Barbara Madsen
From Judgepedia
Contents |
Barbara A. Madsen is a justice on the Washington Supreme Court. She is only the third woman to be elected to a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court since the formation of the Court in 1889. Justice Madsen was first elected in 1992, re-elected in 1998, and re-elected for a third term on September 14, 2004.[1] She was appointed to the bench by Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire.
Legal Background
A native of Renton, Justice Madsen received her undergraduate degree from the University of Washington in 1974 and earned her J.D. from Gonzaga University School of Law in 1977. While at Gonzaga, Justice Madsen volunteered many hours with Gonzaga’s University Legal Assistance Clinic and with Spokane Legal Services. Currently, Justice Madsen sits on the Board of Advisors for Gonzaga University School of Law and serves regularly as a judge in Gonzaga’s Annual Moot Court Competition.
Legal Career
After graduation, Justice Madsen worked as a public defender in King and Snohomish Counties. In 1982, she joined the Seattle City Attorney’s Office as a staff attorney and was appointed Special Prosecutor in 1984. In that role, Justice Madsen was responsible for developing the child abuse component of the Family Violence Project for the City Attorney’s Office. Justice Madsen was appointed to the Seattle Municipal Court bench in 1988 by then Mayor Charles Royer. While in the Municipal Court, Justice Madsen began working toward the development of a Domestic Violence Coordinating Committee to comprehensively address violence in the family. As Seattle’s Presiding Judge, Justice Madsen increased opportunities for women and minority attorneys to receive appointments as pro tem judges and increased diversity among the court employee population.
Awards and Associations
Justice Madsen is an active volunteer with the Pierce County public schools and active in the Judges in the Classroom program. In 1993, Justice Madsen was honored as the first recipient of the annual Myra Bradwell Award, honoring an outstanding alumna of Gonzaga University School of Law who has made great strides on behalf of women. In 1998, she was honored as a Very Important Woman by the Thurston County Women’s Symposium, and received the Washington Women Lawyers Vanguard Award in 1998 and again in 2002 for her leadership and inspiration for women in the legal profession. In addition, Justice Madsen has been honored with Department of the Army Certificate of Achievement 1999, Washington Women Lawyers Foundation Award 2001, National Association of Women Judges Special Presidents Award 2002, Seattle University School of Law Woman of the Year 2003, Equal Justice Coalition Judicial Award 2004, the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association Certificate of Appreciation for Contribution to Legal Education 2004; a 2004 award from the Washington State Bar Association for her leadership and work on behalf of the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission; and a 2006 Access to Justice Award of Distinction for Public Service.
Justice Madsen serves as chair of the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission. She also chairs the Supreme Court Personnel Committee; she co-chairs the court’s Internal Rules Committee and serves on the Budget Committee, Administrative Committee, and the Washington Court Reports Commission, as well as on the Board for Judicial Administration. Justice Madsen is a member of the American Judges Association, the National Association of Women Judges, and the Judicature Society.
Campaign contributions
In the 2004 election, Barbara Madsen raised $46,491. The top three industries are Real Estate, with $6,000, Home Builders, with $5,000, and Civil Servants/Public Officials with $4,835.[2] For a complete summary, visit Follow the Money: Barbara Madsen 2004.
Court rules police can pose as lawyers
In May 2007, the Washington Supreme Court allowed the police to impersonate attorneys in order to obtain evidence. In reopening a decades-old rape and murder case, Seattle police created a fictitious law firm. On the law firm letterhead, and representing themselves as attorneys, they sent a letter to the person they suspected of the crime, inviting him to join as a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. The suspect wrote back, believing he was starting an attorney-client relationship with the "attorneys" who were really police pretending to be attorneys. The police used DNA testing on the envelope to match the saliva from licking the envelope with semen left from the crime.
While the Supreme Court recognized that what the police did was a crime, stating "Although the police officers here were not actually attorneys, they held themselves out as attorneys, in violation of RCW 2.48.180(2)(a)," the Court then resolved the case by deciding that a person does not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in their saliva on an envelope that was mailed so the DNA evidence was admissible. The Court made the specific statement that "We find there is no absolute prohibition of police ruses involving detectives posing as attorneys in the state of Washington." The decision was determined by Charles Johnson, James Johnson, Bobbe Bridge, Barbara Madsen, and Susan Owens.[3]
Madsen rules in favor of traditional marriage
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 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.” Justice Madsen stressed the limited nature of the court’s ruling. Justice Madsen wrote that the plaintiffs were not entitled to such review because they had not demonstrated that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like race or gender. She added that the judges should not dictate public policy. The law banning gay marriages may yet change, she said, but not “because five members of this court have dictated it. 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.”[4] The Washington Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act became even more socially significant when Judge Barbara Madsen, publicly questioned the proof for homosexuality as an immutable trait. "Laws challenged on the basis of race or sex discrimination are generally subjected to more searching review," stated Justice Madsen. She added that the plaintiffs were not entitled to such review because they had not demonstrated that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like race or gender.[5]
See Also
External Links
- Washington Courts: Barbara Madsen
- Public Disclosures: Contributions
- Follow the Money: Barbara Madsen
- NNBD
- Wikipedia: Barbara Madsen
- Washington Court Upholds Ban on Gay Marriage
