In a ruling that avoids a criminal justice migraine for Spokane, the state Supreme Court reverses appeals court on judicial jurisdiction case.
In a 9-0 decision published this morning, the Washington Supreme Court has reversed a state court of appeals panel’s conclusion that a Spokane County district court judge had no right to decide local, municipal court cases. The complicated ruling reinstates the convictions of Lawrence Rothwell and Henry Smith who, with the Center’s assistance, had appealed their 2005 convictions in proceedings before Spokane District Court Judge Patti Walker.
The reach of today’s opinion goes well beyond the convictions of Rothwell and Smith. Had the Supreme Court upheld the appeals court ruling, it would have called into question virtually every conviction in Spokane County over a fourteen year period in which district
court judges, like Walker, had ruled on prosecutions of Spokane municipal code violations. Thus, today’s ruling spared the city the ordeal of possibly retrying countless cases, at a cost that may have reached into the millions of dollars for city taxpayers.
“We are thrilled with the outcome in this case,” said Spokane Mayor Mary Verner, upon learning of the court’s unanimous decision. “This is a win for the City and its taxpayers.”
Still, the obvious silver-lining in the Rothwell/Smith litigation for both sides is Mayor Verner’s decision, in the wake of the court of appeals ruling, to forge ahead and create a separate Municipal Court for city cases as the law, currently, requires. The new municipal court opened for business in January of this year and, by all accounts, has proven a remarkable success with three new appointed judges. Candidates for the three positions will go to Spokane city voters in this fall’s election.
“We are following through with our commitment to better justice sooner,” Mayor Verner said today, in reference to the new municipal court. “Our court is making changes that are resulting in faster case resolution, reduced jail costs, and greater efficiencies.”
“I can’t say that I’m thrilled with the court’s ruling today. We didn’t agree with the court’s invalidation of the legislature’s requirement that judges hearing city cases be chosen by city voters,” said CFJ Chief Catalyst Breean Beggs. “It’s just a real stretch to say the legislature was being less than clear in wanting municipal judges to be elected by municipal voters. We don’t see the loophole that the court found in the law that existed at the time.
“The underlying core value that the legislature has clearly been trying to reach is for one person, one vote in municipal elections. If, as in Judge Walker’s situation, you allow county voters to choose city judges, the effect is you dilute the rights of city voters, and that’s why the Center for Justice got involved in this case.”
“Luckily for Spokane,” Beggs added, “the Mayor responded to the previous rulings at the court of appeals and had largely cured the prior problems by establishing a truly independent municipal court.
“The effect of the court’s decision today is to spare the city the daunting task of cleaning up more than a decade worth of compromised criminal convictions,” he said. “But whether you like today’s decision or not, it’s clear that just bringing this case, and challenging the old system, inspired the city to deliver on a new system of municipal justice that’s much more responsive to the voters and, frankly, we agree with the Mayor that it’s delivering a higher quality of justice for city taxpayers. So that’s a big positive in this and we shouldn’t lose sight of it.”
Walker was elected in 2002 in a county-wide election and the Center’s contention on behalf of Rothwell and Smith is that state law requires that persons prosecuted for violations of municipal laws be tried by judges who have been elected by voters of the municipality.
In a November 2007 decision, a three judge panel of the court of appeals agreed, 2-1, with the Center’s arguments in the case.
“RCW 3.46.063(1) requires that each full-time equivalent judicial position be filledby election,” the appeals court concluded. “The words “full-time equivalent” refers to hours per week of judicial time, so more than one person could fill a position. But all must be elected. RCW 3.46.063(1). Any additional positions that equal one-half of a full-time position or more must also be filled by election. RCW 3.46.063(2). And only city voters may vote for municipal judges. RCW 3.46.070.”
In its ruling today, however, the Supreme Court reasoned that there was language in a since-repealed state statute regarding the selection of municipal judges that “suggests the legislature knew it was creating a conflict” when it changed the law in 1993. The 1993 change, on its face, can be read to require that each full-time equivalent position judge (even if filled by two or more part-time judges) “may be filled only by election.”
Despite statutory language in the then-law that required “only voters of the city shall vote for municipal judges” the opinion written by Justice James Johnson found that this provision of the law was not iron-clad. Instead, the decision reasoned that the legislature in 1993 did not explicitly intend for the then-new statutory language to totally supplant another provision of state law, enacted in 1984, that, in the court’s opinion, created an alternative path to service as a municipal court judge.
“Minus the conflicting procedural clause,” Judge Johnson’s opinion reasoned, “the balance of former RCW 3.46.060 can be harmonized with former RCW 3.46.063. By agreement between the City and the County, all district court judges were part time judges in the municipal department. Thus, upon the election of district court judges, the municipal court positions were filled ‘by election,” as required by former RCW 3.46.063. That is exactly what happened in Judge Walker’s case. She was elected to the district court and, as a consequence of her election, became a part time municipal court judge; no other procedure was required.”
A key to the court’s decision today is that the justices found that the clause “[o]nly voters of the city shall vote for municipal judges” applied only to full time municipal judges. While acknowledging that the legislature didn’t explicitly say so, the court inferred from other sections of the statute that the legislature would accept the legitimacy of municipal rulings by judges like Judge Walker who was elected to a County district court seat but assigned, part-time, to hear municipal court cases.
“[Judge Walker's] appointment as a municipal court judge,” the court ruled, “was a direct result of her election and therefore was not inconsistent with former RCW 3.46.063, which required municipal court positions to be filled by election. Judge Walker’s election was for a district court office, not full time municipal judge, and therefore her election did not have to be only by city voters under former RCW 3.46.070.
In 2008, as the Rothwell/Smith cases were working their way toward today’s decision, the legislature clarified its intent again to reiterate that municipal court judges must be chosen by municipal elections.
“I think we at the Center all agree that the law is clear now, and that we won’t be going back to the old system,” Beggs said.
–Tim Connor
###
No comments yet.