Comments on: Statute, constitution conflict over when a judge can be removed from office http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/ Talking WA politics. Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:15:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Jocshan http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-824 Jocshan Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:30:33 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-824 While it is undoubtedly true that a judge may only be removed in one of two fashions: impeachment by the Legislature; or removal by the Washington Supreme Court upon recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC), it is also true that “removal” is only one of eight separate and specific conditions that will render the office vacant under RCW 42.12.010 which is captioned “Causes of vacancy.” RCW 42.12.010 explicitly addresses the question of when does, “(e)very elective office…” in Washington become “…vacant?” The statute then answers this question by stating, “on the happening of any of the following events:” “Removal” is listed in subsection (3) of RCW 42.12.010 as one of those events. “Conviction of a felony” is listed in subsection (5). “Death of the incumbent” is the cause of vacancy in subsection (1). “Resignation” is the cause in subsection (2). Consequently, if Hecht dies or resigns, his office is vacant even though he was never “removed.” Similarly, Hecht’s felony conviction will also cause his office to become vacant even though he was never “removed” because “removal” is listed in subsection (3) as an entirely separate fact that will cause vacancy. There is no conflict between the statute and the constitution on this. While it is undoubtedly true that a judge may only be removed in one of two fashions: impeachment by the Legislature; or removal by the Washington Supreme Court upon recommendation of the Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC), it is also true that “removal” is only one of eight separate and specific conditions that will render the office vacant under RCW 42.12.010 which is captioned “Causes of vacancy.” RCW 42.12.010 explicitly addresses the question of when does, “(e)very elective office…” in Washington become “…vacant?” The statute then answers this question by stating, “on the happening of any of the following events:” “Removal” is listed in subsection (3) of RCW 42.12.010 as one of those events. “Conviction of a felony” is listed in subsection (5). “Death of the incumbent” is the cause of vacancy in subsection (1). “Resignation” is the cause in subsection (2). Consequently, if Hecht dies or resigns, his office is vacant even though he was never “removed.” Similarly, Hecht’s felony conviction will also cause his office to become vacant even though he was never “removed” because “removal” is listed in subsection (3) as an entirely separate fact that will cause vacancy. There is no conflict between the statute and the constitution on this.

]]> By: pgroup http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-821 pgroup Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:55:04 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-821 And the paychecks just keep on coming. A paid vacation at over 130K per year. Sweet for him. Does he have enough class to resign? Do pigs fly? And the paychecks just keep on coming. A paid vacation at over 130K per year. Sweet for him.

Does he have enough class to resign? Do pigs fly?

]]> By: reformedliberal http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-818 reformedliberal Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:52:49 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-818 @ alexhays... Criminal convictions or no, I believe that Hecht is still the better judge. Armijo needed to go, and we are rid of him. I'm not seeing a downside so far. @ alexhays…

Criminal convictions or no, I believe that Hecht is still the better judge. Armijo needed to go, and we are rid of him. I’m not seeing a downside so far.

]]> By: reformedliberal http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-817 reformedliberal Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:50:31 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-817 @ Jocshan... RCW Title 42 notwithstanding, this is, after all, about a judge. And we all know that judges are really above the law. Don't believe me? Wait until his sentence is announced, that will be the proof. @ Jocshan…

RCW Title 42 notwithstanding, this is, after all, about a judge. And we all know that judges are really above the law.

Don’t believe me? Wait until his sentence is announced, that will be the proof.

]]> By: johnearl http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-816 johnearl Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:24 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-816 alexhays: My post was tongue-in-cheek, but if you want to engage... You have repeatedly referenced that huffingtonpost.com article as some sort of validation of your beliefs, but when I read it I miss the part where Rob Ritchie states that RCV helped Washam win. Let's review... (I've edited for brevity, but have included the entire quote at the end for veracity). "I believe it's only a matter of time before IRV becomes a fixture in our politics... (snip) But before that transition happens, IRV advocates will have to beat back the inevitable backlash due to partisans and special interests that measure a reform not by how it performs for voters, but whether it helps their side win.(snip) That's why instant runoff voting is the subject of a repeal attempt in Pierce County (WA) this year, where insider county political leaders became uneasy in the wake of last year's elections. (snip) Not only that, but in a down-ballot race, an independent -- horrors of horrors -- defeated several elected Republicans and Democrats. To cap things off, several races didn't go to the best-funded candidate, something that always makes special interests nervous." Mr. Ritchie's point is that incumbents, special interests, and political operatives will ("are", aren't you) work tirelessly to defeat a system that they cannot control. Whether Mr. Washam won because of RCV, or because of the change to Non-Partisan races, or because the leading Republican in the race did not actually run a campaign (and so siphoned votes away from the other republican), we may never really know and Mr. Ritchie does not assert. What we do know is that more voters chose him as their first choice - a startling fact that politico's such as yourself are unable to come to terms with. So you have chosen to use this last election as the scape goat for why we should replace RCV with a system you can better control. Sorry, you'll have to throw something else at the wall and see if it sticks. (Entire quoted string follows...) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/lessons-from-downtown-bus_b_219267.html I believe it's only a matter of time before IRV becomes a fixture in our politics -- that within a decade the phrase "Rock the Vote" will effectively be replaced by "Rank the Vote." But before that transition happens, IRV advocates will have to beat back the inevitable backlash due to partisans and special interests that measure a reform not by how it performs for voters, but whether it helps their side win. Call it "outcome-based evaluation. " An electoral reform is only as good as what it does for your special interest in the short-term, not what it does for the democratic process as a whole. That's why instant runoff voting is the subject of a repeal attempt in Pierce County (WA) this year, where insider county political leaders became uneasy in the wake of last year's elections. In the highly competitive county executive race, a Republican had a plurality lead after counting first choices, but lost to a Democrat when the field was narrowed to two -- so some Republicans aren't happy. However, the winning Democrat -- the first woman county executive in Washington State history -- wasn't the favorite of the Democratic Party establishment and was outspent by another Democrat -- so some establishment Democrats aren't happy. Not only that, but in a down-ballot race, an independent -- horrors of horrors -- defeated several elected Republicans and Democrats. To cap things off, several races didn't go to the best-funded candidate, something that always makes special interests nervous. alexhays:

My post was tongue-in-cheek, but if you want to engage…

You have repeatedly referenced that huffingtonpost.com article as some sort of validation of your beliefs, but when I read it I miss the part where Rob Ritchie states that RCV helped Washam win. Let’s review…

(I’ve edited for brevity, but have included the entire quote at the end for veracity).

“I believe it’s only a matter of time before IRV becomes a fixture in our politics… (snip) But before that transition happens, IRV advocates will have to beat back the inevitable backlash due to partisans and special interests that measure a reform not by how it performs for voters, but whether it helps their side win.(snip)

That’s why instant runoff voting is the subject of a repeal attempt in Pierce County (WA) this year, where insider county political leaders became uneasy in the wake of last year’s elections. (snip)

Not only that, but in a down-ballot race, an independent — horrors of horrors — defeated several elected Republicans and Democrats. To cap things off, several races didn’t go to the best-funded candidate, something that always makes special interests nervous.”

Mr. Ritchie’s point is that incumbents, special interests, and political operatives will (“are”, aren’t you) work tirelessly to defeat a system that they cannot control.

Whether Mr. Washam won because of RCV, or because of the change to Non-Partisan races, or because the leading Republican in the race did not actually run a campaign (and so siphoned votes away from the other republican), we may never really know and Mr. Ritchie does not assert. What we do know is that more voters chose him as their first choice – a startling fact that politico’s such as yourself are unable to come to terms with. So you have chosen to use this last election as the scape goat for why we should replace RCV with a system you can better control.

Sorry, you’ll have to throw something else at the wall and see if it sticks.

(Entire quoted string follows…)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-richie/lessons-from-downtown-bus_b_219267.html

I believe it’s only a matter of time before IRV becomes a fixture in our politics — that within a decade the phrase “Rock the Vote” will effectively be replaced by “Rank the Vote.” But before that transition happens, IRV advocates will have to beat back the inevitable backlash due to partisans and special interests that measure a reform not by how it performs for voters, but whether it helps their side win. Call it “outcome-based evaluation. ” An electoral reform is only as good as what it does for your special interest in the short-term, not what it does for the democratic process as a whole.

That’s why instant runoff voting is the subject of a repeal attempt in Pierce County (WA) this year, where insider county political leaders became uneasy in the wake of last year’s elections. In the highly competitive county executive race, a Republican had a plurality lead after counting first choices, but lost to a Democrat when the field was narrowed to two — so some Republicans aren’t happy. However, the winning Democrat — the first woman county executive in Washington State history — wasn’t the favorite of the Democratic Party establishment and was outspent by another Democrat — so some establishment Democrats aren’t happy. Not only that, but in a down-ballot race, an independent — horrors of horrors — defeated several elected Republicans and Democrats. To cap things off, several races didn’t go to the best-funded candidate, something that always makes special interests nervous.

]]> By: alexhays http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-813 alexhays Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:00:46 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-813 John Earl: I appreciate the fact you love RCV -- but your post is nonsense and off topic. Two people filed for this office, one was viewed as a poor judge and the other was, unbeknownst to most, a criminal. I compared both and chose the crook, better I'd voted for the low ranked incumbent I think. And according to the man who gave your campaign $32,000 in support, Fair Vote Executive Director Rob Richie, RCV *did* help Washam win. The nations top IRV advocate says you are wrong. John Earl: I appreciate the fact you love RCV — but your post is nonsense and off topic.

