The Kingfisher in Yelm

Early in the campaign, the leader of the Democratic district in and around Yelm called me midweek and asked me if I wanted to come speak to the caucus meeting on Saturday. This was one of my first invitations to speak at a political meeting, and I immediately said yes.

He said, "We should have about 800 people there, and last time we might have had 85 people show up." I knew what he was referring to because my wife and I went to our caucus meeting the week before, and we were glad to get there before it was too crowded to get in the door. There was a certain energy this Spring that made me glad I decided to participate in this election season.

Yelm is on a flank of Mt. Rainier, southeast of Olympia, southwest of Tacoma, and very far away from the very liberal neighborhoods of Seattle. It is rural, hard by the Nisqually Indian Reservation, and growing rapidly with families who are happy to find an affordable place to live. The caucus meeting was in the junior high school gymnasium.

I got there on time, found a table for my flyers, and set out to introduce myself to these Democrats. I checked in with the man who invited me and he said I'd get a few minutes to say something when they got started.

Five candidates were there that morning, four who were running for local legislative seats and me, the only judicial candidate. Everybody I met said they'd never seen a candidate for the Supreme Court before.

After the meeting was called to order and the formalities completed, the candidates were called up to say something. The first three legislative candidates gave what I would call a typical, boring, long winded candidate's speech and each of them received tepid, polite applause, at best. This was one of my first campaign speeches and it was by far the largest audience I had ever spoken to -- the gym was full to the rafters. So I planned to keep it short and simple.

After I was introduced, I said a few things about who I was, what I was running for, where I went to school and where I had been working. And then I said, "I want to leave you with this, the most important role of the courts is to protect the people from the power of government."

As soon as the words were out of my mouth, over 800 people erupted in a roar of approval that nearly blew me off the stage. And all the way back to my table at the back of the gym, folks clamored after my flyers, my handshake and a chance to pat me on the back. It was a very remarkable experience.

And to think -- these were Democrats.

A 92 Year Old Mother

Many aspects of the recently concluded campaign will stay with me forever and here is an example.

While walking back to my office after what I thought was a very good radio interview, a 92 year old lady called me. I used my cell phone as the campaign telephone and voters called me to find out what I thought about certain issues. Most callers were surprised that I answered my own phone; but I was happy they called and happy to talk to them.

The calls usually started out this way, "I am a voter trying to decide who to vote for and wanted to ask you a few questions." Today's call started the same way.

She said, "Do you favor the death penalty?"

This is a question that I prefer not to answer because in Washington the death penalty is well supported by the voters, and I am personally morally and philosophically opposed to capital punishment. I believe we diminish our humanity when we choose death, and when we make choices we should choose life.

I told the caller, "Ma'am the death penalty is the law of this state and it is clearly consitutional."

She said, "But you haven't answered my question." And I could tell that this 92 year old lady was not going to let me off easy.

So I replied, "But my personal opinion is totally irrelevant because my job as a judge would be to apply the law and Constitution as written by others and not impose my personal opinions as to what the law ought to be."

She said, "Well why are there so many people on death row who have not yet been executed, this is unacceptable!" Seeing an escape door, I said, "You can probably blame the federal judges for that."

With the more conservative callers, like this lady, I would emphasize my Marine Corps experience, and I mentioned it to her when she said she wanted to know more about me.

She said, "I had seven children." I said, "That is terrific, we have two."

She said, "One of my sons was a Marine, and he was 19 years old in 1968 when he was killed in Vietnam." And then she began to cry.

So there I am standing on a sunny street in Seattle, proud of my radio appearance and happy to get this lady's call, when her grief over what happened to her 40 years ago suddenly poured into my ear and directly to my heart.

Let the Sun Shine In!

Seattle attorney Hugh Spitzer wants to know where the candidates for the Supreme Court stand on opening up the Supreme Court's rule making process to more tranparency, and I say "let the sun shine in!"

Mr. Spitzer's article in today's Seattle Post Intelligencer (August 13, 2008) reveals that, alone among our branches of government, the Supreme Court makes rules that impact the courts and the executive and, therefore, the people of Washington, behind closed doors. No good reason exists to treat the Supreme Court's rule making process any differently than the other branches of government.

