A cautionary tale of ideology and uninformed voters in judicial races

News that Seattle Municipal Court Judge Pooja Vaddadi has lost the confidence of city prosecutors should come as no surprise.

In her campaign for the bench in 2022, Vaddadi cast herself as a former public defender bent on rebalancing the scales of justice in favor of those who lined up with her former clients.

The municipal court dust-up is symptomatic of a deeper challenge. It’s tough for voters to sort through judicial candidates. Jurists, lawyers and other stakeholders ought to do some deep thinking on how to better educate residents to elect fair and competent judges.

On March 1, Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison announced that her office would seek to avoid Vaddadi in all criminal cases going forward.

The City Attorney claimed Vaddadi “routinely overrules prior findings of probable cause by her fellow judges; repeatedly fails to find probable cause in situations where, clearly, probable cause exists; makes improper rulings related to public safety in domestic violence and DUI cases; frequently makes erroneous evidentiary rulings for unjustified reasons, rather than articulating any legal analysis.”

And this: “In many instances, Judge Vaddadi has refused to issue written No Contact Orders, even in situations with a demonstrated history of domestic violence.”

When Vaddadi participated in The Times editorial endorsement interview in 2022, she made no attempt to hide her ideological stripes. She told the board that the entire Seattle Municipal Court bench handed down rulings that were “nakedly biased in favor of the prosecution.” She added: “Nobody is getting a fair shake in that court.”

At the time we wrote: “One can assume that Vaddadi would seek to remedy that perception by bringing her own strong opinions to the bench. Seattle residents would not be well served by such a jurist.”

It should be noted that the King County Bar Association determined Vaddadi’s opponent, incumbent Adam Eisenberg, was “Exceptionally Well Qualified.” According to the organization, Vaddadi “did not request to be evaluated.”

That should have been a tip-off. Apparently, it wasn’t. Vaddadi handily beat Eisenberg, who earned the board’s endorsement, with a whopping 63% of the vote.

Vaddadi contributed $24,120 to her own campaign, about 34% of her $96,607 total receipts. By comparison, Eisenberg himself contributed only 12% of his $74,301 total, according to Public Disclosure Commission records.

The role of campaign cash is alarming enough in our political system. In judicial races, eyebrows ought to rise even higher.

When the outcome of an election is a judge seemingly uncommitted to impartiality, the community loses. Voters must have better tools to make more informed choices.