Inside Olympia -- Former Washington State Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madsen

WEBVTT
1
00:00:00.280 --> 00:00:04.160
Support for TVW podcasts provided by the Washington State Association
2
00:00:04.280 --> 00:00:08.560
of Counties and the Washington Indian Gaming Association. This week
3
00:00:08.640 --> 00:00:11.519
on Inside Olympia, she spent more than three decades on
4
00:00:11.679 --> 00:00:16.000
Washington Supreme Court. Now Justice Barbara Madsen has retired. She
5
00:00:16.079 --> 00:00:18.719
reflects on her long career, the state of the courts,
6
00:00:18.839 --> 00:00:20.640
and the role of women in the judiciary.
7
00:00:20.839 --> 00:00:24.039
She joins us for an exit interview. Support for Inside
8
00:00:24.079 --> 00:00:25.399
Olympia provided by.
9
00:00:29.399 --> 00:00:32.399
From the TVW studio It's Inside Olympia.
10
00:00:32.719 --> 00:00:34.039
The host, Austin.
11
00:00:33.719 --> 00:00:41.119
Jenkins, Welcome to Inside Olympia. She was the first woman
12
00:00:41.240 --> 00:00:44.439
elected by popular vote to the Washington State Supreme Court
13
00:00:44.679 --> 00:00:47.679
and the first woman selected by her colleagues to serve
14
00:00:47.719 --> 00:00:51.000
two terms as Chief Justice. Now, after more than three
15
00:00:51.079 --> 00:00:54.840
decades in the High Court, Justice Barbara Madson has retired.
16
00:00:55.439 --> 00:00:58.920
What is her legacy, what were her most memorable opinions,
17
00:00:59.079 --> 00:01:01.079
and what are her thoughts in the current state of
18
00:01:01.119 --> 00:01:03.880
the judiciary. Joining me for the full hour this week
19
00:01:03.880 --> 00:01:07.519
for an exit interview is former Justice Barbara Medson.
20
00:01:08.120 --> 00:01:09.480
Welcome to the program, Good to see.
21
00:01:09.359 --> 00:01:11.439
You, Thank you, appreciate you inviting me.
22
00:01:11.680 --> 00:01:15.359
Congratulations on this transition to what some people call preferment
23
00:01:15.400 --> 00:01:17.200
as supposed to retirement, and we'll be talking about what
24
00:01:17.200 --> 00:01:19.799
you'll be doing in this next chapter of life. Should
25
00:01:19.799 --> 00:01:23.040
also note you're not exactly off the hook and done
26
00:01:23.159 --> 00:01:26.200
being a justice. Why do you explain how this transition
27
00:01:26.840 --> 00:01:28.599
works before we get into why you're leaving.
28
00:01:29.640 --> 00:01:33.120
I was hearing cases up through the winter term, and
29
00:01:34.319 --> 00:01:37.359
we have a state statute that provides that a justice
30
00:01:37.400 --> 00:01:40.840
who's retiring should continue for sixty days as a ProTem
31
00:01:40.959 --> 00:01:43.920
judge to finish the cases that they heard in the
32
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:47.239
term preceding the retirement, and so that's the period in
33
00:01:47.280 --> 00:01:51.400
which I'm operating now, is that period of ProTem to
34
00:01:51.480 --> 00:01:54.439
finish the cases that I sat on. My hope is
35
00:01:54.439 --> 00:01:58.879
that they finish soon, but realistically it could be months
36
00:01:58.920 --> 00:02:00.879
before I actually retire.
37
00:02:00.879 --> 00:02:05.079
Because, at least in Supreme Court Land not things don't
38
00:02:05.079 --> 00:02:05.920
always happen quickly.
39
00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:06.840
No, that would be true.
40
00:02:06.920 --> 00:02:11.240
Okay, well, I think the starting point before we talk
41
00:02:11.240 --> 00:02:12.879
about your legacy and how you came to the court
42
00:02:12.879 --> 00:02:15.960
in the first place, is to understand why you're leaving
43
00:02:16.240 --> 00:02:19.919
now before your six year term is up. Of course,
44
00:02:19.919 --> 00:02:22.039
this is in the context of a lot of change
45
00:02:22.039 --> 00:02:25.439
on the court right now. People leaving being appointed. There's
46
00:02:25.439 --> 00:02:28.680
going to be several Supreme Court races on the ballot
47
00:02:28.680 --> 00:02:32.199
this fall, so why leave before your term is up?
48
00:02:32.599 --> 00:02:33.360
And why leave now?
49
00:02:36.120 --> 00:02:39.800
I had many friends who had retired, and I was
50
00:02:39.919 --> 00:02:43.840
talking to those folks and telling them I can't decide
51
00:02:43.879 --> 00:02:46.680
when I want to leave, and they said, you'll know
52
00:02:47.000 --> 00:02:50.360
when you know. And that's just how it came about.
53
00:02:50.520 --> 00:02:54.240
Is I realized that I had finished this chapter and
54
00:02:54.280 --> 00:02:56.120
I was ready to move to something else.
55
00:02:56.919 --> 00:02:58.800
Part of it is my age.
56
00:03:00.800 --> 00:03:04.319
Retirement for justices is seventy five. I turned seventy four
57
00:03:04.400 --> 00:03:08.840
this year, so I'm very close to my retirement mandatory retirement,
58
00:03:09.639 --> 00:03:15.120
but one never knows, and I have energy now and
59
00:03:15.240 --> 00:03:18.240
I would like to try my hand at something else.
60
00:03:18.400 --> 00:03:21.479
So part of it was thinking, if I'm going to
61
00:03:21.479 --> 00:03:23.800
start down a new path, I need the energy and
62
00:03:24.199 --> 00:03:28.000
enthusiasm to do it. And also a part of it
63
00:03:28.120 --> 00:03:32.800
was that during COVID my husband was diagnosed with ALS
64
00:03:33.520 --> 00:03:35.080
and I was his nurse.
65
00:03:37.280 --> 00:03:38.680
He asked me to.
66
00:03:38.680 --> 00:03:41.599
Run for reelection in twenty twenty two when he was
67
00:03:41.680 --> 00:03:46.280
very ill, and I wanted to honor his request. He
68
00:03:46.360 --> 00:03:49.479
thought that I was making a contribution that was unique.
69
00:03:50.199 --> 00:03:56.240
He said, you will find the transition easier if you
70
00:03:56.360 --> 00:03:59.479
are in familiar territory, and so that was also.
71
00:03:59.280 --> 00:04:01.000
A part of it, and we should know he passed
72
00:04:01.039 --> 00:04:04.479
away subsequently of I'm sorry for your loss. You know,
73
00:04:05.039 --> 00:04:08.319
you were married for many decades, and he had his
74
00:04:08.439 --> 00:04:12.240
own illustrious career in the law as well, working in
75
00:04:12.240 --> 00:04:19.720
public defense, and was well regarded, well respected, so he
76
00:04:19.800 --> 00:04:21.439
encouraged you to run. You knew you wouldn't be able
77
00:04:21.439 --> 00:04:24.240
to finish an entire six year term because of the
78
00:04:24.319 --> 00:04:25.879
mandatory retirement age.
79
00:04:26.199 --> 00:04:28.040
There is I don't know if.
80
00:04:27.920 --> 00:04:31.879
It's growing pushbacker criticism, but there is some criticism that
81
00:04:31.920 --> 00:04:36.240
I'm hearing of this trend we've established in the state
82
00:04:36.319 --> 00:04:39.600
of justices more often than not leaving before their terms
83
00:04:39.600 --> 00:04:44.199
are up, allowing the governor to appoint and then you know,
84
00:04:44.800 --> 00:04:46.279
if you're in the seat, you do seem to have
85
00:04:46.360 --> 00:04:50.839
an advantage. Can you address that criticism, whether it's the
86
00:04:50.879 --> 00:04:53.040
criticism that you ran knowing you couldn't finish the term
87
00:04:53.079 --> 00:04:55.279
in the first place, or that you're leaving a year
88
00:04:55.319 --> 00:04:59.920
before your mandatory retirement and giving the governor another appointment.
89
00:05:02.639 --> 00:05:05.680
I would have finished the term if I were able,
90
00:05:07.040 --> 00:05:10.360
so I had no plan to leave the seat to
91
00:05:10.399 --> 00:05:14.240
the governor's appointment. That was not my intention. I felt
92
00:05:14.240 --> 00:05:18.000
that I had more to contribute, and I was deeply
93
00:05:18.040 --> 00:05:22.439
involved in a number of the initiatives that the Court's undertaken.
94
00:05:22.560 --> 00:05:28.279
One in particular is bringing it up into being a
95
00:05:28.319 --> 00:05:32.079
case management system for the courts of limited jurisdiction and
96
00:05:32.160 --> 00:05:36.800
also an appellate court system case management. And it's a
97
00:05:37.040 --> 00:05:43.519
very complex undertaking because every county court is independent can
98
00:05:43.519 --> 00:05:45.600
decide whether or not to go onto the state system
99
00:05:45.759 --> 00:05:49.120
or not. We had we had it was like blood letting.
100
00:05:49.800 --> 00:05:55.600
Counties were dropping out wanting to have us build an
101
00:05:55.759 --> 00:06:00.560
enterprise repository, which was kind of an off rand. We
102
00:06:00.600 --> 00:06:02.920
had to go to the legislature get millions of dollars
103
00:06:02.920 --> 00:06:05.600
to build that so that they could put their information
104
00:06:05.759 --> 00:06:09.560
or have their information available in this repository, so that
105
00:06:09.639 --> 00:06:12.639
all judges across the state could be informed of the
106
00:06:12.680 --> 00:06:16.120
information from each court. So it was a very complex
107
00:06:16.199 --> 00:06:19.639
environment and I was deeply involved in it. So part
108
00:06:19.680 --> 00:06:22.879
of it was my feeling that I wanted to finish
109
00:06:22.920 --> 00:06:27.639
what I started, and I also think there was there
110
00:06:27.680 --> 00:06:33.240
was some internal turmoil in the court, and I was
111
00:06:33.319 --> 00:06:38.639
encouraged by my colleagues because they felt my longevity, my
112
00:06:38.879 --> 00:06:46.120
historical I guess underpinnings for information about how the Court
113
00:06:46.439 --> 00:06:49.240
operated in the past and how the things that had
114
00:06:49.279 --> 00:06:51.519
been tried worked or didn't work, those sorts of things.