The Canons allow a judicial candidate to advocate improvements to the administration of justice, and if I am elected I will do what I can to open up the Court's rule making process to greater transparency.

In her 6 years on the bench it is notable that Justice Fairhurst has done nothing about this issue. A lack of leadership on this issue would be consistent with her record of keeping public records secret. The voters can change that on August 19.

My Endorsements

Those who have endorsed my candidacy for a seat on the Washington Supreme Court include:

• The Seattle Times, which is the largest newspaper in Washington,
• The Retired Firefighters of Washington,
• The Seattle Police Officers Guild,
• The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators,
• The Liability Reform Coalition,
• Washington Arms Collectors,
• The Snohomish County Farm Bureau,
• People from all walks of life, like Ralph Cutter -- a Native American and retired Teamsters truck driver whose health insurer sued him to recover over $70,000 in health care payments made to his deceased wife's doctors for medical bills before she died of cancer, public school teacher Ellis Reyes, Seattle orthopedic and plastic surgeon Dr. Alfred Blue, MD, JD, civil engineer Bruce Dodds, P.E., Spokane business executive John Sage, radio host Kirby Wilbur, radio host and reporter John Carlson, and lawyers all over the state.

The Seattle Times said: “we believe he is the best candidate to protect the rights of the people.”

Even those who endorsed my opponent praised my qualifications and capabilities.

For example, the Tri-City Herald said: “the entire board agrees Bond would add a scholarly and forceful dynamic to the court.”

The Yakima Herald Republic said: “we found Bond to be a credible candidate, certainly no extremist.”

The Seattle Post Intelligencer said: “we were impressed.”

Protecting Children

This guest post was written by public school teacher Ellis Reyes, whom I thank for stating the problem from a teacher's point of view.

Apparently basic rights also include protecting predatory teachers from having their criminal behaviors disclosed to the public. In yesterday's decision, Justice Fairhurst voted to conceal the names of teachers accused of molesting children unless they were found guilty of sexual misconduct or some form of disciplinary action was taken. While I am acutely sensitive to the possibility of false accusations against teachers, I find Justice Fairhurst's decision faulty on several counts.

First of all, if a teacher is accused of such behavior, he or she is placed immediately on administrative leave. When that occurs, everyone in the community knows that something is going on and the rumor mill kicks into high gear. The teacher is then and forever persona non grata in that district and to assume otherwise is just naive.

Second, in the world of tenured employment and tight district budgets, isn't it simply easier for a district to ask a teacher to leave quietly than to embark upon an investigation that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and turn up nothing? What then? The teacher gets a job in a neighboring district and continues his/her repulsive behavior until the process repeats itself; for thirty years. No sexual misconduct was ever proven and no formal disciplinary action taken so this predator is able to fly beneath the radar for an entire career. As the parent of two young children, this bothers me a great deal.

Finally, as public employees, and particularly as employees placed in positions in which we work directly with children, I believe that the greater good is served by aggressively protecting the children. As a direct extension, teachers' workplace behavior should be a matter of public record. I don't even think it's negotiable. These types of issues should not be investigated behind the scenes. They should be as transparent as possible. If someone is accused, the public should know. If they are vindicated, then the public should know, along with the circumstances surrounding the investigation. If someone was not able to be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence, that is significantly different than someone who is actually innocent and was investigated because a student lied.

Do teachers and other public employees have privacy rights? Absolutely. But do we have a greater obligation to protect students from predators with teaching certificates? I think so.

Fairhurst and Basic Rights?

Justice Fairhurst's ad on the blog horsesass.org claims that she is "committed to protecting everyone's basic rights." But her record would suggest that just the opposite is true, no matter what is meant by the expression "basic rights."

Let's assume that when she refers to her committment to protecting "basic" rights, she means Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court is usually called upon to define and apply the Constitutional rights. They are pretty basic, and as our state Constitution says, a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the preservation of individual liberty and free government.

If basic rights include free speech, which they do, then why did she vote to censor or punish free speech in three cases?

If basic rights include actual notice that the government is going to select your property for condemnation, which they do, then why did she rule that posting an announcement on the agency website was adequate notice?

If basic rights include access to public records, which they do, then why has she consistently voted to conceal public records, and why did she most recently agree to characterize public records as "contraband"?

If basic rights prohibit the government from granting special privileges to corporations, which they do, then why did she vote to approve monopoly rights to two corporations?