Two people filed for this office, one was viewed as a poor judge and the other was, unbeknownst to most, a criminal. I compared both and chose the crook, better I’d voted for the low ranked incumbent I think.

And according to the man who gave your campaign $32,000 in support, Fair Vote Executive Director Rob Richie, RCV *did* help Washam win. The nations top IRV advocate says you are wrong.

]]> By: Jocshan http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-811 Jocshan Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:45:13 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-811 RCW 42.12.010(5) seems pretty clear. "Every elective office shall become vacant on the happening of any of the following events:..(5) His or her conviction of a felony...." It is an automatic thing, and interestingly, it does not affect the office holder; it affects the office itself. Conviction of a felony simply and mechanically empties the office of its contents in much the same way that the act of vomiting empties the contents of one's stomach. A "conviction" becomes official when the court enters a judgment of conviction. That will happen on November 19th. Hecht could move to stay the operation of the statute, but the court will be without grounds to do so unless the verdict is set aside before November 19th. Hecht cannot appeal before the 19th, and in any event an appeal will not be grounds to stay the operation of the statute because the conviction remains in legal effect during the appeal process. The Comission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) exists to recommend the removal or discipline of judges. The CJC will have nothing to decide in February because Hecht could not be removed from an office that had automatically become vacant the previous November. RCW 42.12.010(5) seems pretty clear. “Every elective office shall
become vacant on the happening of any of the following events:..(5) His
or her conviction of a felony….” It is an automatic thing, and
interestingly, it does not affect the office holder; it affects the
office itself. Conviction of a felony simply and mechanically empties
the office of its contents in much the same way that the act of
vomiting empties the contents of one’s stomach. A “conviction” becomes
official when the court enters a judgment of conviction. That will
happen on November 19th. Hecht could move to stay the operation of the statute, but the court will be without grounds to do so unless the
verdict is set aside before November 19th. Hecht cannot appeal before
the 19th, and in any event an appeal will not be grounds to stay the
operation of the statute because the conviction remains in legal effect
during the appeal process. The Comission on Judicial Conduct (CJC) exists to recommend the removal or discipline of judges. The CJC will have nothing to decide in February because Hecht could not be removed from an office that had automatically become vacant the previous November.

]]> By: Jupiter25 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-808 Jupiter25 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:26:04 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-808 This smacks of a venetta against Judge Hecht by the losing candidate, through the actions of his son -- poor losers. The "powers that be" just can't stand to have an outsider in any elected office. Another case of the good 'ole boys wanting to control everything. This smacks of a venetta against Judge Hecht by the losing candidate, through the actions of his son — poor losers. The “powers that be” just can’t stand to have an outsider in any elected office. Another case of the good ‘ole boys wanting to control everything.

]]> By: Andrew http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-798 Andrew Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:02:02 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-798 Judge Armijo was a bad judge and yet no candidate was willing to challenge him, or any of the other 21 judges as well. A few certainly deserved a challenge. Only attorney Michael Hecht was willing to put himself forward as a challenger. Hect deserves credit for defeating Judge Armijo. It will take a few days or couple weeks to see what officially happens next - including the possibility of appeal. The same thing happens in King County where thay have over 50 judges and very few are challenged. The problem is the appointment process has its drawbacks as well. Lawyers need to know thay can challenge and not lose standing in the legal community but the truth is they do lose standing, and become political cowards, and yet only lawyers are allowed to file for judicial positions. Maybe it is time to widen the nomination process so more judges are challenged, even by a few non-lawyers. Judge Armijo was a bad judge and yet no candidate was willing to challenge him, or any of the other 21 judges as well. A few certainly deserved a challenge. Only attorney Michael Hecht was willing to put himself forward as a challenger. Hect deserves credit for defeating Judge Armijo. It will take a few days or couple weeks to see what officially happens next – including the possibility of appeal.

The same thing happens in King County where thay have over 50 judges and very few are challenged. The problem is the appointment process has its drawbacks as well.

Lawyers need to know thay can challenge and not lose standing in the legal community but the truth is they do lose standing, and become political cowards, and yet only lawyers are allowed to file for judicial positions. Maybe it is time to widen the nomination process so more judges are challenged, even by a few non-lawyers.

]]> By: entrepreneur http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/2009/10/28/judge-hecht-will-lose-his-seat-on-the-bench-the-only-question-is-when/#comment-796 entrepreneur Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:50:27 +0000 http://blog.thenewstribune.com/politics/?p=949#comment-796 The local bar has only itself to blame for this mess, when its poll of the judges slams Armijo but then the cowards refuse to run a decent candidate aganst him. And now "guess who" gets to appont her hand picked choice.Can we all say " campaign donor" ? The local bar has only itself to blame for this mess, when its poll of the judges slams Armijo but then the cowards refuse to run a decent candidate aganst him. And now “guess who” gets to appont her hand picked choice.Can we all say ” campaign donor” ?

]]>