115
00:06:52.360 --> 00:06:55.879
And also, I think a number of my colleagues felt
116
00:06:55.920 --> 00:06:59.560
that I was a steadying influence, So I had that
117
00:07:02.040 --> 00:07:05.279
I guess influence. That was a part of my thinking.
118
00:07:06.480 --> 00:07:12.160
I understand also that there's a desire to see open seats.
119
00:07:12.279 --> 00:07:17.560
But I also think that the more we politicize the court,
120
00:07:17.680 --> 00:07:21.199
the less people have confidence in the court. So the
121
00:07:21.240 --> 00:07:24.639
more that it seems like we're running against each other
122
00:07:25.639 --> 00:07:31.120
and less about, you know, the job itself, the importance
123
00:07:31.279 --> 00:07:35.079
of what the Supreme Court does, I think it's not healthy.
124
00:07:35.120 --> 00:07:39.120
I don't think it encourages public trust and confidence.
125
00:07:40.040 --> 00:07:43.680
I will loop back to sort of the trust and
126
00:07:43.680 --> 00:07:46.480
confidence piece, because I think that's a big topic these days.
127
00:07:47.079 --> 00:07:49.800
Just before we kind of go back to the origin
128
00:07:49.839 --> 00:07:51.480
story here, can you speak any.
129
00:07:51.399 --> 00:07:52.279
More to the turmoil?
130
00:07:52.319 --> 00:07:54.199
I think people are always so fascinated about what goes
131
00:07:54.240 --> 00:07:56.199
on in the court. It's a bit of a mystery
132
00:07:56.240 --> 00:07:58.040
box for many of us.
133
00:08:00.879 --> 00:08:05.480
So every person who joins the court, whether they come
134
00:08:05.720 --> 00:08:08.879
on with a judicial philosophy or whether they develop it
135
00:08:09.199 --> 00:08:13.240
as they do the job. But in the end, everyone
136
00:08:13.319 --> 00:08:16.319
has a philosophy about the role that they.
137
00:08:16.240 --> 00:08:17.240
Play as a justice.
138
00:08:17.800 --> 00:08:22.079
And I think that there were many different points of
139
00:08:22.160 --> 00:08:25.519
view that were being represented by the Court in the
140
00:08:25.560 --> 00:08:31.720
last five or six years, different sense of what the
141
00:08:31.800 --> 00:08:35.799
role of a Supreme Court justice is, and there was
142
00:08:35.840 --> 00:08:41.480
a clash in those judicial philosophies, and I think there
143
00:08:41.519 --> 00:08:43.799
was a lot of pain, but a lot of growing,
144
00:08:43.960 --> 00:08:47.759
And I think it just I think number of my
145
00:08:47.799 --> 00:08:50.639
colleagues felt that the stability that I could bring into
146
00:08:50.679 --> 00:08:54.559
the situation would help to smooth the waters as we
147
00:08:55.360 --> 00:08:57.440
went through that growing and.
148
00:08:59.759 --> 00:09:00.840
Learn how to collaborate.
149
00:09:01.320 --> 00:09:04.240
It's intriguing because I think a lot of people feel
150
00:09:04.240 --> 00:09:07.240
like the Court is not as ideologically diverse as it
151
00:09:07.320 --> 00:09:10.919
used to be. And yet the Chief Justice has told
152
00:09:10.960 --> 00:09:13.639
me sitting here at this desk, that there's actually quite
153
00:09:13.679 --> 00:09:17.039
a lot of difference of thought among the current justices.
154
00:09:18.919 --> 00:09:22.559
Can you kind of in response to that criticism? So
155
00:09:23.279 --> 00:09:26.279
are the tension points around sort of activism versus restraint,
156
00:09:26.279 --> 00:09:27.840
which is the kind of thing that at least you
157
00:09:27.919 --> 00:09:33.919
learn in like eleventh grade American history maybe, or what
158
00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:37.120
are the fault lines in a court that is otherwise, again,
159
00:09:37.240 --> 00:09:40.360
to go back to my kind of initial premise, been
160
00:09:40.440 --> 00:09:42.480
largely appointed by democratic governors.
161
00:09:46.639 --> 00:09:47.440
I think the.
162
00:09:49.039 --> 00:09:55.080
Difference that I saw was in the sense of respect
163
00:09:55.120 --> 00:10:01.639
for precedent and the separation of power among the three branches.
164
00:10:01.679 --> 00:10:03.279
And I think that there.
165
00:10:04.600 --> 00:10:09.600
That some of the justices felt more inclined toward policy
166
00:10:09.919 --> 00:10:16.200
than precedent. And that's that's a big difference in approach
167
00:10:16.240 --> 00:10:18.559
and philosophy, and that's I think what was at the
168
00:10:18.559 --> 00:10:20.399
heart of a lot of the tension.
169
00:10:20.919 --> 00:10:23.360
Okay, where think, where do you things stand now?
170
00:10:23.440 --> 00:10:26.679
Would you say, well, we'll see, because.
171
00:10:26.399 --> 00:10:28.840
The court makeup is changing the dramatically.
172
00:10:28.960 --> 00:10:32.240
I just think it's a it's a great opportunity for change,
173
00:10:32.399 --> 00:10:40.080
and I think given so many new members, it can
174
00:10:40.120 --> 00:10:41.879
be it can be a new court with a new
175
00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:46.240
vision and hopefully a cohesive vision, and in the past
176
00:10:46.679 --> 00:10:49.519
number of years that's been very difficult to achieve.
177
00:10:50.600 --> 00:10:52.559
I do want to talk about, as we go through
178
00:10:52.559 --> 00:10:55.559
this interview, your judicial philosophy. But let's reel this back
179
00:10:56.200 --> 00:11:00.480
to We'll start with nineteen ninety two, which is when
180
00:11:00.480 --> 00:11:02.559
you were elected. It was the year of the Woman.
181
00:11:03.039 --> 00:11:05.440
There was one other woman on the state Supreme Court
182
00:11:05.440 --> 00:11:08.600
at the time. If I'm not mistaken, tell us a
183
00:11:08.600 --> 00:11:11.080
little bit about what prompted you to run. You were
184
00:11:11.120 --> 00:11:14.879
already a judge working at the local level, but as
185
00:11:14.879 --> 00:11:19.120
I understand it, you had not had long term ambition
186
00:11:19.759 --> 00:11:22.320
to become a Supreme Court justice. And then something happened.
187
00:11:22.519 --> 00:11:23.120
What happened?
188
00:11:23.120 --> 00:11:23.879
What inspired this?
189
00:11:24.200 --> 00:11:25.960
In nineteen ninety two, I know this is the year
190
00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:29.840
that Patty Murray was elected to a senator, Chris Gregor
191
00:11:30.919 --> 00:11:35.120
elected state attorney general. I think women up and down
192
00:11:35.159 --> 00:11:39.960
the statewide matrix of offices were elected that year. It
193
00:11:40.000 --> 00:11:40.759
was the year of the woman.
194
00:11:42.080 --> 00:11:48.320
It was the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, and the Senate
195
00:11:49.320 --> 00:11:55.399
Judiciary Committee was chaired at that time by not then
196
00:11:55.519 --> 00:12:05.200
President Biden, but Senator Biden. I watched religiously the testimony
197
00:12:05.360 --> 00:12:10.039
of witnesses who spoke of Clarence Thomas's fitness for office,
198
00:12:10.240 --> 00:12:13.639
and I think it was when Anita Hill and a
199
00:12:13.679 --> 00:12:18.200
panel of women professors came forward and testified that really.
200
00:12:20.480 --> 00:12:22.200
It galvanized me.
201
00:12:22.559 --> 00:12:25.159
And I'm sure that's the reason that many of the
202
00:12:25.159 --> 00:12:27.559
other women that you've just referred to decided to run
203
00:12:27.600 --> 00:12:32.679
for public office. Because really Anita Hill was treated as
204
00:12:32.679 --> 00:12:40.039
if she were being prosecuted, as if she was Whatever
205
00:12:40.120 --> 00:12:43.720
happened between her and her boss, Clarence Thomas was likely
206
00:12:44.039 --> 00:12:47.279
to be late at her feet. That she was described
207
00:12:47.279 --> 00:12:51.759
as a temptress, she was described as a woman scorned.
208
00:12:52.519 --> 00:12:59.399
It was outrageous, and I just felt very angry, And
209
00:12:59.559 --> 00:13:02.360
part of it had to do with my own experience
210
00:13:02.360 --> 00:13:05.759
in the law. When I was in law school, I
211
00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:08.720
was asked in the first few weeks by a number
212
00:13:08.759 --> 00:13:11.480
of my male colleagues why I was at law school.
213
00:13:11.519 --> 00:13:14.200
And it was kind of a crazy question, like same
214
00:13:14.279 --> 00:13:19.039
reason you're here, And then they elaborated because they wondered
215
00:13:19.039 --> 00:13:21.000
why I would take a seat that belonged to a man.
216
00:13:22.039 --> 00:13:26.080
I'd never heard anyone say something like that. I'd been
217
00:13:26.080 --> 00:13:29.440
through undergraduate school, no one asked me why I went there.
218
00:13:29.519 --> 00:13:35.200
So it was a sense that women just didn't belong
219
00:13:35.240 --> 00:13:37.919
in the profession, that you were taking food out of
220
00:13:37.919 --> 00:13:41.080
the mouice of families because you're a woman, after all.
221
00:13:40.919 --> 00:13:42.519
And you can be taken care of.
