Why I'm voting for Justice Steven Gonzalez: Literacy
Okay, so there are many reasons why I'm voting for Justice Steven Gonzalez in the August Primary. First, he's garnered the endorsements of, well, everyone. Second, he was a great superior court judge. Third, he's a champion of social justice. Finally, strikingly handsome man. Not as handsome as your professor, but given the right conditions, he might be able to best me in a Zoolander style walk-off.
(Looks like we have ourselves a walk off!)
Really though, the quality I admire most about him is one we should seek in all candidates for judicial office: literacy.
On the other hand, Justice Gonzalez's opponent, Bruce Danielson, is lacking a lot in what I look for in a judicial candidate. Where Steven Gonzalez won all the endorsements, Danielson won none. He even refused to participate in the King County Bar Association candidate evaluation. Lets take a look at his voting guide and break it down.
Danielson states he was a business owner. Great, that makes you and every guy who opens a shop handling DUI, divorces, car accidents, slip and falls, wills, contracts, and everything under the sun. Most attorneys are small business owners. Let's look at the grammar behind that statement though:
Business owner, manager, and work as a laborer prior to law school enhances my insight as to how our State's laws affect property and individual rights.
Now, if you're like me, you picked up on the lack of agreement. Break down the list, and it reads just a little awkward. "Business owner enhances my insight." "Manager enhances my insight." This should read: "My work as a business owner, manager, and laborer enhances my insights." I am, of course, giving Danielson the benefit of the doubt, in that he only claims to have had one insight.
Let's look at his other qualifications: Rule 9 intern.
Well, if you're like half of the people that went to law school, you had your Rule 9. Basically, a Rule 9 certification gives a third year law student the ability to sign briefs and argue, with one important caveat: the lawyer must be supervised. Its an internship, people! Saying you had an internship 28 years ago is a good reason to elect you supreme court justice is like pitching myself to the Yankees because I played tee-ball as a kid.
His voters' guide information also shows that Danielson subscribes to the originalist theory of constitutional interpretation. The only problem with this is that constitutional originalism was original only as of the 1980s. By that time, most of the founding fathers had died. I still hold out hope that Abe Vigoda was actually one of the founding fathers, because MAN, that guy is OLD!
(Click on picture to see if Abe's alive)
Arbitrator? I'm pretty sure the only qualification to become a court appointed arbitrator per the court rules is 5 years in practice, or the parties pick you:
[A]n arbitrator must be a member of the Washington State Bar Association who has been admitted to the Bar for a minimum of 5 years, or who is a retired judge. The parties may stipulate to a nonlawyer arbitrator.
To qualify as an arbitrator, a person must sign and file an oath of office, either to serve in a particular case, or as a member of a panel of arbitrators. The court is authorized to remove an individual from a list of qualified arbitrators for good cause.
So, basically, he got his name on a list and/or someone picked him to arbitrate a case.
What else ya got? Well, more bad grammar and a very different take on insurance law (at least different than the dictionary):
As a Supreme Court justice, I will insure fundamental constitutional principals are not offended or altered for the sake of accommodating prevailing popular sentiment.
Well, you insure a car, a business, or, in the case of some models, your hands. I doubt even Lloyd's of London would insure a constitutional principle (and they insured a mustache!).
I'm pretty sure he was looking to ENSURE constutitional principles weren't offended. Now, that brings me to my last bit of grammar: principle vs. principal. Remember kids: the principal is your P-A-L. That said, you never want to offend him. To aid in understanding, I have included my rendition of an offended constitutional principal:
So, in the August primary, I will be voting for Justice Gonzalez, as opposed to the guy who can't proofread and won zero endorsements. Need another reason to vote Gonzalez? In Danielson's 2008 run for superior court, he received the endorsement of none other than FORMER Justice Richard Sanders, who lost due to racial comments and failing to recuse himself from an opinion in which he had a financial interest. In case you forget, just google "Justice Richard Sanders Slog".