The use of negative campaigning or any campaigning at all, for Supreme Court seats is a sad turn of events.One would hope that these races would be above the fray would not descend into the same partisanship that so marks nearly all poitical activities these days and turns so many voters off. The ads that attack Alexander are particularly gross. While these ads are not paid for by the candidates, I can't help but notice that nobody is taking the high road and going on the air to blunty disavow their content or origin.

I find these negative adds very disturbing. Is this what we can expect in the future? Personally, I tend to vote for the person being attacked. This,however, will become more and more confusing as these adds proliferate.

I find Mr. Groen's attitude ("I'm shocked, don't know how this could happen...") about these offensive ads, offensive in itself. The ads are deplorable, attempting to splash mud in any way possible, without regard for facts or context.

And Mr. Groen's attempt to deny participation in the ad showing his smiling face in front of the court building is simply not credible. There is no way this was "a public appearance". It was a professionally staged shot. What is he saying? "These guys had lights and a film crew set up and I just happened to wander by?" Come on...

And for him to somehow magically disavow allegence to his employer of nearly a decade (the BIAW) is simply absurd. He must think the people of Washington are idiots.

Clearly these ads are professionally designed by the far right's smear machine to not address issues but simply to make people recoil. They have worked... against Mr. Groen. I'm voting against him, and encouraging everyone I know to do the same.

I just viewed a segment by Robert Mak on the ads for supreme court justices. Wow, what an eye opener. I had my suspicions, but Robert really came through with clarification. Darn, it was too late in my case. I voted for what I figured was the right guy. Bummer! I made the wrong choice. (for me) Same thing about declaring whether I was Democrat or Reublican. How on earth can it be considered constitutional that I declare only one of two parties? I am not either ;of the only two choises. Independent would probably cover my choise of parties.

Anyway, Thanks Robert for the eye opener.

Kimber Wright

I have met Chief Justice Gerry Alexander on several occasions. I am very impressed with him.
Chief Justice Alexander is an honest man that works for the people and within the guidelines of the law.

Mr Groen is being backed by big money and yet he claims he won't owe them anything...can we possibly beleive that?

Chief Justice Alexander was supportive toward my son's Eagle Scout goals. Our family was very impressed with how much time he devoted to a young man's dream. I believed Chief Justice Gerry Alexander when he said to my son, "The people are my boss, you are my boss." He went on to say, " I don't want the people to feel like there is a seperation between the government and the people." He was very sincere and answered all of my son's questions. He then gave us a behind the scenes tour of the Temple of Justice. He invited us to return anytime. He meant it and 4 years later when my son was ready to have his Eagle Scout board of review, Chief Justice Alexander drove up to Kent from Olympia in the evening, and sat on his Board of Review. You can't get more personable than that.

We believe that Chief Justice Gerry Alexander is a Supreme Court Justice "By the People, For the People, and Of the People."

Joe and Susan Cinkovich
Joey Cinkovich
Josh Cinkovich

My vote goes to Gerry Alexander. The ads are disgusting.

Chief Justice Alexander represented our Supreme Court well on Up Front. Mr Groen has no experience in the area of judicial review where he is making assertions. I agree that such decisions are difficult, but we are a country of laws, not politicians. Thank you for the presentation.

Bill & Bert

For the “attack” ads, I know that it has been a part of our election system for many years, but isn’t it time we grow up? The more I see them, the more I get turned off on the PACs and others that put the on the air. If they really wanted to do an attack as, then why not put on the air the humanitarian acts these candidates have done?
I can care less about these ads; they really draw from the issues at hand. Most of them are filled with half truths! It is my belief that they should never have been shown on TV, but in the political rallies of the PAC that made them.
Lets have a clean race, on the issues and on the facts, instead of these “attack” ads that only put out part of the truth. I would love to see a political race done this way. I am really sick of these PACs trying to force or manipulate the public with not telling all of the facts of a candidate!

I do not understand how any judge can sit on our state supreme court after having a DUI. It must be very uncomfortable for a judge to sit at the bench and make a decision about someone who has not conformed to the law while drinking and driving or walking and drinking for kids under the age of 21. This under age drinking offense gives the WA State court system around $500 ever time a youth enters the court! How can Judge Alexander sit on your program and act like she needs to take care of her problem! Oh well, she can keep her job, and punish others for the same offense, and that is just fine! He needs to take a real stand on her offense, and not skirt the issue, as he did on your show this evening! If the kids at college are paying the price for drinking and driving or drinking under age, then she should do the same. It would be in her best interest to step down after her DUI, and I think that Judge Alexander should either do the same or insist that she remove herself from public office!!!

A very concerned King County Voter

I enjoyed this evenings program with the judicial candidates and the ads the special interest groups are running against them. Just a few general observations.