222
00:13:44.759 --> 00:13:50.279
And then when I was in court, a very vivid
223
00:13:50.320 --> 00:13:53.639
memory of one of the very senior lawyers in the state.
224
00:13:54.679 --> 00:13:58.000
He practiced in South king County and I was there
225
00:13:58.039 --> 00:14:02.720
as a prosecutor, I believe, and he came up to
226
00:14:02.799 --> 00:14:07.399
the council table and kicked me in the bottom. I
227
00:14:07.480 --> 00:14:12.679
just couldn't fathom how that was okay, But he thought
228
00:14:12.679 --> 00:14:15.919
it was funny, and other people thought it was funny.
229
00:14:16.080 --> 00:14:18.799
So it was a way that I was treated as
230
00:14:18.799 --> 00:14:21.519
a female lawyer. It was the way that I was
231
00:14:21.559 --> 00:14:25.320
treated in law school. And it was very difficult for
232
00:14:25.360 --> 00:14:28.200
women coming out of law school to get jobs in
233
00:14:28.240 --> 00:14:30.639
any of the firms. You might be able to do
234
00:14:30.720 --> 00:14:33.519
some public service work, but my first job as a
235
00:14:33.519 --> 00:14:36.399
public defender, my boss told me that women couldn't handle
236
00:14:36.440 --> 00:14:42.120
felony level cases because we were emotional. So I thought
237
00:14:42.320 --> 00:14:45.759
when I saw these hearings and we were confirming Clarence
238
00:14:45.840 --> 00:14:52.879
Thomas really at the expense of truth and women in
239
00:14:52.919 --> 00:14:56.000
the profession, it just galvanized me to want to be
240
00:14:56.480 --> 00:14:59.279
in a place where decisions about the profession were being
241
00:14:59.279 --> 00:15:02.080
made in my own st and that was the Supreme Court.
242
00:15:02.240 --> 00:15:05.600
They passed the rules, they passed the procedures, and I
243
00:15:05.639 --> 00:15:09.000
felt like, this is where a woman's voice needs.
244
00:15:08.919 --> 00:15:09.320
To be heard.
245
00:15:10.399 --> 00:15:13.600
So you run for this open seat. It's a five
246
00:15:13.679 --> 00:15:16.799
way race. You make it into the top two and
247
00:15:16.840 --> 00:15:21.000
then ultimately win and are elected. And let's carry that
248
00:15:21.879 --> 00:15:26.879
theme forward because it becomes key to your thirty plus
249
00:15:27.000 --> 00:15:30.159
years on this court is in nineteen ninety eight, you
250
00:15:30.200 --> 00:15:33.240
became the chair of the fledgling Gender and Justice Commission,
251
00:15:33.639 --> 00:15:36.600
which you then continued to lead for more than twenty years.
252
00:15:36.879 --> 00:15:39.919
It was established in nineteen ninety five after a study
253
00:15:39.960 --> 00:15:43.279
you found at gender bias in state courts. So the
254
00:15:43.320 --> 00:15:45.919
thing that inspired you to run in the first place
255
00:15:46.039 --> 00:15:49.120
also became sort of a thread that you carried through.
256
00:15:50.480 --> 00:15:52.120
Tell us a little bit about.
257
00:15:51.759 --> 00:15:54.919
That the work and the commission, and people think of
258
00:15:55.039 --> 00:15:56.879
the justices and the work you're doing in the court
259
00:15:56.879 --> 00:15:59.519
and the deciding the cases, but there's so much else
260
00:15:59.519 --> 00:16:00.000
that happened.
261
00:16:00.120 --> 00:16:01.200
And this is a good example.
262
00:16:02.799 --> 00:16:05.639
You may not believe this, but there were no domestic
263
00:16:05.759 --> 00:16:13.200
violence laws in the early nineteen eighties, and when I
264
00:16:13.320 --> 00:16:16.159
was a prosecutor in the city Seattle, I was asked
265
00:16:16.200 --> 00:16:20.600
to develop a family violence unit for the Seattle City prosecutors.
266
00:16:21.320 --> 00:16:23.240
And I felt that.
267
00:16:23.639 --> 00:16:26.879
Women in the courts were re victimized if they were
268
00:16:27.000 --> 00:16:31.679
there as defendants, and often they were because police officers
269
00:16:31.799 --> 00:16:34.879
arrested both the man and the women in most of
270
00:16:34.919 --> 00:16:40.320
these early domestic violence cases, and there was in the
271
00:16:40.639 --> 00:16:43.799
area of domestic law there was a preference for women
272
00:16:43.840 --> 00:16:47.759
as mothers, which didn't seem fair to men, and so
273
00:16:48.080 --> 00:16:53.120
the old biases really were very starkly at play, and
274
00:16:53.159 --> 00:16:56.279
it seemed to me that the Gender and Justice Commission
275
00:16:56.399 --> 00:16:59.480
had the opportunity to make those kind of changes, make
276
00:16:59.519 --> 00:17:02.480
it more fair for men in family matters, for example,
277
00:17:03.440 --> 00:17:06.640
but also to make the courts more fair for women
278
00:17:06.680 --> 00:17:09.200
who were victims of domestic violence. And that's really where
279
00:17:09.200 --> 00:17:12.799
we started, was those two themes, and over the years
280
00:17:14.519 --> 00:17:16.680
it just became very clear to me that we had
281
00:17:16.720 --> 00:17:20.039
a lot of work to do so that women could
282
00:17:20.079 --> 00:17:23.519
access courts and children could access courts in a way
283
00:17:23.519 --> 00:17:25.119
that was meaningful and fair.
284
00:17:26.079 --> 00:17:29.880
I should note that this Commission produced the Domestic Violence
285
00:17:29.960 --> 00:17:33.799
Manual for Judges, the Sexual Orientation bench Guard, the Sexual
286
00:17:33.799 --> 00:17:37.480
Offense Bench Guide, Bench Guide not bench Guard, the Immigration
287
00:17:37.799 --> 00:17:41.160
Resource Guide for Judges in partnership with the Minority and
288
00:17:41.240 --> 00:17:44.359
Justice Commission, as well as developing judicial education and a
289
00:17:44.359 --> 00:17:48.279
wide variety of gender issues and model policies to enhance
290
00:17:48.279 --> 00:17:53.839
the safety of domestic violence victims. How would you say,
291
00:17:54.279 --> 00:18:01.200
given what you experienced as an attorney, and then sort
292
00:18:01.200 --> 00:18:04.680
of your motivation for running for Supreme Court, and then
293
00:18:04.759 --> 00:18:07.279
the work you've done in this over the decades, and
294
00:18:07.319 --> 00:18:10.000
the Gender and Justice Commission, and more broadly, how much
295
00:18:10.039 --> 00:18:16.240
progress do you think has been made?
296
00:18:16.480 --> 00:18:19.599
I think I think we've made progress. How much to
297
00:18:19.680 --> 00:18:26.880
quantify is difficult. When I speak to young women in particular,
298
00:18:27.200 --> 00:18:31.319
who come to visit the Temple of Justice, they maybe
299
00:18:31.480 --> 00:18:33.400
ask ahead of time, and Justice.
300
00:18:33.119 --> 00:18:35.319
Will come and visit with them. And when I am.
301
00:18:35.240 --> 00:18:38.400
Asked to do that, and the questions that women ask
302
00:18:38.519 --> 00:18:42.079
me are the same questions that I had when I
303
00:18:42.200 --> 00:18:47.440
was starting my career. How can I have a family?
304
00:18:48.960 --> 00:18:52.160
You had four kids when you I did young kids.
305
00:18:52.559 --> 00:18:55.039
Yeah, my youngest was one year old and my oldest
306
00:18:55.119 --> 00:18:59.039
was ten. So they ask those questions. They ask what
307
00:18:59.079 --> 00:19:03.759
can I do when and I'm at my firm and
308
00:19:03.119 --> 00:19:08.039
I'm being passed over? How do I decide what firm
309
00:19:08.119 --> 00:19:11.039
to go to? How do I know how I'll be treated?
310
00:19:11.119 --> 00:19:13.559
What kinds of questions are they allowed to ask me?
311
00:19:14.680 --> 00:19:18.599
So many of the same things that were issues for
312
00:19:19.240 --> 00:19:21.720
me when I started, and not the same. But at
313
00:19:21.759 --> 00:19:24.319
the same time, you look at the firms and you
314
00:19:24.400 --> 00:19:27.400
have many, many more women who are being hired as associates.
315
00:19:28.119 --> 00:19:30.880
We're still not where we need to be in partnerships.
316
00:19:31.079 --> 00:19:35.000
We're still somewhere. I think twenty two percent maybe at
317
00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:40.240
this point. In two thousand and one, I was facilitating
318
00:19:40.319 --> 00:19:42.880
a class ceiling study with the Washwomen Lawyers and the
319
00:19:42.960 --> 00:19:46.640
General Justice Commission in collaboration, and I think the percentage
320
00:19:46.680 --> 00:19:50.079
then was about fifteen to eighteen percent of women and
321
00:19:50.160 --> 00:19:54.400
firms where partners I think it's better probably somewhere, like
322
00:19:54.440 --> 00:19:56.799
I say, about twenty two to twenty five percent maybe,
323
00:19:57.640 --> 00:20:00.839
So there is progress being made. I tell these young
324
00:20:00.880 --> 00:20:04.119
women that when I started, there were there was really
325
00:20:04.160 --> 00:20:07.480
no support for a woman with children. Women who did
326
00:20:07.759 --> 00:20:11.000
get jobs in the law firms didn't have children. They
327
00:20:11.000 --> 00:20:13.799
had to make the choice of either having a family
328
00:20:13.920 --> 00:20:15.200
or being a lawyer.
329
00:20:15.519 --> 00:20:18.519
And that's not true anymore. You still you can have both.
330
00:20:18.680 --> 00:20:21.440
You just have to figure out how to sequence that.
