To the Editor:
I object to the new court "rule" which adds to the class action rule by requiring that 25% of the "residual" funds in a class action case be given to the Legal Foundation of Washington. The rule also encourages courts to appropriate the rest of the money for LFW or for other causes that supposedly foster the purposes of the litigation.
The Supreme court does not have authority to appropriate money for the use of the Legal Foundation of Washington, which is merely a go-between for Columbia Legal services, or for anyone else.
All states must have a republican form of government, which means that they must have courts, and courts must be neutral and detached as to all parties in order to maintain their status as proper constitutional courts. This rule is a clear attempt to fund Columbia Legal services, formerly Evergreen, because most of the money from the Legal Foundation goes to Columbia. Columbia Legal is not a disinterested party or a part of government. They are advocates who maintain lobbyists in the legislature, and their policies are almost completely consanguineous with those of the Democratic party. They are almost completely non consanguineous with those of the Republican party, at least the conservative Republican party. When I last looked Columbia spent 10 to 20 million a year of the taxpayer's money, though they will say it is not the taxpayer's, There is no objective truth about the organization of society or about the distribution of wealth which would justify Columbia in saying that their lobbying should be blessed by the Supreme Court. People simply have different opinions and it is up to the voters to sort it out. Columbia is a partisan group that has no right to favored treatment from a court that must be neutral and detached.
If Columbia wants money from the public, they should go to the legislature, which in this state is majority Democratic. If they cannot get an appropriation from a majority party which is presumably sympathetic to their goals, they are not entitled to it.
These arguments apply equally to IOLTA, which is either a tax on banks or an expropriation of the rights of trust account clients. The supreme court does not have the authority to impose a tax on banks to fund political groups, or for that matter, any groups whatsoever.
The Supreme court should rescind this rule.
Roger Ley
Editor's Note: The Legal Foundation of Washington (LFW) is a not-for-profit corporation established by the Supreme Court to collect and distribute interest on attorneys' pooled trust accounts to legal aid programs across the state. These programs help low-income people facing urgent legal problems such as wrongful eviction, domestic violence, bankruptcy or being denied health benefits.
LFW administers IOLTA funds to nearly 30 legal aid programs statewide, including King County Bar Association Volunteer Legal Services. All of the legal aid programs funded by LFW accept clients based solely on need - none have any political affiliation. The primary mission of these legal aid programs is to ensure meaningful access to the justice system for low income people. Columbia Legal Services, one of LFW's grantees, represents its clients in the legislative arena when warranted by the clients' legal problems. The IRS permits nonprofit organizations to do a limited amount of legislative representation and LFW monitors Columbia Legal Services to ensure that they are in compliance with IRS rules.
The Washington Supreme Court properly amended Civil Rule 23 pursuant to its constitutionally vested power to regulate judicial practice and procedure. As required, the Court solicited input from the public on the amendment during the public comment period. Receiving no objections, the Court adopted the amendment, which had been endorsed by the Washington State Bar Association, the Superior Court Judges Association, the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association and the Washington Defense Trial Lawyers.
To the Editor:
Last month's Bar Bulletin article by Charles Wiggins ("PACs Put Judicial Impartiality at Risk") contained several errors and misquoted me. Unfortunately these errors and misquotation, while supporting Wiggins' arguments, reduce the public's understanding of the purpose and values of the Constitutional Law PAC (CLPAC).
On March 26, 2006, I was quoted by the Seattle P-I expressing my belief that it was unfortunate that extending limits on contributions to judges could lead to more independent expenditures. I believe that the law advocated by Wiggins and others will lead to more power for special interests and, more troubling, more negative campaigning in judicial elections.
Therefore, I was offended when Wiggins selectively quoted my remarks to make it appear I support the shift to independent expenditures and negative campaigning.
I have been active in campaigns since 1986 and a decision maker in campaigns since 1990. I have worked for Democrats, Republicans and nonpartisan candidates. I have never used negative campaigning because I view it as unethical and harmful to the public's trust in our government.
In my years of being active in public life, I've seen only two negative campaigns for the state Supreme Court: Susan Owens in 2000 and (to a lesser degree) Michael Spearman in 2002. This year's reelection effort by Susan Owens must be added to this list.
In 2002, Moxie Media, who now lead Citizens United for the Constitu-tion, ran the first ever attack TV ad in state Supreme Court history. They also were the consultant to the negative Owens and Spearman campaigns. There-fore, I am very worried that CUC will rely on negative campaigning this year.
Wiggins misrepresents the CLPAC in every particular he lists.
The committee is bipartisan and drawn entirely from the center of both political parties. I myself am a leader in the pro-choice wing of the Republican Party and was instrumental in an effort to defeat I-912.
Our endorsement process has been entrusted to a bipartisan committee of prominent attorneys. No other group active in judicial elections can point to as balanced a process.
In 2005, CLPAC, in its first endorsement, supported the reelection of Judge Susan Agid. We made this decision based on her legal skills, impartiality, and deference to the law and constitution. Our hope is to have a state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals where every judge is as well qualified as Judge Agid. In a few cases, this will mean supporting a challenger rather than an incumbent.
The CLPAC is concerned about a lack of judicial restraint. We sincerely believe that our courts should protect the whole constitution, both those elements that appeal to the right and the left. When judges refuse to do this, we call it judicial activism.
Alex Hays
