Facts: Petitioner Stephen Eugster petitioned the Superior Court for Thurston County for a declaratory judgment that the division of the Washington Court of Appeals into districts of unequal populations violates the mandate of Article I §19 of the Washington State Constitution that all elections shall be free and equal. The trial court granted summary judgment for the respondent state of Washington.  Eugster appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Questions: Does Article I §19 require that districts for judicial elections be equally apportioned?

Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed the trial court, concluding that just as the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as not requiring that districts for judicial elections be equally apportioned, Article I §19 does not require that districts for judicial elections be equally apportioned given that the judiciary has obligations of impartiality and independence that do not apply to legislative and administrative elected officials, whose core function is to speak for their constituents, and that make the malapportionment of districts for judicial elections less constitutionally suspect.  The purpose of Article I §19, the Court held, is to prohibit the complete denial of the right to vote to a group of affected citizens rather than to prohibit mere vote dilution.

Docket No. 84380-5 (from Thurston Case No. 09-2-02873-4)

Petitioner: Stephen Eugster

(Counsel: Stephen Eugster)

Respondent: State of Washington

(Counsel: James Kendrick Pharris and Anne Elizabeth Egeler)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, June 16th, 2011

Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst
(Majority)

Johnson

Stephens

Wiggins