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

 

VotingforJudges.org Ratings & Endorsements Candidate Ratings
 

Municipal League of King County

Ratings

 

July 22, 2008 The Municipal League of King County has released its ratings of more than 85 candidates in 40 contested legislative and judicial races.

The nonpartisan ratings are based on four criteria: Knowledge, Involvement, Effectiveness and Character. The ratings assess each candidate's potential to be effective in office and ability to serve the community. They don't consider political affiliations or stands on specific issues. Candidates aren't rated against each other.

This year's ratings are the result of the work of 60 citizens from throughout King County who volunteered for the Municipal League's Candidate Evaluation Committee. They studied the public record, reviewed candidate questionnaires, checked references and conducted live interviews with the candidates. Each rating was carefully reviewed by the Municipal League's trustees.

About the Municipal League Ratings

Outstanding Has made numerous outstanding contributions requiring skills related to the office, is a path-finding and respected leader, brings knowledge and creativity to issues facing the office.

Very Good Makes significant contributions, is a skilled builder of consensus, inspires confidence in the way he/she would serve, is thorough and attentive to issues.

Good Has been active and effective in many roles, is capable of moving people to productive action, has strong record of participation in problem solving, shows satisfactory commitment to tackling issues.

Adequate Has a record of participation and interest, is effective on specific issues, has provoked questions about suitability as an office holder, will need significant time/energy to fill gaps in knowledge.

Not Qualified Doesn't appear engaged, has a record that casts doubt on ability to be productive, hasn't demonstrated ability to deal with responsibilities of office, has narrow focus, inflexible attitude or is otherwise troubling.


The Municipal League questionnaire contains extended information on each candidate.

Contested Supreme Court Races

Candidate Name Rating Pos Note Questionnaire
Michael Bond Very Good 3   Questionnaire
Mary Fairhurst Outstanding 3 ~ Questionnaire
Jim Beecher Very Good 4   Questionnaire
Charles Johnson Outstanding 4 ~ Questionnaire
Frank Vulliet Not Qualified 4   Questionnaire

 


Contested King County Superior Court Races

Candidate Name Rating Pos Note Questionnaire
Susan Amini Good 1   Questionnaire
Tim Bradshaw Very Good 1   Questionnaire
Suzanne Parisien Very Good 1   Questionnaire
Jean Bouffard Good 10   Questionnaire
Regina Cahan Very Good 10   Questionnaire
Les Ponomarchuk Very Good 10   Questionnaire
Julia Garratt Outstanding 22   Questionnaire
Rebeccah Graham Good 22   Questionnaire
Holly Hill Outstanding 22   Questionnaire
Matthew Hale Not Qualified 26   Questionnaire
Laura Middaugh Good 26 ~ Questionnaire
Nic Corning Very Good 27   Questionnaire
Barbara Mack Very Good 27   Questionnaire
Jean Rietschel Outstanding 27   Questionnaire
Ann Danieli Very Good 53   Questionnaire
Mariane Spearman Outstanding 53    

 

 

KEY TO FOOTNOTES
# Declined to Interview
+ Unable to Interview
% Declined to Participate
^ Unable to Participate
* Unable to Contact

~ Incumbent

UNOP  Unopposed

 

See also Municipal League's Candidate Ratings Page


 
 

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.