And the list goes on. Too often Justice Fairhurst has failed to protect even the most basic of citizen rights. It is time for a change in Olympia. Vote Bond for Justice.

A Meditation on Social Justice

Should a Supreme Court Justice be concerned about social justice? My response is “yes” but first let’s discuss what is meant by social justice.

Some would argue that the expression “social justice” refers to economic redistribution from the rich to the poor. These advocates of social justice favor programs like progressive taxation, low income subsidies, and transfer payments as a means of moving toward a more egalitarian society. The justice in this conception of social justice is demonstrated when all members of society share equally in society’s economic benefits.

Others, while driven by conscience or moral values, are similarly distressed that in a society whose abundance is as great as ours the poor remain trapped and the rich get richer. But these folks believe that the means to achieve social justice are best served when government leaves the market to its devices.

In my view, a judge has no business adopting or seeking to implement either of these approaches to social justice because they represent competing policy decisions that should be made by the people. A judge’s responsibility is to apply the law and Constitution as written, and avoid imposing her or his own personal opinion about what the law should be. How to achieve economic equality, if that is the choice, is a decision to be made by the legislature and not the courts.

I state the issue in its extreme point of view for purposes of my argument because, in some cases, the legislature punts to the courts or elsewhere to make the decision.

But there is another aspect of social justice. In my view, the most important role of the courts is to protect the people from the power of government and vested interests. Not simply power, but the abuse of power. Social justice is advanced when the abuse of power is identified and called to account. Here are three examples that illustrate my argument.

In Tenants v. Seattle Housing Authority, the Seattle Housing Authority adopted a rule that barred its low income tenants from posting political and other messages on the doors to their apartments. So, for example, a poster that said “Impeach Bush” or “Mayor Nickels is a Moron” would have been outlawed. The tenants sued, claiming this rule violated their Constitutional rights to free speech, and the Washington Supreme Court agreed and struck down the Housing Authority’s rule.

My view of it is that a person’s home is their castle, and a poor person’s low income housing apartment was entitled to the same rights of expression as the richest mansion on Lake Washington. And it occurs to me that a poor person may have no better opportunity to express their protest than to put a protest poster on their front door. The poor have very little power in our society, and if all they can do to register their dissent is to show the powerful their middle finger, then I say: you go dude.

My opponent, Justice Fairhurst, joined the dissent who would have upheld the Housing Authority’s rule banning free speech. That approach fails to protect the people from the abuse of the power of government.

In Christiansen v. Ellsworth, a landlord evicted his tenant with a Notice to Pay Rent or Vacate the Premises that gave the tenant 2 business days’ notice. Landlord/tenant law says the landlord has to give 3 days notice and Superior Court Civil Rule 6 says if the time required to do something is less than 7 days then you don’t get to count holidays and weekends. In this case the landlord gave the tenant the notice on the first day of a 3 day holiday weekend, and he counted the three days of the holiday in calculating the statutory three days of notice. That means the landlord did not comply with the law. The trial court and Court of Appeals agreed and they dismissed the landlord's case, and it went to the Supreme Court who reversed, declaring that Civil Rule 6 did not apply and it didn't matter if the notice expired over the holiday weekend.

Justice Fairhurst wrote that the notice to the tenant was “more like a waiting period and not a deadline because it required no action on the part of the tenant.” That's just plain wrong; the notice did require action: pay the rent or get out.

But the bigger problem - it seems to me - is the failure to recognize the relationship of power between these parties: the landlord and the tenant. And in ruling for the landlord, Justice Fairhurst failed to protect the less powerful from the more powerful.

In Ventenbergs v. Seattle, the City of Seattle granted monopoly rights to two national corporations to haul garbage, including construction debris. When the monopolists complained that a local guy with a couple of trucks was hurting their profits, the City shut him down. Our Constitution prohibits granting special privileges to corporations, but our Court wrote an exception into it for garbage, and Justice Fairhurst joined their ruling.

And once again the big and powerful had their way with the small and weak. In my view, social injustice is allowed to fester when the Court fails to protect us from the abuse of power.

In all three cases, application of the plain language of the Washington Constitution or the Civil Rules would have advanced social justice; it really is that simple.

Vote Bond for Justice.