331
00:20:22.480 --> 00:20:24.480
So I think there's been a lot of progress, But
332
00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:27.039
you know, how you quantify it, I'm not sure it's
333
00:20:27.519 --> 00:20:29.759
you know, it's the right direction.
334
00:20:29.880 --> 00:20:30.480
Let me say that.
335
00:20:31.279 --> 00:20:33.960
I want to note that you focused also on issues
336
00:20:34.000 --> 00:20:37.640
of race and access to the justice system. You hosted
337
00:20:37.640 --> 00:20:40.000
the first major presentation in twenty eleven at race in
338
00:20:40.039 --> 00:20:42.440
the criminal justice system at the Supreme Court. You received
339
00:20:42.440 --> 00:20:45.680
a Social Justice Award from the Lauren Miller Bar Association
340
00:20:45.759 --> 00:20:48.279
for that. In twenty thirteen, you lt establishment of the
341
00:20:48.279 --> 00:20:53.480
Tribal State Court Consortium. You were appointed co chair in
342
00:20:53.480 --> 00:20:55.559
twenty and eighteen of the Supreme Court Commission on Children
343
00:20:55.559 --> 00:20:57.559
in Foster Care, an issue we just spoke about on
344
00:20:57.599 --> 00:21:01.079
this program last week. And as I noted at the beginning,
345
00:21:01.119 --> 00:21:04.640
you served two terms as Chief Justice from twenty ten
346
00:21:04.640 --> 00:21:07.319
to twenty seventeen. You were the first woman to be elected,
347
00:21:07.319 --> 00:21:09.519
as I noted before, by your colleagues, for two terms
348
00:21:09.599 --> 00:21:12.240
in that role. Tell us a little bit about that
349
00:21:12.400 --> 00:21:16.440
tenure and what you brought to bear in terms of
350
00:21:16.480 --> 00:21:21.599
your philosophy and your priorities and the legacy you think
351
00:21:21.640 --> 00:21:24.839
you left after two terms as Chief Justice.
352
00:21:28.079 --> 00:21:34.359
My hope as chief was to find better ways for
353
00:21:34.720 --> 00:21:40.000
your average person to access the courts. We know from
354
00:21:40.039 --> 00:21:45.039
research that in family matters, approximately seventy to seventy five
355
00:21:45.039 --> 00:21:48.240
percent of the people coming through the courts don't have representation.
356
00:21:49.240 --> 00:21:53.680
We had a case, the King Case, in which the judge,
357
00:21:53.680 --> 00:21:57.240
the trial judge said, you know, this is not turning
358
00:21:57.279 --> 00:22:00.880
out well for you because you don't have a lawyer,
359
00:22:01.039 --> 00:22:06.039
and I feel bad about that, but nothing I can do.
360
00:22:07.160 --> 00:22:10.200
So we had a recognition that when you act pro
361
00:22:10.279 --> 00:22:14.880
say you will not your situation will not be improved.
362
00:22:15.000 --> 00:22:16.680
That's when you're representing yourself.
363
00:22:16.519 --> 00:22:22.480
Correct And so in twenty twelve we undertook something that
364
00:22:22.559 --> 00:22:25.079
was completely unique in the country, and that was the
365
00:22:25.160 --> 00:22:29.400
Limited Legal License Technician program, and the court passed a
366
00:22:29.480 --> 00:22:35.920
rule allowing people to practice in limited circumstances and particularly
367
00:22:36.079 --> 00:22:38.920
we decided on the area of family law, and we
368
00:22:39.279 --> 00:22:43.400
designed a curriculum, a one year program for training in
369
00:22:43.440 --> 00:22:47.920
that area. We also required these applicants to have had
370
00:22:48.000 --> 00:22:54.640
paralegal training a certain amount of time under the tutelage
371
00:22:54.680 --> 00:22:57.440
of an attorney. But then they could practice on their own,
372
00:22:57.799 --> 00:23:00.319
and they could have clients of their own, and they
373
00:23:00.319 --> 00:23:05.160
could appear in court. And it really it functioned very well,
374
00:23:05.519 --> 00:23:08.960
and we built this I think pretty amazing system. We
375
00:23:09.000 --> 00:23:12.119
took it to the ABA as a matter of fact,
376
00:23:12.160 --> 00:23:16.920
and the Bar Association American Bar Association, along with a
377
00:23:18.160 --> 00:23:21.799
plan to approve entity regulation so that we could start
378
00:23:21.880 --> 00:23:25.839
looking at technology as a way to help people access courts.
379
00:23:25.920 --> 00:23:28.920
So it was all about how do we make the
380
00:23:28.920 --> 00:23:32.119
courts work for just your average person who can't afford
381
00:23:32.160 --> 00:23:38.920
a lawyer. We know that technology is providing services, unregulated services.
382
00:23:39.400 --> 00:23:42.359
We need to find a way to bring these services
383
00:23:42.519 --> 00:23:46.680
under the supervision of the Bar Association to protect people.
384
00:23:47.640 --> 00:23:49.640
You know, it sounds kind of corny in a way
385
00:23:49.680 --> 00:23:52.359
to say we were protecting people by giving them lawyers,
386
00:23:52.400 --> 00:23:57.720
but you really these online services that provide legal assistance,
387
00:23:58.480 --> 00:24:01.200
it could be worse for these folks without any regulation.
388
00:24:01.720 --> 00:24:05.319
So that was my initiative as chief, and I was
389
00:24:05.920 --> 00:24:11.839
extremely disappointed when the court personnel changed and they sunseted
390
00:24:11.880 --> 00:24:15.559
the rule. But what I am excited about is to
391
00:24:15.599 --> 00:24:18.839
say that other states across the country are now starting
392
00:24:19.039 --> 00:24:23.279
to adopt our philosophy that people don't have to have
393
00:24:23.319 --> 00:24:25.599
a three year legal degree to be able to provide
394
00:24:25.720 --> 00:24:30.319
legal services to people in limited capacities. So I'm seeing
395
00:24:30.640 --> 00:24:34.799
a trend nationally in other states where they're adopting this
396
00:24:36.279 --> 00:24:39.960
the kind of the philosophy I guess, if not the
397
00:24:40.039 --> 00:24:43.720
nuts and bolts of our limited legal technician rule, And
398
00:24:43.839 --> 00:24:47.839
my hope is that at some point this will resurrect
399
00:24:48.480 --> 00:24:55.119
in our state and really The underpinnings for my passion
400
00:24:55.240 --> 00:24:58.319
for this is working in the Seattle Municipal Court, where
401
00:24:58.400 --> 00:25:03.920
I started as a prosecut People cannot afford to come
402
00:25:03.960 --> 00:25:06.640
to court. When they come to court if it's a
403
00:25:06.680 --> 00:25:10.920
civil matter, they don't have counsel, they don't have childcare,
404
00:25:11.000 --> 00:25:14.079
they cannot get paid by their employer, so they have
405
00:25:14.119 --> 00:25:18.240
to take time off of work access. If we don't
406
00:25:18.519 --> 00:25:21.680
make it easier for people to use the courts, then
407
00:25:21.759 --> 00:25:26.079
what's the point. It's not simply for business matters or
408
00:25:26.519 --> 00:25:29.599
personal injury cases. This is supposed to be a system
409
00:25:29.599 --> 00:25:30.480
that works for everyone.
410
00:25:31.240 --> 00:25:32.240
So that's really I.
411
00:25:32.240 --> 00:25:37.039
Think where my passion and hopefully my legacy will find
412
00:25:37.079 --> 00:25:44.119
itself finally in finding creative ways to make our system
413
00:25:44.200 --> 00:25:45.000
work for people.
414
00:25:45.960 --> 00:25:47.839
We're about to go to break, but let me transition
415
00:25:48.119 --> 00:25:50.359
to talking about some of the cases that you decided
416
00:25:50.440 --> 00:25:53.200
or helped decide as a justice, And I want to
417
00:25:53.200 --> 00:25:55.039
start out by just asking you a little bit about
418
00:25:55.039 --> 00:26:02.200
your judicial philosophy. It's been described as pragmaticution focused, consensus oriented.
419
00:26:02.200 --> 00:26:05.079
I don't know if those are adjectives you would use yourself,
420
00:26:05.119 --> 00:26:10.440
but how did you approach this work of deciding cases?
421
00:26:11.960 --> 00:26:17.680
I think my philosophy comes fundamentally because of my undergraduate work.
422
00:26:18.720 --> 00:26:22.000
I was a political science major and I did time
423
00:26:22.319 --> 00:26:28.200
as an intern. I guess at the legislature. I firmly
424
00:26:28.240 --> 00:26:33.079
believe in the separation of powers. I believe that justices
425
00:26:33.319 --> 00:26:37.839
need to rely on precedent because you have to have
426
00:26:37.960 --> 00:26:40.799
the faith in the people have to have faith in
427
00:26:40.839 --> 00:26:43.920
the institution. It can't appear to people that you are
428
00:26:43.960 --> 00:26:46.960
making the decision on the fly. There's got to be
429
00:26:47.160 --> 00:26:50.119
a sense that there's an underpinnings for the reasons that
430
00:26:50.200 --> 00:26:53.359
we decide cases the way we do. I also think
431
00:26:53.559 --> 00:26:56.839
that we cannot be lobbied, and if we cannot be lobbied,
432
00:26:56.880 --> 00:26:59.440
then the legislature is the place that needs to pass
433
00:26:59.480 --> 00:27:02.640
the laws. We need to interpret them, and I think
434
00:27:02.640 --> 00:27:05.119
we need to interpret them as closely as we can
435
00:27:05.240 --> 00:27:08.480
to the intention of the legislature when they pass the laws.
436
00:27:09.119 --> 00:27:11.720
I also think the executive branch needs to stay in
437
00:27:11.759 --> 00:27:15.039
its own lane. It oftentimes treats the courts as if
438
00:27:15.079 --> 00:27:18.240
we're a department of government rather than a branch of government.
