Archived Version: August 19, 2008

Click to exit archives
An information resource for Washington voters


 

Home

Show My Elections

Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

Ratings and Endorsements

Media Stories

Candidates A-Z

Judges A-Z

Around the Nation

Voting for Judges: FAQ

Sponsors

Election Archives

 

Loren Miller Bar Association

Ratings

 
 

Current Judicial Evaluation Ratings

The following are the LMBA judicial evaluations for the 2008-2009 year. The LMBA judicial evaluations shall be valid for a period of three years.

Name Rating Expires Rating
Susan Amini 11/2010 Qualified
George Appel 11/2010 Well Qualified
Michael Bond 03/2011 Qualified
Tim Bradshaw 08/2010 Well Qualified
Regina Cahan 11/2010 Well Qualified
Nic Corning 10/2010 Well Qualified
Ann Danieli 08/2011 Exceptionally Well Qualified
Mary Fairhurst 04/2011 Exceptionally Well Qualified
Julia Garratt 07/2010 Well Qualified
Randall Gaylord 07/2010 Extremely Well Qualified
Rebeccah Graham 07/2010 Extremely Well Qualified
Hollis Hill 07/2010 Well Qualified
Robin Hunt 04/2011 Exceptionally Well Qualified
Jim Johanson 04/2011 Qualified
Charles Johnson 03/2011 Exceptionally Well Qualified
Rob Lawrence-Berrey 11/2010 Qualified
John Linde 11/2010 Well Qualified
Eric Lucas 06/2011 Exceptionally Well Qualified
Barbara Mack 10/2010 Well Qualified
Sue Parisien 10/2010 Well Qualified
Les Ponomarchuk 06/2011 Well Qualified
Jean Rietschel 08/2010 Well Qualified
Mariane Spearman 03/2011 Exceptionally Well Qualified
Debra Stephens 06/2010 Well Qualified

 

LMBA Ratings Criteria

  1. SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR RATING CANDIDATES IN CONTESTED ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
     
    1. All ratings shall be based solely upon the merits of a candidate which, if available, may include a candidate’s questionnaire, resume, reference checks, committee member evaluations, and demonstrated sensitivity to the concerns of the Black/minority committee.
       
    2. The Committee shall rate applicants as follows:
      1. Exceptionally Well Qualified
      2. Well Qualified
      3. Qualified
      4. Adequate
      5. Not Qualified
      6. Insufficient Information to Rate
      7. Not Rated
       
    3. Definitions or rating categories:
      1. A candidate may be rated “Exceptionally Well Qualified” if he/she has consistently demonstrated outstanding accomplishment in his/her professional and/or judicial career, singular accomplishments in professional practice and excellence in all of the criteria which support a “Well Qualified” rating;
      2. A candidate may be rated “Well Qualified” if he/she has demonstrated a level of skill, experience, sound judgment and excellence in his/her professional and/or judicial career which will sustain or improve the quality of the judiciary. These qualifications are exemplified by the following:
        1. Demonstrated sensitivity to civil rights issues and issues affecting Black and other minority communities;
        2. Experience in trial and appellate court cases and/or administrative procedures;
        3. The potential for continued professional development and leadership on the bench;
        4. Maturity, integrity and courtesy;
        5. The courage and ability to make difficult decisions under stress;
        6. Intellectual honesty and courage;
        7. Distinction in academic or professional achievements;
        8. Involvement in community affairs and activities;
        9. Fairness, open-mindedness and commitment to equal justice under the law; and
        10. Energy and capacity for hard work.
      3. A candidate may be rated “Qualified” if he/she has demonstrated a majority of the ten (10) characteristics of a “Well Qualified” candidate. No candidate shall be considered “Qualified” if he/she fails to meet the criterion of Subparagraph VIII(C)(2)(a) above.
      4. A candidate shall be rated “Adequate” if he/she satisfied the basic criteria to a degree sufficient to consider him/her minimally qualified for the judicial position sought.
      5. A candidate shall receive a rating of “Not Qualified” if he/she has not demonstrated qualifications sufficient to receive a rating of Adequate.
      6. A candidate shall be placed in a category of “Insufficient Information To Rate” only if the Committee determines that there is insufficient information.
      7. A candidate shall be placed in a category of “Not Rated” if the candidate declines to appear or to submit information necessary for the Committee’s deliberation.
 

 
   
 

VotingforJudges.org, P.O. Box 1460, Silverdale, WA  98383
Write to comments@votingforjudges.org.

As the election approaches, Votingforjudges.org will include ratings and endorsements from numerous organizations. We provide this information so that voters will be better informed about the candidates. We do not rate or endorse any candidates; the ratings and endorsements of organizations included at this site reflect the views of those individual organizations and not necessarily the views of votingforjudges.org or its sponsors.