Tonight's meeting of the Downtown Seattle Republican Club will be a forum with for State Supreme Court candidates Susan Owens and Stephen Johnson.
UPDATE: Owens backed out of the program this afternoon. She's concerned that with me as a moderator it won't be a "level playing field". But her campaign knew that I was a moderator last week when they agreed to do it. We also let the Owens campaign suggest the second moderator and we went with their pick of P-I columnist Joel Connelly, whose newspaper endorsed Owens and who has personally criticized some of Johnson's supporters for their campaign against Owens. We hope Justice Owens changes her mind and joins us, as the forum will be held with her or without her.
The program will be held at the College Club, 5th and Madison in downtown Seattle, Monday, October 23rd starting at 5pm. The event is open to the public and there is no charge to attend, but seating is limited and RSVP is required. To RSVP or for more information, please e-mail: info .AT. seattlerepublicans.org
Something else though I noticed today while browsing the voter's guide. Gerry Alexander is on the ballot. Did he not win the seat in September when he received more than 50% of the votes? Same with all the other "non-partisan" offices.
What is this all about?
Oh, and BTW - Congratulations to you Richard for getting on ballot. I liked your web-site - Just regret I cannot vote for an Issaquah position.
And one last thing. My neice was over for dinner last Sunday. She is a Freshman at UW. The loonies there are registering voters and told her that it was OK to to register in more than one county, and that she should vote both the King Co ballot and the Asotin Co ballot she registered for when she turned 18 last spring. Looks like the Sec. of State will need to be checking for double registrations very carefully in that district (and other academic districts too).
Posted by: deadwood on October 19, 2006 08:38 PMAnd the proof, I think, is in the pudding: As best as I can tell, Owens has written exactly ZERO concurring opinions in her nearly six years on the Court. (I may have overlooked one or two.) And, incredibly, she's written less than ten dissenting opinions. Sure, she's joined her share of concurrences and dissents, but she's made no effort at all to put a personal stamp on the Court or, it seems, offer any leadership in developing the law.
It's hard to see how she can say she has an independent voice when she uses it so rarely. I wonder if she can explain why her pen has been so silent.
Posted by: Larry on October 20, 2006 10:13 AM'Johnson and other critics say Owens ... is a liberal "activist" judge who is too willing to decide policy matters that should be left to the Legislature.
But Owens suggests there are times the court has to play such a role.
"The Legislature is really behind the times socially," she said during a recent interview.'
Some expounding by Justice Owens on the role of the Supreme Court as social arbiter might be interesting.
Posted by: srodli on October 20, 2006 11:23 AMAsk her why women do not have the expectation of a right to privacy in the case of up-skirt photography?
Posted by: Palouse on October 20, 2006 11:35 AMTo put it mildly, Justice Owens has been hostile towards open government and public disclosure. For example, in Hangarnter v. City of Seattle, the Justices ruled that Seattle bureaucrats and Monorail officials didn't have to hand over public documents because the public request was "overbroad." In the same case, Justice Owens also ruled that public records were exempt under the "attorney-client privilege." Under this precedent, government officials only have to run public documents past their attorneys and those records are exempt from public purview.
In another open government case, Yousoufian v. King County, Justice Owens drastically limited the amount of penalties local governments are required to pay for unlawfully withholding public documents.
The most troubling open government case, however, was the Sound Transit eminent domain decision in Pierce County. In that case, Justice Owens joined the majority which ruled that a Web posting was sufficient notice of an eminent domain hearing, even though the landowner whose property was being condemned received no other public notice by Sound Transit.
The newspapers HATE Owens for these decisions.
You may also want to ask that MAROON Connelly, how as a so-called Journalism Professional, he and his rag-ass fish-wrapper could ever endorse Ownes because of these decisions....especially since Connelly's own employer is part of the Washington State Coalition for Open Government.
PULLLEASE stay focused on these decisions......and do not let Connellly off the hook either.
Posted by: aaaaaargh on October 20, 2006 03:38 PMI thought CJ Alexander's comments on those two opinions in the article in this month's Bar News seemed reasonable.