439
00:27:18.920 --> 00:27:26.759
But when the branches encroach on each other's prerogatives and authority,
440
00:27:26.880 --> 00:27:31.440
I feel like that's a very dangerous situation, and I
441
00:27:31.480 --> 00:27:35.519
think that our democracy requires that we remember what lane
442
00:27:35.519 --> 00:27:39.640
we're traveling in. That we have certain authority, but we
443
00:27:39.640 --> 00:27:42.559
should not extend beyond that authority, and we need to
444
00:27:42.599 --> 00:27:47.880
move We need to be thoughtful as we move forward
445
00:27:47.920 --> 00:27:53.599
and change the law, because people, I believe depend upon
446
00:27:54.039 --> 00:27:58.480
precedent and they order their affairs that way. And if
447
00:27:58.519 --> 00:28:00.759
we're going to change precedent, need to do it in
448
00:28:00.799 --> 00:28:04.799
a very thoughtful way, and it needs to be incremental.
449
00:28:05.079 --> 00:28:09.119
So that's essentially what drives my decision making.
450
00:28:09.839 --> 00:28:11.960
I think that's a great setup for the second half
451
00:28:12.079 --> 00:28:14.480
of the interview. Let's do take a brief break when
452
00:28:14.519 --> 00:28:18.200
we continue our accident interview with former Justice Barbara Madson,
453
00:28:18.559 --> 00:28:20.640
we will pick up the conversation back right after this.
454
00:28:21.119 --> 00:28:24.880
Stolen vehicles are a problem. We need a solution. Pursuits
455
00:28:24.920 --> 00:28:26.079
are not the solution to that.
456
00:28:26.440 --> 00:28:27.799
Just hit another vehicle.
457
00:28:27.960 --> 00:28:30.440
With the current pursuit law, you can literally have somewhat
458
00:28:30.480 --> 00:28:33.480
steal a vehicle and drive through a school zone actively
459
00:28:33.480 --> 00:28:35.039
at one hundred miles an hour back and forth, and
460
00:28:35.079 --> 00:28:36.559
no one will be able to do anything about that.
461
00:28:36.759 --> 00:28:39.319
Passically school.
462
00:28:41.400 --> 00:28:43.599
Welcome back to Inside Olympia journey me once again is
463
00:28:43.640 --> 00:28:47.680
recently retired Supreme Court Justice Barbara Madison. I want to
464
00:28:47.680 --> 00:28:50.920
talk about some of the significant cases that you were
465
00:28:50.960 --> 00:28:54.079
involved with, but can you give us an example of
466
00:28:54.119 --> 00:28:58.759
where you think the court has crossed into policy making
467
00:28:58.839 --> 00:29:00.640
or what you would view as being.
468
00:29:03.319 --> 00:29:04.920
Kind of getting out of its lane? I guess to
469
00:29:05.000 --> 00:29:05.400
use your.
470
00:29:05.359 --> 00:29:10.440
Term, well, I think the best examples are in recent
471
00:29:10.519 --> 00:29:15.400
years in the arena of juvenile justice. We have gone
472
00:29:15.480 --> 00:29:19.720
far beyond what the legislature has decided, and I think
473
00:29:21.160 --> 00:29:24.720
I think there's some recognition by justices that we are
474
00:29:24.759 --> 00:29:29.119
into the policy realm at this point in juvenile justice cases.
475
00:29:29.599 --> 00:29:32.039
And I think that's probably the best example that I've
476
00:29:32.079 --> 00:29:33.920
seen in recent years.
477
00:29:34.359 --> 00:29:36.240
And that I mean, I could imagine that the brain
478
00:29:36.279 --> 00:29:39.400
science has shown us that young people's brains aren't fully
479
00:29:39.400 --> 00:29:44.200
deloped till their twenty five, and there is obviously huge implications,
480
00:29:44.359 --> 00:29:49.599
especially in the criminal justice system for young people. But
481
00:29:49.680 --> 00:29:55.440
what would be kind of motivating the in that particular
482
00:29:55.480 --> 00:29:58.319
area the court to go beyond what at least you're
483
00:29:58.319 --> 00:29:59.240
comfortable with.
484
00:30:02.640 --> 00:30:03.640
The legislature.
485
00:30:05.240 --> 00:30:09.279
Just like the courts, I suppose personnel changes and thus
486
00:30:09.400 --> 00:30:12.920
philosophies change. When I started out as a public defender,
487
00:30:13.400 --> 00:30:15.880
there was an attitude of the legislature that we were
488
00:30:15.920 --> 00:30:19.079
trying to rehabilitate people, bring them back into the community,
489
00:30:19.119 --> 00:30:21.880
make them productive. Then there was a big swing, and
490
00:30:21.920 --> 00:30:24.039
then we had hard time for arm crime, and we
491
00:30:24.160 --> 00:30:27.519
had the three strikes and You're out, and we had
492
00:30:28.880 --> 00:30:33.119
the auto decline cases. And this was sort of the
493
00:30:33.160 --> 00:30:38.079
swing to a very you know, pay your commit the crime,
494
00:30:38.200 --> 00:30:42.519
pay the time attitude by the legislature. And I think
495
00:30:42.720 --> 00:30:46.000
we're swinging back somewhat. The legislature has been swinging back,
496
00:30:46.079 --> 00:30:48.799
but not fast enough for some members of the court.
497
00:30:48.960 --> 00:30:53.000
So I think it's it's a sense that it's still
498
00:30:53.039 --> 00:30:59.279
too harsh on young people and that probably in terms
499
00:30:59.319 --> 00:31:02.920
of just percentages, there are more young people of color
500
00:31:02.960 --> 00:31:07.079
who are involved in the criminal justice system or who
501
00:31:07.119 --> 00:31:11.039
are targeted by the criminal justice system, and I think
502
00:31:11.119 --> 00:31:14.559
that's a part of the concern, is that we can't
503
00:31:14.599 --> 00:31:18.359
continue to imprison people of color at the rates that
504
00:31:18.400 --> 00:31:21.799
they have been incarcerated in the past. The SRA, which
505
00:31:21.839 --> 00:31:26.200
is this Sensing Reformact, resulted in mass incarceration of people
506
00:31:26.240 --> 00:31:28.359
of color, So I think it's a reaction to that
507
00:31:29.680 --> 00:31:34.640
and the slow progress of the legislature in addressing what
508
00:31:35.359 --> 00:31:39.680
has been a very harsh swing in their legislation.
509
00:31:42.559 --> 00:31:46.519
Do you feel like some criticisms I've heard, especially for
510
00:31:46.640 --> 00:31:50.599
more conservative people, is that the court is more interested
511
00:31:50.599 --> 00:31:54.799
in overturning precedent in service of social justice objectives than
512
00:31:54.880 --> 00:31:57.559
upholding the law, that the Court doesn't always respect the
513
00:31:57.559 --> 00:32:02.920
plain language of the Constitution unless it's convenient. Do you
514
00:32:03.079 --> 00:32:07.400
how do those criticisms sit with you or fall How.
515
00:32:07.279 --> 00:32:12.480
Do you hear them? Do you agree to push back?
516
00:32:15.480 --> 00:32:20.480
So there's not one answer to that. I think there
517
00:32:20.480 --> 00:32:26.279
are people who feel that precedent hasn't served well and
518
00:32:27.440 --> 00:32:31.880
that makes precedent wrong and harmful, and that's a reason
519
00:32:31.920 --> 00:32:36.240
why a justice might feel that it's important to go
520
00:32:36.319 --> 00:32:40.319
a different direction not necessarily rely on former precedent.
521
00:32:41.240 --> 00:32:43.480
But it really seems to me that.
522
00:32:43.400 --> 00:32:49.119
It's issue specific, and I think there is a sense
523
00:32:49.200 --> 00:32:52.640
that social justice is in and of itself an end,
524
00:32:53.240 --> 00:32:58.680
and it should be in some ways. But the concern
525
00:32:58.839 --> 00:33:02.839
is that one person's idea of social justice is different
526
00:33:03.400 --> 00:33:06.960
than the next. And when you rely on precedent, and
527
00:33:07.000 --> 00:33:09.680
you rely on statutes, and you rely on the intent
528
00:33:09.759 --> 00:33:12.759
of the legislature, you're much less likely to have the
529
00:33:12.839 --> 00:33:20.599
variety of attitudes toward those tools that we use to
530
00:33:20.640 --> 00:33:21.480
decide cases.
531
00:33:22.839 --> 00:33:25.480
I want to ask you one other question along these lines,
532
00:33:26.039 --> 00:33:30.559
and hopefully it doesn't require a long answer, But if
533
00:33:30.640 --> 00:33:34.200
you don't have if legislative intent isn't clear, and kind
534
00:33:34.200 --> 00:33:36.880
of going back to your judicial philosophy, if that is
535
00:33:36.920 --> 00:33:39.759
not clear, then what is a.
536
00:33:39.759 --> 00:33:40.720
Justice to do.
537
00:33:42.920 --> 00:33:43.240
Well?
538
00:33:43.400 --> 00:33:49.279
There are many tools in our interpretive toolbag, and harmonizing
539
00:33:49.519 --> 00:33:53.319
is probably the tool that makes the most sense. When
540
00:33:53.640 --> 00:33:58.279
intent is unclear. There are many sources to try to
541
00:33:58.319 --> 00:34:03.279
glean intent. We had a number of years ago I
542
00:34:03.359 --> 00:34:06.079
was assigned a case on this very question of how
543
00:34:06.119 --> 00:34:10.320
do you interpret statutes? And we adopted a position at
544
00:34:10.360 --> 00:34:14.360
that point that one should look to all that has
545
00:34:14.440 --> 00:34:17.079
been said on the topic by the legislature, so not
546
00:34:17.239 --> 00:34:21.039
limited to the language of this particular provision that you're interpreting,
547
00:34:21.079 --> 00:34:25.039
but also looking at other provisions of even another statute,
548
00:34:25.079 --> 00:34:29.599
sometimes to give meaning to what the legislature had intended.
