 FRONT PAGE Archive Index Feedback |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
| |||||
Seattle Press Editorial
Aug 29, 2002 -- Right manThe obvious choice is the best choice, as far as the race for the Washington Supreme Court Position 3 slot being vacated by Charles Z. Smith is concerned. Four are vying for the position. One of them stands out with the qualifications we need: a long judicial experience and the integrity to keep an open mind in each case that passes his hands.
His name is Michael Spearman.
We have nothing against the three other candidates—Stan Morse, Mary Fairhurst, James Johnson. Morse is a general civil law practitioner. Fairhurst is a senior assistant attorney general. Johnson is known to champion voter rights and the person behind the tax initiatives of Tim Eyman (a good trait for an advocate not a justice, we might add). All meet statutory qualifications, even earning admirations in their respective fields. But, compared to Spearman, it is hard to justify why they should be preferred.
Morse, Fairhurst and Johnson come with the promise to do what it takes to be a justice—open-minded, bringing no personal agenda into the bench. Spearman need not promise that. His experience already assures that.
Spearman has a long and wide experience on the bench, and he must have done well. Voters voted him thrice to the King County Superior Court. Judges—at least 20 of them—entrusted him, as the court’s criminal division head, with the role of supervising their work.
Prior to his work on the bench, he’s experienced as a prosecutor and public defendant. As a judge, he served in civil, criminal and juvenile courts. Both prosecutors and defense counsel appearing before him walk away mad half the time.
To us, the longer he serves on the bench, the better we are. To us, it’s time to elevate him. On September 17, we’re endorsing Michael Spearman for Position 3 at the Washington Supreme Court. He’s the right man.
Right thing
It’s hard to argue with success—so we won’t. But we’ll argue with the need to keep that success going, at least for another 7 years.
We refer to the Seattle Housing Levy. It’s up for renewal in the September 17 ballot. Not many know that, however.
The housing levy calls for $86 million in the next 7 years to, among others, build 1,700 affordable rental housing units. It proposes to do that by increasing property taxes by an average of $15 a year, from $34 to $49.
It has the right to do so, we believe. It never failed us before.
The 1981 Senior Housing Bond produced 1,198 apartments for senior citizens, 20 percent more than intended. The 1986 Housing Levy produced 1,818 apartments for families and persons with disabilities, 82 percent higher than expected. The 1995 Housing Levy produced 2,073 apartments, 713 more than the 1,360-goal.
Surely, you can’t argue with that, but you can keep it going. It’s the right thing to do. On September 17, we’re endorsing the Seattle Housing Levy.
Reader Comments
Discuss this article in the forums!
No comments yet!