July is a fertile month. The seedlings you see sprouting all over town in the form of political candidates’ yard signs are about to blossom into full-blown campaigns.

People who pay their filing fees and register as office seekers at the end of the month will soon be pushing your doorbell, pumping your hand, offering you a smile and a brochure. In every garden, though, some varieties are showier than others, while some are downright shy. In an election, they are the ones running for judge.

In Spokane County this year, judicial candidate sightings will be a little more common than usual. That’s because one District Court judge is stepping down and another will be running for the first time after having been appointed to a vacancy.

It’s uncommon for judges, once elected, to face opposition when seeking re-election. But open seats, or near open seats, can attract a crowd of bench-minded lawyers. More than half a dozen are aligned to make a run for District Court this fall.

If you want to participate in the selection as an informed voter — and you should — you’d better start gathering information. The candidates won’t be helpful.

Arguably, judicial elections are more important than others. When the legislators and the governors and other elected state officials have enacted the laws and promulgated the regulations, who ultimately decides what they mean or whether they’re valid at all? Right, judges.

And which campaigns produce virtually no meaningful discussions of philosophy or what to expect after election day? Right: judges.

Judicial candidates insist they can’t talk about substantive issues, because that would be prejudging issues about which they have to keep an open mind. They would let you think they have no philosophical convictions other than to uphold the law and interpret it honestly and impartially.

Sounds admirable, but it’s a dubious claim.

A couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled (5-4) that courts don’t necessarily have to toss out evidence that police obtain in illegal “no knock” searches. The decision was a departure from the court’s recent pattern of excluding improperly obtained evidence.

Court analysts figure that if Justice Sandra Day O’Connor were still on the court, instead of Justice Samuel Alito, who joined the majority, the decision would have tilted the other way. O’Connor and Alito clearly have different outlooks about such matters, but that doesn’t mean either is unethical.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Neil Modie, writing last week about looming state Supreme Court contests, noted that ideological battle lines are being drawn already by special interest groups who know who they can count on. Judges do have identifiable leanings.

As long as Washington voters are going to pick the state’s judges (and there are plenty of people who don’t think they should), they’re entitled to have information on which to make a reasoned decision. That doesn’t require any sitting judge or challenger to prejudge any case. It just means they can give the public a clearer idea of how they’ll approach the job they want. They might start by letting us know if they’d be more like O’Connor or more like Alito.