Here's to Judge Bridges

Russell Sadler

Judge John Bridges successfully resisted the temptation a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court failed to resist in 2000. The Chelan County Superior Court Judge resisted meddling in the election of Washington’s chief executive.

Ironically, Washington Republicans “shopped” their state’s judiciary for a rural, conservative judge they thought might give them a favorable opinion. What they got what a classically conservative opinion.

Washington Republicans argued illegal votes cost their candidate, real estate investor Dino Rossi, the election last November against Democrat Christine Gregoire. She won a 129-vote squeaker after three recounts provided by law. The Republicans charged the election was riddled with “fraud and errors.” Republicans demanded the judge nullify the election and call a new one.

Indeed, Judge Bridges found 1,678 illegal votes out of the 2.9 million cast. Some 754 of those votes were cast by convicted felons who are not legally allowed to vote. But Judge Bridges held the Republicans provided no “clear and convincing” evidence that any of those illegal votes were responsible for Gregoire’s 129-vote winning margin. Republican lawyers interviewed none of the felons. Democratic lawyers interviewed five of the felons. Four of the five said they voted for Rossi and a fifth said he voted for the Libertarian candidate. The Republicans, wrote Judge Bridges, failed in their burden of proof to show that illegal votes went to Gregoire. Then Bridges went a step further.

"There is no evidence that the significant errors that occurred resulted from intentional misconduct or someone's desire to manipulate the election," Judge Bridges wrote.

Then Bridges displayed the classic conservatism that politicians who call themselves Republican have conveniently forgotten in recent years.

"The judiciary should exercise restraint in interfering with the election process, which is reserved for the people in the state constitution," Bridges wrote. "Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken, their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts.”

Judge Bridges has merely reaffirmed a principle that has been around since the founding -- the judiciary should stay out of contested elections. If this had been a congressional or legislative contest in a general election, it never would have reached the courts at all.

Washington and Oregon’s constitutions mirror the U.S. Constitution which contains a provision that says “the House and the Senate shall be the judge of its own members.” Courts have held this language to mean that legislative bodies, not courts, judge contested general elections of their members.

The U.S. Constitution contains a provision for resolving disputed presidential elections. The House of Representatives decides who will be president -- not the courts. Unaccountably, the U.S. Supreme Court jumped into the disputed 2000 presidential election before the issues even reached the House of Representatives. In the now infamous case of Bush v. Gore, the court awarded Florida's disputed electoral votes to Bush and decided the election.

Stunned by criticism of judicial activism, some of the Justices are quietly saying they were concerned about the image of the United States flopping about the world stage, unable to choose a president. This sounds more like an excuse than the real reason for their activist intervention.

The precedent in Bush v. Gore raises the possibility that more elections will go to court before they are finally decided. It took Judge Bridges eight months to settle the Washington governor’s race. This is no way to conduct elections which need to be final by the time newly elected officials’ terms begin.

By contrast, legislative bodies have been very conservative in using their power to decide contested elections. There are just a few examples of second-guessing the voters. The U.S. Senate threatened to expel Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Oregon, for sexual harassment in 1995. Packwood resigned instead.

The Oregon Legislature tends to seat winners of controversial elections and let the voters deal with the incumbent, usually by recall. In 1985, the House seated Rep. Pat Gillis, R-Gresham, who was accused of claiming a masters degree he didn’t earn. Voters recalled Gillis later in 1985. He was indicted after his removal and acquitted. In 1988, Sen. Bill Olson, R-Grants Pass was seated, but recalled by voters after pleading guilty to a charge of second degree sex abuse with a 13-year-old female relative. In 1993, Sen. Peg Jolin, D-Cottage Grove, resigned after being seated when it became clear the Senate had accumulated enough votes to expel her after she was convicted of misusing campaign funds.

For independent-minded people concerned about the elections process, the U.S. Supreme Court’s radical departure from precedent in Bush v. Gore is a time bomb lying in wait to further divide an unsuspecting nation in a future presidential election while Judge Bridges’ authentically conservative decision in the Washington gubernatorial case is a warning to partisan judge-shoppers. Be careful what you wish for. You actually may get it.

By Russell Sadler June 12, 2005