‘Let’s call the whole thing off’

Two years ago, Elizabeth Halverson ran for one of four newly created local district judgeships, knowing full well the seats had been created with the proviso that their first occupants would hold them for only two years before facing re-election.

The common wisdom was that the unusually brief initial term wouldn't matter much -- incumbents usually enjoy a vast advantage when it comes to fund-raising. Add the fact that they can pose for campaign ads wearing black robes, and refer to themselves as "Judge So-and-So" -- a privilege their challengers are denied -- and the re-election campaigns were seen as no big deal, virtual rubber-stamps.

After all, how much trouble can a new judge get into in a mere two years? Judge Halverson's picture may someday appear in legal dictionaries next to that question.

In a highly unusual move, the Judicial Discipline Commission suspended Judge Halverson from her duties, with pay, last July. The commission is scheduled to conduct a hearing next month into allegations that she slept during trials, mistreated staff members, and had improper communication with jurors.

The commission could remove her from office. Even if it does not, Judge Halverson has drawn substantial opposition to her re-election bid, and is considered a long-shot to retain her seat.

So Judge Halverson, acting as her own attorney, filed a lawsuit last week, asking the state Supreme Court to simply cancel this fall's election for her seat, allowing her to continue in office through 2012 without facing voters for another four years.

The Legislature, maneuvering to equalize judicial pay under rules that forbid pay raises taking effect until a judge has returned to face the voters, violated the state constitution when it created the two-year terms, Judge Halverson argues. The state constitution says judicial terms should be six years, and her current term should thus not expire until 2012, she argues.

It's a clever argument, more likely to please fans of legal fine print than voters, the need for whose approval Ms. Halverson now appears to dismiss as little more than an unnecessary inconvenience.

Judge Halverson knew the term of office when she ran for it. Her challenge is tardy at best, and appears self-serving to say the least.

Fearful that she may not fare well with voters in the fall, she asks the court to spare her the trouble.

Of course, the means to spare herself the trouble of a fall campaign are already within her reach. Given that her first attempt to woo next fall's voters is to tell them their votes shouldn't matter, one has to wonder if she'll really risk facing them, at all.