Editorial: Brandt, Leland best for district judgeships

Spokane County District Court handles more than 70,000 cases a year, mostly misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor offenses like traffic matters that do not get much public attention except from defendants and their attorneys. But “A Blueprint for Reform” of the county’s criminal justice system put District Court in the spotlight last December, and the attention was not flattering.

The court’s eight judges, the Blueprint authors said, had not embraced some of the “smart justice” measures intended to separate habitual offenders from those who, with help, might never appear in a courtroom again; good for the offender, good for taxpayers, for whom the alternative is an expensive new jail.

The incumbent judges say the report does not give them credit for the changes instituted in recent years. Some challengers say the report indicates it’s time for a change.

That divide very much summarizes the contest for Position No. 7 between Randy Brandt, who was appointed to District Court in 2011, and Aimee Maurer, a first-time candidate who nevertheless has collected a long list of endorsers that includes notable local Republicans and Democrats.

Although we endorse Brandt, we were impressed with Maurer, but are not sure eight years as an attorney has given her enough experience for a judgeship. The Spokane County Bar Association rated her “qualified”; Brandt “well qualified”.

Brandt, an attorney for 21 years, is the court’s presiding judge. He says the Blueprint overlooked $3.5 million District Court has saved by reducing incarcerations. And the court has created special courts for domestic violence, veterans and those with mental health issues; the very venues smart justice supporters want, he says.

Maurer, who has been a prosecutor and defense lawyer, says the court works with a data system that still depends in part on document scanning, while other courts have long since moved to electronic filing that improves timeliness, accessibility and efficiency. Defendants, even attorneys, lose track of their cases, she says.

For Position No. 8, we endorse the court’s newest judge, Richard Leland, over challenger Tim Trageser. The bar association rated Leland “exceptionally well qualified.” Trageser declined to participate.

Leland says the Blueprint, which he has read several times, should be a catalyst for further change. District Court has been too silent about what it is doing, and needs to do more outreach to other stakeholders in the justice system. The former lending officer for the Farm Credit Bank has taken an unusual step for a judicial candidate: he has campaigned door-to-door; his personal outreach.

Trageser says his extensive history as a defense attorney makes him better able to identify defendants open to counseling and other measures that might get their lives turned around from those not truly interested in changing.

He says efforts to implement smart justice initiatives have been hampered by discord among the judges, and the lack of criteria for assigning cases to alternative courts.