When a candidate for the state Supreme Court appears to violate judicial conduct rules during the campaign, voters ought to take notice.
That’s the case with Ian S. Birk, a state Appeals Court judge running for Position 4. His opponent is Sean P. O’Donnell, a King County Superior Court judge. The Times endorsed O’Donnell, citing his breadth of experience and wide range of endorsements.
Last month, Birk sent out a fundraising email intended to stoke outrage, tar his opponent and rake in the money. The missive led with: “We’ve said it for months: Ian’s opponent, Sean O’Donnell, is a Republican-affiliated judge with a deep history of support for and from his party.”
It goes on to allege that O’Donnell is a closet Republican who can no longer hide. “This past weekend the proverbial veil was lifted.” The hook? O’Donnell was among candidates recommended by the Washington State Republican Party.
Of course, Birk’s claims are balderdash. O’Donnell has the support of Democrats, Republicans and independents. He is running for a nonpartisan position.
What’s worse, this type of sleazy campaigning is expressly forbidden in Washington State Court Rules. Canon 4: “A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.”
Another Birk campaign email breathlessly states: “If the far right captures Washington’s Supreme Court, they don’t need to win in the legislature — they can undo decades of progress from the bench.”
The court rule states that a judge or judicial candidate shall not “publicly self-identify as a member or a candidate of a political organization …”
Seems like Birk has all but stamped a blue “D” on his forehead.
No matter how the election turns out, a complaint to the state Commission on Judicial Conduct seems likely. The commission has the authority to admonish, reprimand or censure a judge, as well as dismiss charges. The commission could recommend the Supreme Court suspend or remove a judge for violating the rules.
On a side note, it is laughable to suggest an imminent far-right takeover of the state Supreme Court, or that the integrity of Washington politics depends on Birk’s election.
All this raises serious concerns about how Birk could possibly be considered fair and impartial, which ought to be the baselines of any jurist.
In an open letter to voters released last week, 62 judges across Washington protested Birk’s “serious and false accusations about Judge O’Donnell.”
“In judicial races, bipartisan support is something to be celebrated rather than demonized,” they wrote. “When it comes to judicial races, our hope is that the candidates focus on their records and their visions for the court. This is what the public deserves, and it is what Washington’s judiciary needs — not toxic political blows.”
In campaigns, sometimes an unfair attack tells voters all they need to know about the attacker. Birk’s behavior ought not be rewarded at the polls. For this and many other reasons, O’Donnell is the better choice for state Supreme Court Position 4.