Posted by: renny on October 21, 2006 11:01 AMThis just in from Owens:
We regret that we will not be able to attend the scheduled forum sponsored by the Seattle Downtown Republican Club this afternoon at 5pm. Justice Owens and her opponent have appeared in numerous forums, some partisan, some not, and every time it has been a well-moderated, evenhanded debate.
Despite assurances that tonight's event would be no different, one of the scheduled moderators is in fact a donor to Stephen Johnson's campaign, has personally endorsed Johnson on his Blog, and is an outspoken critic of Justice Owens and many of her colleagues.
Typically moderators are bona fide journalists bound by professional ethics and prohibited from direct involvement in a campaign. Because one of the scheduled moderators of this event is not a journalist but very much an advocate for Johnson, we do not feel that it will be a level playing field.
This concern was apparently felt by Johnson as well, who demanded on Friday that another moderator be replaced.
Justice Owens and her opponent will be appearing together this Friday in Olympia at a public forum*, and other joint appearances are still possible.
We regret any inconvenience this has caused you, members of the public, the media, and the event planner.
This is wonderful news. There were a couple of Republicans who hadn't seen the light about Owens, and now can see her for the partisan that she is.
Bravo iban (here's another banana for ya!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 23, 2006 02:24 PMStefan (or Stafan) donated to the Johnson campaign (http://www.pdc.wa.gov/rptimg/Default.aspx?batchnumber=100169134&formtype=C3)
Stefan should do the right thing and give up his moderator role so the event can go forward without such an obvious conflict of interest.
Posted by: Daniel K on October 23, 2006 03:02 PMI will also be writing in John Groen over Chief Justice Gerry Alexander. Yes, I know this one is a done deal but I cannot in good conscience vote for Alexander or leave the box blank.
Posted by: Right Wing Wacko on October 23, 2006 03:54 PMOwens' first action, however, was to just cut and run - after she had known for a week that Stefan would be one of the moderators. Instead of lodging a protest, or having the common courtesy to give some notice, she cancels on the day of the event.
No guts, no class, no vote.
Posted by: sro on October 23, 2006 03:55 PMIt was nothing like a 'gotcha' session. Both Stefan Sharkansky and Joel Connelly asked reasonable and proper questions of both candidates. Theoretically, Justice Owens will respond on paper to Connelly's fine questions to her vacant seat, but based on her physical absence I'd doubt that her mental engagement is any more in evidence. Senator Johnson noted that, in comparison to the debate rules limiting time to answer, any deferred answers from her are like a take-home test [with no telling who actually drafted the answer-HB].
By pulling the plug at the last minute, Justice Owens has demonstrated a contempt for the political process that overlaps her contempt (evidenced by several of her SC decisions) for individual rights over government mandates no matter how unconstitutional. She deserves to lose this one.
PS - my wife heard on KUOW that the debate 'had been cancelled'. Was this an MSM attempt to kill attendance at the debate?
Posted by: Hank Bradley on October 23, 2006 07:42 PMHowever, if Steve Johnson were elected, there would be less stench on the Supreme bench !
Posted by: KS on October 23, 2006 07:52 PMThey don't have direct authority in these matters. The most they can do is report it to the King Co. Attorney, who do not have the resources to chase all the fraudsters.
Like other unenforceable (or at least unenforced) laws, they lead to more lawlessness and further erosion of the rule of law. Sad but true.
Posted by: deadwood on October 23, 2006 10:24 PMShe probably just didn't want to breathe the same air as you...
Posted by: Playin' Possum on October 24, 2006 07:26 AMWill they have an opportunity for similar exposure has they had with TVW? Will it be covered by TVW? What provisions are being made for the public to hear or see the debate? Are any of the moderators contributors to any of the PAC's that are supporting Owens? Should they recuse themselves? Who are the moderators? Will they or their firms have business before the court? Perhaps the public should know more before the forum to be able to judge the "fairness" of the venue.
Posted by: Smokie on October 24, 2006 08:15 AM