549
00:34:30.400 --> 00:34:34.159
At the end of the day, if you really truly
550
00:34:34.239 --> 00:34:38.960
cannot find the intent, as a court, then there are
551
00:34:39.000 --> 00:34:42.320
some rules that we have, one being that if it's
552
00:34:42.360 --> 00:34:46.079
a criminal case, we take a more lenient view that
553
00:34:46.559 --> 00:34:51.119
the defendant would be whatever the interpretation that benefits of
554
00:34:51.159 --> 00:34:54.400
the defendant is the appropriate interpretation, because it's called a
555
00:34:54.480 --> 00:34:59.000
rule of leniency. If it's a civil case, we look
556
00:34:59.039 --> 00:35:01.760
to our own civil rus rules, look to our own precedent.
557
00:35:02.760 --> 00:35:05.119
So those are the tools we have to work with.
558
00:35:05.280 --> 00:35:08.239
Do you think that the court has to think about
559
00:35:08.280 --> 00:35:12.559
and worry about legislative intent as a sort of rule
560
00:35:12.599 --> 00:35:13.000
of thumb?
561
00:35:13.320 --> 00:35:24.159
Absolutely, I do. Really, people, the state is guided in
562
00:35:24.239 --> 00:35:28.119
its policy by its legislature. I firmly believe that that's
563
00:35:28.119 --> 00:35:32.360
who we vote for, is our legislators, and we vote
564
00:35:32.360 --> 00:35:34.760
for the Court, but we don't lobby the court on
565
00:35:34.960 --> 00:35:38.159
policy matters. And so in order to get to the
566
00:35:38.199 --> 00:35:41.400
best policy, it's my view that you need all the
567
00:35:41.480 --> 00:35:44.280
voices to be heard, and the only place that's going
568
00:35:44.320 --> 00:35:45.639
to happen is in the legislature.
569
00:35:46.039 --> 00:35:49.360
And of course, started decisis as this legal principle of
570
00:35:49.440 --> 00:35:56.199
determining points in litigation according to precedent. If you're how
571
00:35:56.199 --> 00:35:59.800
do you balance that precedent with trying to correct what
572
00:36:00.199 --> 00:36:03.679
be viewed as past judicial errors as opposed to necessarily
573
00:36:03.880 --> 00:36:06.719
past perceived legislative errors.
574
00:36:08.159 --> 00:36:16.159
We have a tenet of interpretation that suggests if something
575
00:36:16.360 --> 00:36:20.039
if a prior case is wrong and it's harmful, then
576
00:36:20.360 --> 00:36:22.079
it can be overturned.
577
00:36:22.079 --> 00:36:23.840
And that should be used sparingly.
578
00:36:24.639 --> 00:36:28.960
Sometimes it's used more more often than one might expect,
579
00:36:29.360 --> 00:36:32.599
but that is a way that the court can court
580
00:36:33.280 --> 00:36:40.360
can court, sorry course correct. Because people change, I mean
581
00:36:40.400 --> 00:36:43.079
the society that we live in changes, and the expectations
582
00:36:43.480 --> 00:36:46.199
from our court's change, so we need to be abreast
583
00:36:46.239 --> 00:36:50.079
of those changes. We need to understand where the system
584
00:36:50.119 --> 00:36:54.159
hasn't worked for people. And I think I guess the
585
00:36:54.199 --> 00:36:58.719
difference for me and maybe some other judges or justices
586
00:36:59.639 --> 00:37:02.920
is that we can do so much with the administrative
587
00:37:03.079 --> 00:37:06.719
side of our job. We can change rules. We have
588
00:37:06.920 --> 00:37:11.079
carte blanc to make court rules and court procedures.
589
00:37:11.079 --> 00:37:13.760
And established commissions, established.
590
00:37:13.239 --> 00:37:19.800
Commissions and find new practices that can really, I think,
591
00:37:20.800 --> 00:37:24.599
make the system much more fair and accessible for people.
592
00:37:25.599 --> 00:37:28.480
Going back to the idea of I mean, you've established
593
00:37:28.480 --> 00:37:32.360
that this is a court that has some differences of opinion.
594
00:37:32.440 --> 00:37:35.039
But you had thirty three years in this court when
595
00:37:35.039 --> 00:37:37.639
you started one of two women, and I think one
596
00:37:37.679 --> 00:37:41.559
of the other women left pretty soon. But we now
597
00:37:41.679 --> 00:37:44.519
have for the moment I believe, a majority women court.
598
00:37:45.119 --> 00:37:48.920
But we also have lost some ideological diversity. There used
599
00:37:48.960 --> 00:37:52.559
to be more libertarian views in Richard Sanders, more conservative
600
00:37:52.599 --> 00:37:58.039
views in the other Justice Johnson. Gary Alexander, the former
601
00:37:58.079 --> 00:38:00.639
Chief Justice, was more of a thought of I think
602
00:38:00.719 --> 00:38:03.440
is more conservative. What do you do you believe the
603
00:38:03.440 --> 00:38:07.599
court has lost something in or how would you compare
604
00:38:07.679 --> 00:38:10.760
today's make up of the court compared to those earlier
605
00:38:10.800 --> 00:38:14.400
eras that you experienced when again, I think arguably there
606
00:38:14.440 --> 00:38:18.119
was more. Even though you run independently, you're not running
607
00:38:18.119 --> 00:38:22.559
with party labels, there was more, perhaps more conservative voices.
608
00:38:25.599 --> 00:38:30.400
When I first started, there were people justices who had
609
00:38:30.440 --> 00:38:35.039
been in the legislature, Justice Dolliver, who had been counsel
610
00:38:35.119 --> 00:38:39.880
to the governor. There was I think that was a
611
00:38:40.039 --> 00:38:44.239
very good influence for the Court because the experience that
612
00:38:44.400 --> 00:38:49.920
the particular legislators had in helping us to understand legislative
613
00:38:49.960 --> 00:38:54.280
intent was invaluable for those of us who had never
614
00:38:54.320 --> 00:38:57.239
been in the legislature. And I think that's unfortunate that
615
00:38:57.280 --> 00:39:01.639
we don't have someone or more than one who've had
616
00:39:01.719 --> 00:39:04.159
experience in the other branches. I think that would be
617
00:39:05.119 --> 00:39:09.400
a valuable addition for our court. Most of the people
618
00:39:09.440 --> 00:39:12.920
who serve now, I would say, or a majority have
619
00:39:13.000 --> 00:39:18.760
been judges, and I think that's a rather limiting experience.
620
00:39:19.360 --> 00:39:22.599
So I think the court could benefit greatly from people
621
00:39:22.599 --> 00:39:26.920
who had experiencing the other branches. I do think also
622
00:39:27.039 --> 00:39:31.719
private practice. A number of the justices came from public
623
00:39:31.920 --> 00:39:38.800
service positions, and so I think the diversity of thought
624
00:39:38.880 --> 00:39:42.480
is not as strong as it has been in the past.
625
00:39:43.440 --> 00:39:46.760
So I'm hopeful that the new elections are going to
626
00:39:46.840 --> 00:39:51.400
change the dynamics of the court. The two appointees from
627
00:39:51.440 --> 00:39:54.840
the governor, I think are excellent choices because neither has
628
00:39:54.960 --> 00:39:58.760
been a judge. I think we have enough judges on
629
00:39:58.800 --> 00:39:59.199
the court.
630
00:40:00.000 --> 00:40:02.239
What about What would you say to conservatives who feel
631
00:40:02.239 --> 00:40:07.360
there's this organization Full Court Press, that former Attorney General
632
00:40:07.440 --> 00:40:11.639
Rob McKenna and current Congressman Michael Baumgartner involved with. They
633
00:40:11.639 --> 00:40:17.079
are actively recruiting candidates. There is pushback and criticism about
634
00:40:17.119 --> 00:40:19.679
the governor getting to appoint so many members and we
635
00:40:19.719 --> 00:40:23.199
have three terms if Governor Insley, now we've got Governor Ferguson.
636
00:40:23.280 --> 00:40:24.960
We haven't had a Republican governor in this state in
637
00:40:25.239 --> 00:40:28.440
forty years. What do you say to conservatives in the
638
00:40:28.480 --> 00:40:30.960
state who say, I'm not represented on this court or
639
00:40:31.000 --> 00:40:32.760
conservatives aren't represented.
640
00:40:32.320 --> 00:40:32.840
On this court.
641
00:40:34.000 --> 00:40:36.400
Well, the hope is that no one is represented on
642
00:40:36.440 --> 00:40:41.159
the court. The court doesn't serve in a representational capacity.
643
00:40:41.639 --> 00:40:42.599
What you hope for.
644
00:40:42.760 --> 00:40:46.440
Is that you have smart people who are dedicated to
645
00:40:46.440 --> 00:40:50.559
public service, understand the role that they have been called
646
00:40:50.559 --> 00:40:55.119
to play, that they believe in the separation of powers,
647
00:40:55.280 --> 00:41:00.079
and that they believe in precedent, because those are the
648
00:41:00.079 --> 00:41:02.159
the things that people can rely on no matter what
649
00:41:02.480 --> 00:41:06.159
side of the political spectrum you might find yourself as
650
00:41:06.239 --> 00:41:10.119
your private life. If you're going to serve as a
651
00:41:10.239 --> 00:41:12.280
justice of the court, you need to be able to
652
00:41:12.320 --> 00:41:15.320
set down aside. And if you can't, it doesn't matter
653
00:41:15.360 --> 00:41:19.079
whether you're a conservative or a liberal, because you're not
654
00:41:19.159 --> 00:41:21.719
going to do justice to the job if you cannot
655
00:41:21.760 --> 00:41:23.480
set aside your own personal views.
656
00:41:23.599 --> 00:41:25.400
I hear you saying, in some sense, I'm asking the
657
00:41:25.440 --> 00:41:27.480
wrong question. What would be the right question to ask?