First, we get what we expect. Rarely, has a major race been run without some mudslinging. Deplorable as it is look at who it is aimed at. The few non informed, generally emotional, and ocassionally single issue voters who actually vote. Most citizens don't vote. Of those who do vote few study the issues with any depth. Thus, to get the most bang for your political book so to speak if you appeal to those that vote and do not study the issue. (the mentally ignorant and emotionally charged) Past experience has taught politicians that it works so it is no suprise that judicial races eventually became fair game.

Second, I agree with an earlier observation regarding how Mr. Groen would throw away years of service to an industry that often has issues end up before the court. Some might say the same about Justice Alexander except that he has upset both the far right and far left with some of his decisions. (see vote against gay marriage which upset the liberals and his vote about 2nd degree murder vs. assault which upset the conservatives)

I will vote for Justice Alexander who has a track record of annoying both sides with his decisions and thus seems much more impartial. Mr. Groen has no judicial experience, has ties to one major industry, broke the spirit of the campaign law recently passed, and does not seem impartial in the least.

Finally, if you look at carriage, attitude, and demeanor it is obvious who has a thoughtful and judicious philosophy. The other candidate carries himself like a political hack and we have plenty of those in the legislative branch.

We live in Olympia and we have already voted for Justice Gerry Alexander. Let's put it this way: If justices were appointed, it's extremely doubtful Chief Justice Gerry Alexander's opponent would be appointed by any governor considering his lack of legal experience and apparent integrity. In the legal profession especially you don't advance from the bottom to the top by working for a special interest, leaping from a huge PAC pocket into a malicious negative political campaign, and then throwing on a black robe. Instead you take the high road and earn the respect of the Washington State Bar Association and the general public with years of honest representation in private practice and by climbing diligently up the various judgeships like Justice Alexander has.
And when Justice Bobbe Bridge had her DUI, she came out immediately and apologized. It was very obvious at the time that Justice Alexander was speaking in a manner supportive of her courage in taking full responsibility for such a serious mistake.
Making it sound like Justice Alexander is some buddy-buddy, self-centered character is not only offensive to him and the Washington State Supreme Court but it's also an insult to us as voters and citizens. You don't willy-nilly accuse and dispose of a tradition and valued asset of our beloved state--and that's what Justice Gerry Alexander is--a Washington State legal tradition and a valued asset--by distorting the facts and portraying him as someone he's not. To the contrary, litigants need a judge with the same incredible sense of fairness that he has.
And, just for the record, who else would jog the state while running for the Court of Appeals a few years ago? (By the way, Justice Alexander's opponent says he's argued 50 appellate cases--well, Justice Alexander WAS the Court of Appeals!)
And to say Justice Alexander would side for dangerous criminals while interpreting legislation is absurd. If anyone would follow the law, it would be him.
Again. maybe it's a good idea to debate judicial appointments. Justice Gerry Alexander is a very caring person and he and other ethical professionals like him would not have to be subjected to such disgraceful treatment as we have witnessed recently by these irresponsible TV campaign ads. They have brought nothing but embarrassment to this primary and to our state's revered legal profession.

Robert Mak’s Upfront program is very informative. I love listening to him ask all those candidates the questions no one else will.

Bashing during elections seems to be very common place today. My husband and I will not vote for candidates that bash their opponents. If they can’t talk about the issues facing the United States today, then they don’t need to be in office and if they are in office, they need to be voted out. We need strong leaders. Leaders that are concerned with the truth and want justice to rise above the muck and mire that has infiltrated our government. If crooks take office, how can they represent the people without their own interests winning out?

Which one of us has not made mistakes in our life? There is not one person in this world that can say they’ve never made a bad decision or compromised themselves by lying.

If the public votes on the premise of others words then they deserve the candidate that wins.

If the public votes after thoroughly researching the candidates and makes their own decision based on their research, then they deserve the candidate that wins.

Primary election party changes should not hold anyone back from picking a party and voting for those parties’ candidates. If you don’t pick a party in the primary, then you hurt those that you would cast your vote.

Don’t act like children, act like the adults that you are. MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT and if you want to make your vote count, THEN VOTE!!!

Don’t let someone else pick the winning candidate. YOU pick your own representative by voting for whom you would like to win.

We don't know what to think. Mr. Groen's point is well taken if Justice Alexander supported the continance of Justice Bridges after her deplorably inexcusable effort to evade justice after committing the awflly serious offenses of drunk driving and trying to flee the scene of the accident she caused while driving drunk with an abnormally high blood alcohol level. Drunk driving is the nations highest cause of deaths and tragedy on our highways. She was caught feeing by a citizen for crying out loud.

Keeping her seat on the state's highest court after that is a travesty of justice, judicial hypocrisy, and embarrassment to all Washingtonians.

Beyond that, most of us are glad that Mr. Groen was not successful in his campaign since he had a hidden agenda himself. We hope that Justice Alexander reconsiders his response to Justice Bridges' tenure on the court.