Richard Sanders
From Judgepedia
Richard B. Sanders is a Justice on the Washington Supreme Court. Justice Sanders was first elected to the Supreme Court by special election in 1995. In 1998 he was reelected to serve a second term of six years, and in November 2004 he was reelected to serve a third term.
Biographical
Justice Sanders is a native of Tacoma and spent the best years of his childhood there. He moved to Seattle where he graduated from Highline High School. While there he was elected president of his high school debate club, and he earned the rank of Eagle Scout. Justice Sanders received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of Washington after participating in the political science honors program. He thereafter earned his J.D. in 1969 from the University of Washington School of Law. While at the University, Justice Sanders wrote “The Devil’s Advocate,” a weekly column of opinion in The Daily, the student newspaper.[1]
Legal Education and Experience
During his 26 years of legal practice prior to becoming a Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Sanders tried several hundred cases at virtually every level of the court system and litigated more than 100 appeals (no fewer than 60 of which resulted in published opinions). Since coming to the Supreme Court he has become one of its most prolific writers and is recognized for his published opinions.
As a private practitioner he championed the civil rights of his clients and still regards protection of our constitutionally guaranteed liberties as the first duty of our highest court. Justice Sanders believes the court must protect all the legal rights of all the citizens who come before it all the time. “We have no second class citizens,” he adds. His special interest is the Washington State Constitution and often quotes his favorite passage: “[G]overnments . . . are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Const. art. I, § 1.
Awards and Associations
Justice Sanders has served as an adjunct professor teaching appellate advocacy at the UW School of Law; has written articles for professional journals; and has presented lectures to legal and civic organizations on diverse topics including civil liberties, land use, the Washington State Constitution, legal ethics, and Abraham Lincoln, among others. Justice Sanders enjoys inviting students and community groups to tour the Temple of Justice and to visit with him.
Political Affiliation and Campaign Contributions
In the 2004 campaign, Richard Sanders raised a total of $190,559. The top three industries are Lawyers and Lobbyists, with $39,915 raised, General Contractors, with $23,300 raised. The third industry in terms of campaign contributions is Home Builders, with $16,190.[2] For the complete summary of all campaign contributions for Sanders' election to the Washington Supreme Court, visit Follow the Money: Richard Sanders 2004.
In the News: Articles
Court rules in favor of traditional marriage (July 26, 2006)
In a 5-to-4 decision, the justices issued six opinions in the case, with some in the majority saying that the state legislature remained free to extend the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples. The four dissenting justices said the majority relied on speculation and circular reasoning to endorse discrimination against gay men and lesbians. The Washington decision consolidated two cases in which state trial courts had struck down a 1998 state law prohibiting same-sex marriages. The cases were brought by 19 gay and lesbian couples seeking the right to marry or to have their marriages from other jurisdictions recognized in Washington.
The controlling opinion, signed by three justices, reversed the lower courts, holding that the 1998 law, the Washington Defense of Marriage Act, was supported by rational reasons. “Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” Judge Barbara Madsen wrote in that opinion, “furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. We see no reason, however,” Justice Madsen added, “why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from enacting a the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington.”
Two other justices in the majority took a harder line in a concurring opinion. There is, wrote Justice James Johnson, joined by Justice Richard Sanders, “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage.” “This conclusion,” Justice Johnson continued, “may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by the courts.” The four dissenting justices, in three opinions, sharply attacked the majority. “The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens,” Justice Fairhurst wrote, adding that the 1998 law “was motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals.” Justice Bobbe J. Bridge went further, equating the majority’s position with favoring racial discrimination. The majority, she wrote, contended “that it is not our place to require equality for Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens.” Under that reasoning, she said, “there would have been no Brown v. Board of Education,” the 1954 United States Supreme Court school desegregation case.[3]
Court: Attorney-client privilege overrides open-records law (May 14, 2004)
Communications between government agencies and their lawyers are exempt from the state public-disclosure law, the Washington Supreme Court ruled May 13, 2004. In a 5-4 opinion, the court concluded that attorney-client privilege supersedes the requirements of the landmark state Public Disclosure Act, approved by voters as an initiative in 1972. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, writing for the majority, said it's clear the Legislature created the exemption when it amended the disclosure law, which makes most government documents available to the public, in 1987.
But, in a strongly worded dissent, Justice Charles Johnson labeled that conclusion "absurd," arguing it "renders ineffectual the (law's) strong mandate to agencies that they must disclose public information." News and open-government organizations reacted angrily to the ruling. "This decision has probably done more violence to the public-records act than any other decision they've done," said Seattle attorney Judith Endejan, who argued the case for the losing side and sits on the board of the Washington Coalition for Open Government. The ruling stemmed from two Seattle cases in which city officials, citing attorney-client privilege and other exemptions, refused to release some documents citizens had requested. One case involved the monorail, the other Sound Transit's light-rail line and a Pioneer Square "alcohol impact area." In his opinion, Alexander noted that the Legislature had added language to the Public Disclosure Act 17 years ago allowing agencies to withhold records whose release is prohibited by other state laws. Since another state law says attorneys can't be required to reveal communications with their clients without the clients' approval, the chief justice wrote, it follows that "documents that fall within the attorney-client privilege are exempt from disclosure.... " But Johnson, in his dissent, said that law is directed at lawyers, not government agencies, and so does not apply.
Justices Faith Ireland, Bobbe Bridge, Susan Owens and Mary Fairhurst sided with Alexander. Johnson's dissent was signed by Justices Barbara Madsen, Richard Sanders and Tom Chambers.[4]
On the Issues
On the Death Penalty
On Discrimination and Equal Protection
On Education
On Elections Law
On Employer and Employee Rights
On Government Accountability
On Negligence
On Personal Responsibility
On Property Rights
On Taxes
On Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
On Term Limits
On Tort Reform
See Also
External Links
- Reelect Richard Sanders
- Washington Courts: Richard Sanders
- Justice Sanders' Website
- Follow the Money: Richard Sanders 2004
- Supreme Court candidate Doesn't want bar rating
