WASHINGTON - August 30 - Candidates for the Washington Supreme Court have combined to raise over $1 million, according to pre-primary figures released this week by the state’s Public Disclosure Commission. Six candidates reported raising a combined $1,027,608, with three others certified to appear on the September 19 primary ballot not reporting any fundraising. Of the reporting candidates, only one has raised less than $100,000.

Among Washington candidates who reported raising money, the 2006 average to date is $171,268, a sharp increase from the 2004 average of $115,171. (Figures for this year are complete through August 22; figures from 2004 are complete through the entire election cycle.) Figures from the Institute on Money in State Politics indicate that Washington’s 2006 average – weeks before the primary – is already considerably higher than the national median for Supreme Court candidates in 2004, which was $123,732.

“As running for the Washington Supreme Court gets more expensive, fair and impartial justice comes under pressure,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, a nonpartisan national partnership. “When judges have to dial for dollars, people worry that courts will be accountable to special interest groups rather than the law and the Constitution.”

Two political committees that have publicly pledged to support Supreme Court candidates – FairPAC and Walking for Washington – have reported an additional $555,111 combined. Observers expect much of the third-party money to be spent on advertising for and against judicial candidates. Research by the Brennan Center for Justice indicates that television advertising run by third-party groups tends to be more negative than advertising run by the candidates themselves.

Interest groups have also been busy trying to corner candidates through aggressive questionnaires—like that developed by the “Faith and Freedom Network”—that rate candidates on their willingness to adopt an ideological agenda. Justice at Stake supports voter education efforts such as those developed by the sponsors of votingforjudges.org, which place a premium on candidate qualifications and experience rather than their personal views on hot button political or legal issues they may have to rule on.

###