Name: Arthur Blauvelt
Title: Judge
Court: Elma Municipal Court
County: Grays Harbor
Discipline: Admonishment
Method of Resolution: Supreme Court affirmed but imposed no sanction
Discipline Date: 04/13/1989
Canons Violated:7(A)(1), 7(A)(4)
Summary: Rejecting the recommendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court refused to admonish an appointed, part time municipal court judge for attending a local caucus and a county caucus for the Democratic Party and being chosen as a delegate. The Court concluded that, as a delegate controlling the proxy of party members, the judge wielded influence at the party convention and acted as a leader in a political party. The Court rejected the judge's argument that the term "leader" in Canon 7 was unconstitutionally vague noting that Canon 7(A)(1) prohibits attendance at political gatherings, the Court stated it would be reasonable for a person of ordinary intelligence to conclude that taking an additional, active role by standing for election as a delegate is prohibited. The Court also held that Canon 7 applies to appointed as well as elected judges. But the Court concluded that no sanction was necessary. The Court noted that the challenged activities took place during a single election, were limited to attendance at a precinct caucus and a county convention, and were solely for the purpose of participating in the selection of a presidential nominee. The Court also found that there was no reason to believe that the judge would attend partisan conventions in the future, noting that as soon as the judge had received notice of the charges, he had refrained from attending the district and state conventions and that under Washington's new presidential primary election law, in the future, the judge would cast his vote for a presidential nominee by secret ballot. The Court also stated that no prior complaints had been made against the judge. Finally, the Court found that there was no indication that the judge's activity influenced his behavior on the bench or that the judge was exploiting his position to satisfy his personal desires. The Court noted the Commission's finding that the judge had acted with a good faith belief that he was exercising his constitutional rights. The Court found that there was no reason to address the judge's argument that the prohibition violated the state and federal constitutions because the Court lifted the admonishment and because the state's adoption of a presidential primary system had rendered the issues moot. The State Supreme Court affirmed the finding but imposed no sanction.
Case Documents Available:
Supreme Court Opinion In re Arthur A. Blauvelt, III 115 Wn.2d 735, 801 P.2d 235 filed 12/13/1990.
Commission Decision filed 3/31/1989.
Answer to Formal Complaint filed 8/31/1988.
Formal Complaint filed 8/31/1988.