658
00:41:27.519 --> 00:41:29.719
I mean, voters are going to be asked to make
659
00:41:29.800 --> 00:41:32.079
some decisions, and I won't pull you into the political realm,
660
00:41:32.119 --> 00:41:33.760
but what are some smart What's a couple of smart
661
00:41:33.840 --> 00:41:36.800
questions one could be asking in terms of trying to
662
00:41:36.880 --> 00:41:38.920
ensure that there's diversity of thought on this court.
663
00:41:39.159 --> 00:41:42.239
I would want to know their judicial philosophy. I would
664
00:41:42.280 --> 00:41:47.760
want to understand how they see the court in comparison
665
00:41:47.800 --> 00:41:51.639
to the other branches, and how they see their role
666
00:41:52.199 --> 00:41:55.320
with the legislature and the executive. I think those are
667
00:41:55.320 --> 00:41:58.639
really important questions because if they have the right answers,
668
00:41:59.599 --> 00:42:01.719
then I think I think, regardless as I say, of
669
00:42:01.719 --> 00:42:06.159
their personal, you know, leanings, they should be good justices
670
00:42:06.239 --> 00:42:08.400
if they're willing to work hard and they're willing to
671
00:42:08.480 --> 00:42:12.639
understand that justices are. I mean, sometimes you're called upon
672
00:42:12.679 --> 00:42:15.440
to make policy because that's just part of the job,
673
00:42:15.920 --> 00:42:21.320
but that is that is more rare than simply looking
674
00:42:21.360 --> 00:42:24.320
at the precedent, understanding how it applies in a given
675
00:42:24.559 --> 00:42:29.079
set of circumstances. Looking at our own state constitution very important,
676
00:42:30.079 --> 00:42:34.039
especially now. I think those are the questions I think
677
00:42:34.039 --> 00:42:35.079
people need to ask.
678
00:42:37.239 --> 00:42:40.280
I'm looking at a list of significant cases, and it's
679
00:42:40.400 --> 00:42:43.679
hardly complete. In fact, it's woefully incomplete, because you were
680
00:42:43.679 --> 00:42:45.679
on the court for more than three decades. But let
681
00:42:45.760 --> 00:42:47.239
me mention a few of them and see if any
682
00:42:47.320 --> 00:42:51.000
jump jump to mine. In terms of one that you
683
00:42:51.199 --> 00:42:52.079
want to talk about.
684
00:42:52.719 --> 00:42:54.119
The about the State v.
685
00:42:54.280 --> 00:42:58.320
Gregory, which ended Washington sustensibly ended Washington's death penalty system,
686
00:42:58.519 --> 00:43:02.199
found it to be racially by it. The McCleary education case,
687
00:43:02.199 --> 00:43:05.440
which stretched on for many years. The Court with kept
688
00:43:05.519 --> 00:43:08.199
jurisdiction in that case and held the legislature's feet to
689
00:43:08.239 --> 00:43:13.639
the fire. There was the State v. Hughes, which had
690
00:43:13.639 --> 00:43:18.079
to do with sentencing, the jury rights cases, Arlene's Flowers,
691
00:43:18.239 --> 00:43:21.199
which was a defining civil rights and religious liberty case,
692
00:43:21.760 --> 00:43:24.360
the Hurst Water law, and then of course the Blake case,
693
00:43:24.360 --> 00:43:27.920
which throughout our felony drug possession case. You were part
694
00:43:27.920 --> 00:43:32.519
of a minority that did not vote to throw that out.
695
00:43:32.960 --> 00:43:35.400
Is one of those jump out is a discussion point
696
00:43:35.400 --> 00:43:37.079
for you or something else?
697
00:43:39.400 --> 00:43:40.000
I think.
698
00:43:42.519 --> 00:43:47.159
Where I think is significant in the jurisprudence that I've
699
00:43:47.159 --> 00:43:49.400
had a chance to work with is the work that
700
00:43:49.400 --> 00:43:52.960
we've done on our state constitution. And that's because there's
701
00:43:53.000 --> 00:43:55.360
been such a shift by the Supreme Court of the
702
00:43:55.440 --> 00:44:01.960
United States. They have overturned hundreds of year in some
703
00:44:02.159 --> 00:44:06.440
very important areas of law, and I think that unsettles
704
00:44:07.079 --> 00:44:11.320
people's sense of security and confidence in the law. And
705
00:44:11.360 --> 00:44:13.599
so I think to the extent that we can rely
706
00:44:13.719 --> 00:44:17.880
on our own state constitution and we can then develop
707
00:44:17.920 --> 00:44:20.800
a body of case law around the different provisions. I
708
00:44:20.840 --> 00:44:23.239
think that we can then rely on our own state
709
00:44:23.239 --> 00:44:28.039
constitution against the vagaries of whomever is appointed by the
710
00:44:28.039 --> 00:44:29.440
Congress of the United States.
711
00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:30.800
So how does that.
712
00:44:33.119 --> 00:44:34.880
Sort of manifest in practice.
713
00:44:35.920 --> 00:44:41.440
Well, for example, we had the farm farm dairy Workers
714
00:44:41.519 --> 00:44:46.599
case Martinez Quavis, which was a case involving and it
715
00:44:46.639 --> 00:44:49.400
was statutory interpretation in some ways. I guess it was
716
00:44:49.599 --> 00:44:53.400
the minimum wage and overtime laws that there was an
717
00:44:53.440 --> 00:44:58.599
exception specifically for dairy workers and other farm labor groups,
718
00:44:58.679 --> 00:45:01.840
and there was challenge that was brought under our state
719
00:45:01.920 --> 00:45:07.559
constitution to the exclusion of those workers. I wrote the
720
00:45:07.639 --> 00:45:12.639
majority opinion, there was a concurring opinion. What we did
721
00:45:12.760 --> 00:45:18.400
was to look at our state constitution and found a
722
00:45:18.440 --> 00:45:23.159
provision that requires the legislature to pass laws to protect
723
00:45:23.280 --> 00:45:27.320
people who work in dangerous occupations. So the challenge was
724
00:45:27.360 --> 00:45:31.079
brought under the Privileges and Immunities clause of our state constitution,
725
00:45:31.199 --> 00:45:36.280
which is different than the United States constitutional provision. So
726
00:45:36.480 --> 00:45:40.280
we looked at both the Privileges and Immunities provision of
727
00:45:40.320 --> 00:45:44.239
the constitution, and then we also looked at the requirement
728
00:45:44.280 --> 00:45:50.840
that the legislature provide protections for people in dangerous provisions occupations,
729
00:45:50.880 --> 00:45:56.639
and the dairy workers provided a great deal of very
730
00:45:56.719 --> 00:45:59.960
objective information about how dangerous the job was. When they
731
00:46:00.280 --> 00:46:03.159
were not given over time, they would work, you know,
732
00:46:03.280 --> 00:46:07.079
twenty four hours shifts. So that's an example of how
733
00:46:07.159 --> 00:46:11.960
I think the state constitution can offer protections that aren't
734
00:46:12.039 --> 00:46:16.960
necessarily available through the federal Constitution and also gives, you know,
735
00:46:17.199 --> 00:46:19.800
people in our state who are unique in some of
736
00:46:19.840 --> 00:46:24.039
the things that we use to occupy our time an
737
00:46:24.039 --> 00:46:28.320
opportunity to be heard and be protected.
738
00:46:28.800 --> 00:46:31.559
What do you think of the current US Supreme Court
739
00:46:31.679 --> 00:46:35.440
and its role in American society, how it's viewed, how
740
00:46:35.440 --> 00:46:36.239
it's behaving.
741
00:46:37.440 --> 00:46:38.960
I think that it has.
742
00:46:40.320 --> 00:46:43.239
Diminished the amount of confidence that people have in the courts.
743
00:46:43.440 --> 00:46:47.920
And I don't think most people know the difference between
744
00:46:48.119 --> 00:46:50.239
the courts, the federal courts and the state courts. The
745
00:46:50.480 --> 00:46:52.960
courts make decisions, they read about them in the paper,
746
00:46:53.000 --> 00:46:56.280
and I think when the Supreme Court acts as they
747
00:46:56.280 --> 00:47:01.199
have and overturns precedent of hundreds of years, that the
748
00:47:01.239 --> 00:47:05.840
confidence in all courts is affected. I'm disappointed, honestly that
749
00:47:06.000 --> 00:47:09.239
they don't have the same canons of judicial conduct that
750
00:47:09.320 --> 00:47:13.639
apply to their justices. We have had a conduct Commission
751
00:47:13.639 --> 00:47:18.320
in our state by constitutionists that oversees the behavior of judges,
752
00:47:18.840 --> 00:47:22.239
and you are accountable as a judge. You can't take
753
00:47:23.440 --> 00:47:27.199
money and gifts and not report them, and the kinds
754
00:47:27.239 --> 00:47:29.880
of things that have happened at the federal level can't
755
00:47:29.880 --> 00:47:34.360
do that. And I think it's unfortunate that the Supreme
756
00:47:34.360 --> 00:47:38.000
Court hasn't held itself to the same standard that we
757
00:47:38.159 --> 00:47:39.639
in our state hold ourselves to.
758
00:47:41.760 --> 00:47:43.360
So I do want to ask you about a couple
759
00:47:43.360 --> 00:47:46.320
of these cases. The Cleary case stands out because the
760
00:47:46.360 --> 00:47:50.880
court held the legislature and contempt imposed sanctions. Some did
761
00:47:50.920 --> 00:47:53.519
say the court overstepped got out of its lane by
762
00:47:53.559 --> 00:47:58.559
retaining jurisdiction and doing so veered into policymaking. What's your
763
00:47:58.639 --> 00:48:02.039
view of how the court handled particular, particular and long
764
00:48:02.159 --> 00:48:06.360
drawn out case. And I'll note funding twelve schools is
765
00:48:06.360 --> 00:48:09.119
the paramount duty of the state under the state constitution,
766
00:48:09.239 --> 00:48:11.559
but that one does come up for some criticism.
