WEEKLY EDITORIAL RECAP

WEDNESDAY

'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 -- 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 ... filed a lawsuit last week ...

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.