Archived Version: August 17, 2010


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

Voting for Judges: FAQ

Sponsors

Election Archives

Support VotingforJudges

 

Washington Association of
Prosecuting Attorneys

Ratings

 
 

2010 Ratings for Judicial Candidates

A. The Committee's ratings will be specific to the Court of Appeals or the Washington Supreme Court based upon the request of the candidate. A candidate may request ratings for both the Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court. A rating will be effective for two years.

B. When a person previously rated by the Committee seeks re-rating for the same position, the Committee shall use its discretion in determining if further evaluation is necessary to make a subsequent rating.

Name Position Sought Rating
Jim Johnson Supreme Court Pos 1 [No Evaluation Conducted]
Stan Rumbaugh Supreme Court Pos 1 Qualified
Richard Sanders Supreme Court Pos 6 [Declined to be Evaluated]
Charlie Wiggins Supreme Court Pos 6 Well Qualified
Bryan Chushcoff Supreme Court Pos 6 Qualified
Jill Johanson Court of Appeals Div II Qualified
Joe Daggy Court of Appeals Div II [No Evaluation Conducted]
Laurel Siddoway Court of Appeals Div III Well Qualified
Harvey Dunham Court of Appeals Div III [No Evaluation Conducted]

 

CRITERIA FOR RATING CANDIDATES

A. No Rating. A Candidate shall be given no rating:

1. If insufficient information is available for Committee evaluation at the time the candidate is being considered for rating, or

2. If the candidate has not made timely application for a rating, including timely submission of materials requested by the Committee, or

3. If the candidate served as a member of the WAPA Evaluation Committee prior to seeking appointment or election for an open position after the WAPA Evaluation Committee has begun rating other candidates for that open position.

B. Unqualified. A candidate shall be rated unqualified if he or she fails to meet the criteria for a "qualified" rating.

C. Qualified. Candidate must possess the following attributes:

1. Candidate meets the constitutional or statutory requirements for the office.

2. Candidate has a reputation for integrity, good character, courtesy, common sense, and respect for all persons.

3. Candidate demonstrates respect for the law, for the judicial process, and for the dignity of the court.

4. Candidate is fair and has a reputation for fairness and freedom from bias against any group or class of citizens.

5. Candidate possesses the ability to make difficult decisions under stress.

6. Candidate has good legal ability and good writing skills.

7. Candidate has the temperament and courtroom practice appropriate to the judicial position for which the candidate is being considered.

8. Candidate has the ability to communicate clearly and effectively with attorneys, litigants, and other participants in the courtroom.

9. Candidate had the ability to command respect from the attorneys, litigants, and other participants in the courtroom, and has the energy and capacity for hard work.

D. Well Qualified. Candidate shall meet the criteria for "qualified" and must have the following:

1. Candidate has demonstrated respect for the rights of crime victims and the constitutional powers of coordinate branches of government.

2. Candidate either has judicial experience or experience as a neutral decision-maker or a demonstrated commitment to serving in the role of neutral decision-maker.

E. Exceptionally Well Qualified. Candidate shall meet the criteria for "qualified" and for "well qualified" and must have the following:

1. Excellent legal ability and writing skills, which may be evidenced by excellent legal analysis and an excellent ability to deal with legal problems, by proven legal scholarship and writing, or by a reputation for excellence in legal work and practice.

2. Candidate has demonstrated exceptional litigation, judicial or administrative experience. Candidate also has a reputation for outstanding personal and professional integrity, personal and professional independence, personal courage, and an excellent ability to make difficult decisions in demanding situations.

3. Candidate shall have demonstrated some or all of the following:

a. Significant public service.

b. Potential for leadership on the bench.

c. An interest in and commitment to working with other judges and court administrators to improve the administration of justice.

F. For Candidates seeking evaluation for the Supreme Court, the Committee shall consider the requirements set forth above, plus the unique qualities necessary to sit on the highest court in the State.

 

 

For more information: WAPA Judicial Ratings


 
 

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.