767
00:48:12.239 --> 00:48:16.760
Well, I was the dissent in that case. I dissented
768
00:48:16.800 --> 00:48:19.199
only on the issue of whether we should retain jurisdiction.
769
00:48:19.360 --> 00:48:21.760
Got it so that I'm glad you made that clear,
770
00:48:21.840 --> 00:48:27.639
because that's interesting. So I sided with the decision that
771
00:48:27.679 --> 00:48:30.880
said the state was not amply funding schools, but dissented
772
00:48:30.960 --> 00:48:33.519
on the question of whether the court should retaine yours.
773
00:48:34.119 --> 00:48:38.480
Yes, My view was that if the legislature, because what
774
00:48:38.480 --> 00:48:41.000
we basically said is that we're not setting the standards.
775
00:48:41.000 --> 00:48:44.679
So the legislature set the standards, that's great. But having
776
00:48:44.679 --> 00:48:47.039
set the standard, now you have to enforce the standard,
777
00:48:47.119 --> 00:48:48.960
and so that means you have to fund the standard.
778
00:48:49.360 --> 00:48:51.559
And so that was that was my view, and it
779
00:48:51.599 --> 00:48:55.239
was the view of the majority. But in terms of
780
00:48:55.400 --> 00:48:58.559
enforcing the decision, I thought we could use the contempt
781
00:48:58.679 --> 00:49:02.679
powers of the court in order to make sure that
782
00:49:02.719 --> 00:49:05.280
the legislature followed through on the decision of the.
783
00:49:05.239 --> 00:49:09.079
Court, even without retaining jurisdiction. That would be available.
784
00:49:09.199 --> 00:49:11.039
Yes, So if a few years down the road the
785
00:49:11.159 --> 00:49:14.840
legislature was not making a dent in things or moving
786
00:49:14.880 --> 00:49:17.159
fast enough, there'd be a way for the court to
787
00:49:17.199 --> 00:49:20.199
go back and correct and post fines.
788
00:49:20.199 --> 00:49:21.920
I guess yes.
789
00:49:21.800 --> 00:49:24.599
When you're held in contempt, there are various sanctions that
790
00:49:24.639 --> 00:49:27.280
can be imposed, and that it's in line with the
791
00:49:27.320 --> 00:49:29.760
authority of the court. So that was my view at
792
00:49:29.760 --> 00:49:30.079
the time.
793
00:49:30.159 --> 00:49:33.079
How strongly did you feel that or how dismade were
794
00:49:33.159 --> 00:49:35.400
you kind of going back again to sort of trusting
795
00:49:35.440 --> 00:49:38.400
courts and separation of powers. Did you think this was
796
00:49:38.440 --> 00:49:41.840
egregious or was it a minor violation of your judicial philosophy?
797
00:49:41.880 --> 00:49:43.519
That the Court did this, retained jurisdiction.
798
00:49:44.719 --> 00:49:50.199
It was completely unique. We'd never done it before. I
799
00:49:50.199 --> 00:49:54.039
would hope we wouldn't do it again. I was Chief
800
00:49:54.159 --> 00:49:56.679
Justice at the time, so despite the fact that I
801
00:49:56.719 --> 00:50:00.159
didn't agree with keeping jurisdiction, it was my position and
802
00:50:00.199 --> 00:50:02.679
that having done that, the Court had to follow through,
803
00:50:02.880 --> 00:50:06.199
and I was the person who signed many, many orders
804
00:50:07.480 --> 00:50:11.599
that kept the legislature's feet to the fire. In the end,
805
00:50:12.440 --> 00:50:18.320
I'm not sure that having kept jurisdiction made a difference
806
00:50:18.960 --> 00:50:20.039
in terms of compliance.
807
00:50:22.360 --> 00:50:25.719
Why do you say that, Well, I live.
808
00:50:25.599 --> 00:50:28.719
In this state and I hear how people feel about
809
00:50:28.800 --> 00:50:32.480
the opinion and how it's worked out as far as
810
00:50:32.519 --> 00:50:37.840
funding schools. It doesn't seem to have fixed the problem.
811
00:50:38.159 --> 00:50:40.840
The Blake case, you also dissented in you signed a
812
00:50:40.880 --> 00:50:44.840
descent authored by Justice I believe Gordon McLeod.
813
00:50:47.440 --> 00:50:49.119
Gordon McLeod wrote the majority of.
814
00:50:49.079 --> 00:50:50.760
Majority of you signed into a descent I think that
815
00:50:50.840 --> 00:50:52.000
was authored by just M.
816
00:50:52.079 --> 00:50:54.679
Johnson Johnson, Charles Johnson Johnson.
817
00:50:55.280 --> 00:50:56.880
Yes, let's not get them confused.
818
00:50:58.079 --> 00:51:01.360
That that basically said that the Court had previously been
819
00:51:01.440 --> 00:51:03.760
in multiple occasions over sixty years, that the crime of
820
00:51:03.800 --> 00:51:06.599
possession of illegal drugs does not require knowledge or intent.
821
00:51:06.639 --> 00:51:08.800
That was the issue with this case. Yes, if you
822
00:51:08.840 --> 00:51:10.960
don't know that you have the drugs on you and
823
00:51:11.039 --> 00:51:13.199
you're caught, can you still be convicted? Or if that's
824
00:51:13.199 --> 00:51:17.960
your defense? This boiled down to strictly the term was
825
00:51:18.000 --> 00:51:22.079
strict liability crimes. I guess the question is why did
826
00:51:22.119 --> 00:51:26.119
you sign into this descent which said that the majority's
827
00:51:26.159 --> 00:51:29.480
constitutional analysis was not convincing enough to weigh outweigh that
828
00:51:29.719 --> 00:51:37.280
history of courts upholding this statute.
829
00:51:34.920 --> 00:51:40.960
The Court had analyzed this question at least two previous
830
00:51:41.400 --> 00:51:44.480
two previous cases and had come to the opposite conclusion.
831
00:51:45.719 --> 00:51:46.960
I did not think that.
832
00:51:49.280 --> 00:51:52.559
I did not think that the citations that were used
833
00:51:52.559 --> 00:51:57.119
to support the decision were adequate to support the decision.
834
00:52:00.159 --> 00:52:03.079
I came on to the court. I'd been a public
835
00:52:03.079 --> 00:52:08.320
defender in my career starting out, and I certainly didn't
836
00:52:08.679 --> 00:52:15.360
have I was not convinced that the legislature should have
837
00:52:15.519 --> 00:52:20.519
had a no intent crime. The state, but our court
838
00:52:21.239 --> 00:52:27.159
certainly my predecessors, in order to ameliorate the harshness of
839
00:52:27.199 --> 00:52:34.039
that statute in a case that was decided before I joined,
840
00:52:34.039 --> 00:52:39.960
the court required or gave an affirmative defense to the
841
00:52:40.039 --> 00:52:43.599
to a defendant who was charged with possession crime that
842
00:52:44.400 --> 00:52:47.000
they could raise this defense that they had no knowledge
843
00:52:47.079 --> 00:52:52.039
and it was not willful possession. And that was how
844
00:52:52.199 --> 00:52:56.079
things proceeded for decades, that the defendant could raise that
845
00:52:56.159 --> 00:52:59.679
as a defense. So I wasn't convinced that it was
846
00:52:59.719 --> 00:53:03.159
a not on intent crime in the sense that although
847
00:53:03.159 --> 00:53:05.920
the state didn't have the burden, the defendant did have
848
00:53:05.920 --> 00:53:09.079
a defense. So I thought that was adequate to meet
849
00:53:09.079 --> 00:53:12.000
the constitutional requirements, and so I signed the dissent.
850
00:53:12.280 --> 00:53:14.960
And of course the overturning of that law had a
851
00:53:15.039 --> 00:53:20.119
huge ripple effect efforts to essentially go back, do look
852
00:53:20.159 --> 00:53:24.800
backs and clear people's records find them. Excuse me, Well,
853
00:53:24.800 --> 00:53:26.320
we have less than a minute left, and so I
854
00:53:26.360 --> 00:53:30.199
do owe you a final question about what's next. I'll
855
00:53:30.239 --> 00:53:32.199
preview this by saying, I understand you're going to be
856
00:53:32.360 --> 00:53:35.599
teaching at your Is it your alma mater? Yes, it
857
00:53:35.599 --> 00:53:41.119
is your alma mater, gonzag Yes, yes, you saw something
858
00:53:41.159 --> 00:53:43.360
missing in their law school offerings.
859
00:53:43.639 --> 00:53:45.400
Yes, state constitutional law.
860
00:53:46.079 --> 00:53:47.440
It seems pretty fundamental.
861
00:53:47.880 --> 00:53:52.239
Well, and Chief Justice Stevens had been teaching that course
862
00:53:52.280 --> 00:53:56.599
when she was in practice, so it seemed like a
863
00:53:56.639 --> 00:54:00.440
really good fit for me. I think as I get older,
864
00:54:00.519 --> 00:54:06.000
I have to fight cynicism, So it struck me as
865
00:54:06.440 --> 00:54:10.719
a really great place to be to find hope and optimism.
866
00:54:11.000 --> 00:54:17.360
Young people can re energize people who've been in the
867
00:54:17.400 --> 00:54:19.400
system so long that they tend to be a little
868
00:54:19.400 --> 00:54:20.920
bit skeptical.
869
00:54:21.159 --> 00:54:22.639
You're going to train the next generation.
870
00:54:22.800 --> 00:54:23.519
That's my plan.
871
00:54:23.920 --> 00:54:28.119
Former Chief Justice and now recently retired Justice Barbara hey Madison,
872
00:54:28.280 --> 00:54:30.000
thank you for coming in for the sex interview. We
873
00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:31.559
appreciate it and we wish you good luck. Thank you
874
00:54:31.679 --> 00:54:33.599
very thanks for you years of service. Thank you for
875
00:54:33.760 --> 00:54:36.599
watching Inside Olympia. We will see you again next week