Why Wiggins for Justice

Extensive Experience:

Charlie has experience in every area of the Supreme Court’s work. He has tried cases as a lawyer and as a trial judge, argued appeals as a lawyer and decided them as a judge, and has handled hundreds of appeals in every area of the law. He is intimately familiar with the court rules, having used and helped to revise them over the past thirty years. He understands lawyer discipline through his experience as a hearing officer and Chair of the Disciplinary Board.

Integrity:

Charlie’s conduct as a lawyer is above reproach. He has never been charged with any violation of law or breach of ethics. He is hardworking and motivated, earning a Masters in Business Administration at night school while working full time and successfully building his own law firm. He is highly respected by colleagues, judges, and citizens across the state. Click here to see who is endorsing Charlie.

Charlie’s opponent, Justice Richard Sanders, was disciplined by the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct for improperly personally interviewing sexually violent predators who had cases pending before the Supreme Court. Nine judges unanimously agreed that Sanders’ conduct created an improper appearance that he might favor the sexually violent predators. 

Judges cannot decide a case in which they have an interest in the outcome, but in 2009, Sanders wrote a majority opinion for the Court that directly benefited him, since he was a party in a very similar case on appeal. The Court was forced to withdraw the decision and hear argument again without Sanders. News media across the state uniformly condemned Sanders’ participation in the case. (For one article among many denouncing Sanders' action, click here to see a Seattle P.I Editorial)

 Impartiality:

Charlie has proven he can be fair as a Court of Appeals judge and as a pro tem trial judge in superior court. As an attorney he has represented all types of clients in all types of cases, from individuals to corporations, from victims seeking damages to those accused of negligent conduct. Throughout his career he has represented many clients free of charge, all in search of justice. He has no agenda for the court, other than impartiality and justice.

By contrast, Justice Sanders consistently favors criminal defendants in appeals and rules against the prosecution. In criminal cases in which the Supreme Court is divided, over 350 cases, Justice Sanders has voted for the criminal defendant and against the prosecution 94% of the time. In lawyer discipline cases when the Court has been divided, Justice Sanders voted in favor of the lawyer and against discipline 91% of the time. Sanders dissented from the decision of the 8 other justices to disbar a lawyer who sexually molested a client who was 11 years old at the time. Sanders thought the lawyer should not be disbarred, but only suspended temporarily. 

Independence:

Limits on campaign spending prevent special interest groups from attempting to sway judges in their favor.

• Charlie testified in the legislature in favor of imposing campaign contribution limits in Washington judicial elections, which was signed into law in 2006. (Click here to see the American Judicature Society's Support of Campaign Finance Reform)
• Charlie testified in the legislature in favor of public financing of judicial elections, which has not been adopted yet.
• Charlie has worked diligently for the adoption of a rule to prevent a judge from sitting on the case of a party that spent large sums of money getting the judge elected, which is currently before the Supreme Court for the justices’ decision.

He continues to work to reduce the influence of special interest money in judicial elections. Justice Sanders opposed (and continues to oppose) any limits on campaign contributions.

In 2008, Charlie represented 27 former Supreme Court justices from 19 different states in an amicus brief for the United States Supreme Court in Caperton v. Massey Energy. In this case Caperton won a $50 million jury verdict against Massey Energy. The CEO of Massey subsequently spent $3 million to elect a new judge to the West Virginia Supreme Court. This new justice was part of a 3 to 2 decision that threw out the $50 million jury verdict. Charlie’s brief argued that the new justice’s ability to be impartial was compromised and that a justice should not sit on a case involving a company that donated money to his or her campaign. Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed the case and sent it back to the West Virginia Supreme Court. Charlie is working hard to protect the courts from special interests.

Justice Sanders joined a different amicus brief in Caperton v. Massey Energy. The brief Sanders joined argued that the West Virginia Supreme Court Justice should have been allowed to sit on the case, despite the fact that Massey’s CEO donated $3 million to his campaign. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected his position. 

A Heart for Justice:

To Charlie, the most important quality in a judge is a heart for justice. Both professionally and personally, Charlie has demonstrated a passion for the law and a deep desire to see justice served. In his article “Voting for Judges: Some Practical Suggestions,” Charlie asserts that “Every good judge tries to do justice, and every great judge strives passionately for justice.”