 3, Mary Fairhurst also is running unopposed. She has sat on the court since 2002.
For Position 4, Charles Johnson is being challenged by Eddie Yoon, who is not mounting an active campaign.
For Position 7, Debra Stephens is being challenged by John “Zamboni” Scannell, who, as a disbarred attorney, might be ineligible to serve if elected. Stephens, who was appointed to the court in 2008, is a strong jurist who wrote the McCleary decision and, as The Seattle Times notes, “Her penetrating questions are a highlight of court hearings.”
While the McCleary decision has been the most visible of its rulings, additional decisions also point out the important role of the Supreme Court. In 2012, for example, the court tossed out a voter-approved requirement that tax hikes receive two-thirds of the vote in the Legislature. Last year, the court allowed the governor’s office to claim executive privilege in withholding documents from public records requests. As for McCleary, the court could eventually take it upon itself to rewrite the state budget, or to eliminate Legislature-approved corporate tax breaks in order to raise revenue for school funding.
Each of these examples represents the real-world impact of the court’s decisions — an impact that ideally would have invited strong challengers. Instead, the four incumbents facing re-election will escape the kind of probing questions that should have marked these campaigns.
Mary Yu, Mary Fairhurst, Charles Johnson and Debra Stephens have demonstrated the skills and the demeanor that warrant a seat on the court. But the public would be better served if they faced equally qualified challengers.
