December 2005

It’s Fundamental: Even When East Meets West

S. Brooke Taylor, WSBA President

It was one of several trips to county bar associations around the state, but this one would be different. In my election interview with the Board of Governors, in June of 2004, I had pledged, if elected, to visit every county bar that would have me. Incoming President Ron Ward embraced the idea, and over a period of six months the two of us, accompanied by our superb executive director, Jan Michels, had visited local bars in Snohomish, Spokane, Grant, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Ferry, and Yakima counties, with future trips planned for Clallam and Kitsap. Emphasis on visiting counties in Eastern Washington seemed appropriate, since 12 of 14 members of the Board of Governors were from the West, as were both the president and president-elect. It is no wonder lawyers (and voters) from east of the Cascades often feel disenfranchised. Maybe we could do something about that “East-West Thing.”

The annual Chelan-Douglas Dinner and Golf Tournament is one of the major local bar events in the state each year. The three of us eagerly accepted the invitation to attend the May 20, 2005, event, and, being a glutton for public humiliation, I opted to participate in the afternoon golf outing as well. It’s a great way to get acquainted with colleagues around the state, even if your game is high in both score and entertainment value.

My golfing partners included my host, Fourth District Governor Stan Bastian of the Jeffers Danielson firm, Chelan County Prosecutor Gary Riesen, and Steve Woods of the Wenatchee firm of Woods & Brangwin — three very welcoming hosts with varying degrees of golf proficiency. A very enjoyable front nine was interrupted with occasional sprinkles. Stan allowed as how, being from Port Angeles, I would not even recognize this annoyance as rain. But I also failed to recognize the ominous dark clouds which seemed to be circling the valley, looking for an opportunity to strike. On the coast, electrical storms are usually a benign curiosity, and the residents delight in counting “one-one thousand, two-one thousand” between the flash and the rumble to see how far they are from the lightning. It’s a pleasant game — on the coast.

In Wenatchee, it’s not a game. As our intrepid foursome started the back nine, the sky darkened, the wind picked up, and sprinkles turned to a steady downpour. By the time we had hit our second shots on the 13th fairway, we were forced to seek refuge under a giant birch tree. Two electric golf carts, four golf bags, 50 or so metal golfing implements, and four drenched lawyers huddled under one of nature’s most efficient lightning rods.

Noticing that we could not see any other golfers on the course in any direction, the discussion turned to a debate about the benefits of “sitting it out” versus the risks of golfers in electrical storms. Then out of nowhere came an intense crackle, instant illumination of the entire golf course around us, “one-one thous. . .” BOOM! — a ground-shaking, deafening blast of thunder overhead with electricity filling the air — the debate ended without a word. Two golf carts and four golfers sped cross-country to the pro shop as fast as the pounding rain allowed. At least 20 other golfers awaited us at the pro shop where the lightning strike had fried the TV set.

The storm passed quickly, as I’m told they usually do, and we finished the round, as golfers usually do. I had time before dinner to check into my hotel, change all my clothes, and think about what had happened. A story in the Wenatchee World reported that the lightning strike had blasted the Clardy family home just two blocks from the golf course, and that “the lightning bolt that hit the Clardy home was one of about 40 that struck Wenatchee and East Wenatchee during a brief but intense thunderstorm . . . .” True golfers are only concerned about one condition when contemplating a round of golf: “Is it light out?” I took some solace in that, but it didn’t explain why my hosts had me out in the middle of the golf course when all other locals had sought safety. Would they really bring me all the way over the Cascades only to see me roast in Apple Country? My ruminations on the subject have led me to one inescapable conclusion: it must be that “East-West Thing.”

The dinner at the Wenatchee Golf and Country Club was elegant, cordial, and thoroughly enjoyable. Attendees included more than 100 lawyers, judges, and spouses from the two counties, which share many miles of the mighty Columbia. Of particular note was the collegiality of the lawyers and judges from these two counties, the loss of which we had heard lamented in other venues. There was much talk about the trial of the case challenging the gubernatorial election, set to start that next Monday, pitting candidate against candidate, party against party, East against West. And we were honored by the presence of Chelan County Superior Court Judge John E. Bridges, who, with hundreds of pages of briefs, motions, and exhibits to review and what the AP has called “Washington State’s version of the Trial of the Century” only hours away, still found the time to join his colleagues for a few minutes at this annual event. The evening concluded with the thoughtful and inspiring remarks of President Ron, followed by a standing ovation, demonstrating once again his remarkable ability to connect with lawyers from all parts of our state.

But what was going on socially paled by comparison to what was going on in Chelan County Superior Court. The “Trial of the Century” started on schedule the following week with the presentation of evidence of alleged voting and vote counting irregularities. The executive branch had conducted an election, county by county, throughout the state. The election was conducted in compliance (or not) with rules and procedures adopted by the legislative branch at both state and local levels, and the legislative branch had also carved out the standards for judicial review.

When the dust settled, three vote counts had yielded three different results. The case had a definite East vs. West flavor to it, with the East having solidly supported the Republican candidate and having been outweighed by a strong west-side vote for the Democratic candidate, particularly from King County. Just as with the presidential election of 2000, it was now up to the judicial branch to decide who would be governor, certainly a daunting task for any man or woman who wears the robe. As with the Terri Schiavo case, it fell upon the shoulders of one state trial court judge to conduct a trial that would be watched nationally, and in this case, would determine the course of political control in our state for the next four years.

And once again, several of our own made us all proud to be lawyers. Judge Bridges conducted a thoughtful, balanced, and controlled trial featuring superb lawyering for both parties, dealing with complex issues of fact and law. Judge Bridges recognized early in his conclusions of law the appropriate role of the judiciary: “Election contests are governed by several general principles. Chief among them is the principle that the judiciary should exercise restraint in interfering with the elective process which is reserved to the people in the State Constitution. Unless an election is clearly invalid, when the people have spoken their verdict should not be disturbed by the courts. In adhering to the principle of judicial restraint, the Court should follow the rule that an informality or irregularity in an election which did not affect the result is not sufficient to invalidate the election.” Showing appropriate deference to the legislative branch, Judge Bridges concluded that: “. . . this election may not be set aside merely because the number of illegal or invalid votes exceed the margin of victory, because the election contest statute requires the contestant to show that the illegal votes or misconduct change the election’s result. The Washington State Legislature has, by enacting RCW 29A.68.110 and 29A.68.020, removed any other choice from this Court’s discretion.”

Judge Bridges ultimately concluded that the election was not “clearly invalid,” and therefore “should not be disturbed by the courts.” To the considerable credit of the decision maker, the ultimate ruling was accepted without appeal, the true mark of a solid decision. Washington’s new governor was legitimatized, and political life in Washington moved ahead, as it needed to do. The rule of law prevailed. Even in a highly charged partisan environment, the clear separation among the three branches of government was maintained. Excellent work by several Washington lawyers had been regularly featured on the nightly news. And the decision had been made that needed to by made, preserving peace, balance, and stability in a very complex world.
And we, as lawyers and judges, are presented with yet another example we can use as teachers, demonstrating the application of the rule of law, maintenance of the separation of powers, and the critical need for judicial independence.  

Brooke Taylor may be reached at 360-457-3327 or sbtaylor@plattirwintaylor.com. If you would like to write a letter to the editor on this topic, please e-mail it to letterstotheeditor@wsba.org or mail it to WSBA Bar News, Attn: Letters to the Editor, 2101 Fourth Ave., Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98121-2330.