By Aubrie Hicks & Colin Mieling
Voting for judicial officers is hard, even for well-informed voters. This is especially true for our King County Superior, District, and Municipal Court judges, where their opinions are unpublished and there is often limited exposure to their work. Voting for Appellate and Supreme Court judicial candidates can be no less difficult.
About JCEC
To make judicial qualifications more accessible to the voters, the King County Bar Association (KCBA) formed the Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee (JCEC) to evaluate and rate judicial performances in 1948. In performing this function, the JCEC provides a critical service to the broader legal community and members of the public who want to make informed decisions when voting for judges.
The stated purpose of the JCEC is to “improve the judiciary in King County and certain appellate courts by rating Candidates on the basis of merit and, in the case of elections, to make public the ratings regarding the Candidates so that the public may be better informed.”1
The JCEC rates candidates who seek judicial office by appointment or election on the Seattle Municipal Court, King County District Court and Superior Courts, Division I of the Court of Appeals, and the Washington State Supreme Court.2
In 2023, a non-election year, our Committee evaluated twelve judicial candidates and provided ratings for Seattle Municipal Court (1), King County District Court (2), King County Superior Court (10), and Washington State Supreme Court (1).
The Review Process
The JCEC evaluation process is the same for each candidate that seeks a ranking from the KCBA. To be screened by the JCEC, all candidates are required to furnish the Committee with the Governor’s Uniform Judicial Evaluation Questionnaire, KCBA’s Supplemental Questionnaire, a Judicial Screening Reference Form, and writing sample.3
Committee members review these written materials in advance of each panel meeting and conduct numerous confidential reference checks for each candidate.4 Generally, each participating committee member is given between three to five references to interview.
As part of the process, candidates are required to disclose comprehensive information about their disciplinary histories, if any, which the Committee will consider.5 However, the fact that discipline has occurred in and of itself, shall not disqualify a candidate from receiving the highest rating.6 The Committee is also permitted to consider information about candidates from other sources as deemed necessary.7 Other sources of information may include but are not limited to contacts with people who have personal knowledge of the Candidate (whether or not listed by the Candidate as references), public records, electronic searches, professional discipline organizations, and judicial evaluation surveys.
Candidates requesting a rating from the Committee are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with JCEC Rules before requesting a rating. Candidates are also encouraged to request evaluations in a timely manner.8
Next, the attending committee members interview the judicial candidate, currently via Zoom. The candidate first makes a brief opening statement. The Committee members then proceed to question the candidate for approximately 30 minutes.9 Following a brief closing statement, the candidate is excused from the meeting and the panel confidentially deliberates before voting on a candidate’s rating by secret ballot.10
Candidates appearing before the Committee receive one of four ratings: “Not Qualified,” “Qualified,” “Well Qualified,” or “Exceptionally Well Qualified.”11 The criteria for the four ratings are set forth in JCEC Rule 9.2.12 The ratings issued by the Committee typically remain effective for a period of three years.13
The review process is by no means perfect. Nevertheless, it provides the public meaningful insight into how the King County Bar Association views a particular candidate’s ability to serve as a judicial officer, based on substantial input from individuals with knowledge about the candidate’s personal and professional background.
Bid for New Members
The JCEC cannot provide this service without the dedication of volunteers who care about the judiciary and are committed to the honest assessment of each judicial candidate. Our committee has room for, and needs, additional members who also share in this commitment.
Requirements To Serve
To serve as a lawyer member-at-large on the JCEC, candidates need only demonstrate they have been admitted to the highest court of one of the fifty states or to the bar of the District of Columbia for at least three years prior to joining the committee.14 Up to nine non-lawyer members may be appointed to serve three-year terms.15 The JCEC strives to seek diversity in its composition and encourages candidates of all backgrounds, practice areas, and years of practice to apply, so that the committee composition reflects the community and all participants in the legal system.16
Committee members of the JCEC may not endorse, campaign for, or contribute to any candidates for which the Committee has responsibility for while serving on the Committee and for one year after service.17 Additionally, Committee members are ineligible for election or appointment for any judicial position for which the Committee has responsibility during their time on the Committee and for one year following their time on the Committee.18
Reach Out To Join
If you are interested in serving on the Committee or learning more about its operations, please contact co-chairs Aubrie Hicks (aubrie@dobsonhicks.com) and Colin Mieling (mieling@sgb-law.com) or KCBA’s Member Services —Membership Program Manager Tom Lockyear at toml@kcba.org.
Aubrie Hicks is the Principal Attorney at Dobson Hicks PLLC in Seattle, WA. Colin Mieling is an attorney at Schroeter Goldmark & Bender in Seattle, WA.
1 King County Bar Association Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee Rules and Procedures 3.1.
2 KCBA JCEC Rule 4.
3 KCBA JCEC Rule 8.3; see also “Information about the KCBA Judicial Candidate Evaluation Ratings Process,” https://www.kcba.org/?pg=Judicial-Candidate-Evaluation-Ratings.
4 See KCBA JCEC Rules 8.8.1-8.8.3.
5 KCBA JCEC Rules 8.7-8.8.
6 KCBA JCEC RULE 8.8.
7 KCBA JCEC Rule 8.8.4.
8 See KCBA JCEC Rules 8.1 (“The Committee cannot guarantee that it will be able to rate a Candidate in any less than eight weeks after the Committee receives a completed Judicial Candidate Evaluation Questionnaire. . . from the Candidate.”)
9 KCBA JCEC Rule 8.10.2.
10 KCBA JCEC Rule 9.3.1.
11 KCBA JCEC Rule 9.1.
12 See KCBA JCEC Rule 9.2.
13 KCBA JCEC Rule 9.3.14.
14 KCBA JCEC Rule 5.2.
15 KCBA JCEC Rule 5.6.
16 KCBA JCEC Rule 5.9.
17 KCBA JCEC Rule 6.3.
18 KCBA JCEC Rule 6.4.
