Mary Fairhurst

From Judgepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Mary E. Fairhurst is an associate justice of the Washington Supreme Court. She was first elected to a six-year term on the court in 2002. In 2008, she was re-elected to a second six-year term in a non-partisan contest with challenger Michael Bond. Although the state's elections are non-partisan, Fairhurst is politically allied with the Democratic Party.[1] She will be up for re-election again in 2014, at the end of her term.

Legal background

Justice Mary Fairhurst

Justice Fairhurst earned her undergraduate degree in political science (graduating cum laude) from Gonzaga University in 1979, and five years later received her law degree (magnum cum laude) from the same institution. She currently serves on the Gonzaga Law School Board of Advisers.

Legal career

Fairhurst began her legal career in the Supreme Court as a judicial clerk, working for Chief Justice William H. Williams in 1984 and later Justice William C. Goodloe until 1986. Justice Fairhurst served in the Washington Attorney General's office. She worked with Attorneys General Christine Gregoire and Ken Eikenberry. Her specialties were in the areas of criminal justice, transportation, revenue and labor. Fairhurst worked on a constitutional amendment that increased the rights of crime victims and the accused, and has organized statewide conferences on domestic violence.

Awards and associations

Fairhurst has served as president of the Washington State Bar Association. She was the second woman and youngest attorney to hold this position. She also served on the Bar Board of Governors representing the Washington's 3rd congressional district as President of the Washington Women Lawyers. In 1998, Fairhurst was awarded the "Steward of Justice" award by then-attorney general Christine Gregoire.

2008 campaign

August 19 primary results

For Position 3 on the court, Fairhurst defeated Michael Bond with 409,033 votes to his 258,358 votes, or 61.29% to 38.71%).[2]

Candidate statement

Fairhurst's statement as to why she was seeking re-election said: "Since you elected me to our Supreme Court six years ago, I have worked to improve our justice system, to make our courts efficient and responsive, to ensure access to justice for all, and to protect the rights of every person in Washington State. I was raised in a loving family which placed great value on fairness, service and the dignity of every man, woman and child. Every day I go to work aware that my decisions affect thousands of lives. Since joining the court I have decided over 600 cases. To every case I have brought an open mind, fairness, common sense and a commitment to uphold our Constitution. We are a diverse people united by a common law and Constitution. As a Justice, I am obligated not to any group, but to respect the rule of law and uphold our Constitution. I am dedicated to ensuring that we have a legal system that treats people fairly, equally and protects the rights of everyone."[3]

Endorsements

The Seattle Times editorially endorsed challenger Michael Bond over Fairhurst. According to their editorial board, "Bond has a sharp mind, he knows the law and he presents a compelling case to replace the one-term Mary Fairhurst. In a sentence, the case is this: Fairhurst, who used to have a job defending the government, accepts the government's arguments — and excuses — far too much now that she is on the court".[4]

The Times also compiled a list of 17 decisions involving government agencies and found that Fairhurst sided with government 15 times -- or 88 percent of the time.[5]

2002 campaign

Contributions

In the 2002 election, Fairhurst's campaign raised $139,736. Retirees and civil servants made up the largest group to give to the campaign with $34,295, or 24.54%. Second, lawyers and lobbyists together gave $32,020, or 22.91%, and third, labor groups, with $20,030, or 14.33%.[6]

Same-sex marriage ban

In a 5-4 decision in 2006 the court overruled two lower courts that had found the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriage to opposite-sex couples, violated the state constitution and its Equal Rights Amendment. The four justices in the minority, including Fairhurst, objected strenuously to the majority's opinion. Fairhurst said those in the majority had bowed to public opinion by upholding the law.[7]

Access to public documents

In a controversial 5-4 opinion in 2004, Fairhurst joined with the majority in ruling that communications between government agencies and their lawyers are exempt from the state's public-disclosure law. The majority, included Fairhurst, believe that attorney-client privilege supersedes the requirements of the landmark state Public Disclosure Act, approved by voters as an initiative in 1972. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Charles Johnson labeled that conclusion "absurd," arguing it "renders ineffectual the (law's) strong mandate to agencies that they must disclose public information." Johnson's dissent was signed by Justices Barbara Madsen, Richard Sanders and Tom Chambers.[8]

External links

References