Judicial campaigns are growing nastier, nosier and costlier.

For example, during the 2006 elections, the race between Washington state Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and attorney John Groen was marked by many negative and misleading third-party ads on both sides. Nearly $3 million was spent on Supreme Court races that year.

In West Virginia, the sitting state Supreme Court Chief Justice refused to recuse himself from a case in which the losing party's CEO spent over $3 million on that justice's election. The chief justice cast the deciding vote overturning the $50 million judgment against the CEO's company. Sadly, this is not a scene from a John Grisham novel. It is happening in a state with judicial elections not unlike our own.

It is this trend of large campaign contributions, and the attendant risk to the integrity of the judiciary, that led to the formation of the Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns. Our specific mission is to promote preservation of public trust and confidence in the judiciary by encouraging fair and ethical campaigns for State Supreme Court and Court of Appeals positions. Similar groups have been formed in many other states as the problem of over politicizing judicial campaigns is not unique to our state.

Over-politicizing judicial elections belies the premise that judges should be fair, impartial and independent. It takes away the dignity that should be afforded to the judiciary. (Debates continue in the legal profession as to whether judges should be elected, as the state Constitution now requires, or selected by some other method.)

One might ask, "What's wrong with the campaign process? That is how we select our president, governor, county commissioners, members of Congress and Legislature." The answer is that judges are different. While it is appropriate to ask a legislative candidate how he or she will vote on a matter, it is not appropriate to ask a judge how he or she would rule on a future case.

Candidates for public office must be free to inform voters of their committed positions on specific issues so voters can intelligently vote. Judges, on the other hand, are not politicians. They are not representatives of any particular person or group. Judges must be indifferent to popularity.

Judges are required to make their decisions based upon the facts and law of the case. University of Washington law school professor, Bill Anderson says: "If one understands the value of judicial impartiality, one appreciates that candidates with fixed views on any side of issues should not be celebrated -- they should be disqualified."

The goal of maintaining a campaign process that protects the impartiality and independence of the judicial system will be no easy task in today's climate of attack and extreme partisan political campaigns. Fortunately, the committee accepts the challenge with no bias beyond its commitment to try to maintain the judiciary's integrity.

The committee is nonpartisan and independent of the Washington State Bar Association, the Washington judiciary and the governor's office. It is composed of a cross-section of citizens who have volunteered their time because of their concern with trends in judicial campaigns. The panel is chaired by retired appellate Judge William Baker, who was one of the first appointees to the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Neither the committee nor any of its members will endorse or actively campaign for any candidates in the campaigns being monitored. The committee has no legal authority to sanction candidates or supporters who step over the ethical lines of conduct. The group's sole power is to exercise its First Amendment free speech rights to bring attention to actions or campaigning that impugn the judiciary's independence and impartiality.

The specific goals include asking candidates to sign pledges agreeing to conduct ethical campaigns consistent with standards to promote public trust and confidence in the fairness and impartiality of Washington courts.

If the committee becomes aware of advertisements or literature it determines to adversely affect the reputation or integrity of the courts, or which breach the terms of the candidate's pledge, it will ask the candidate to withdraw the advertisement. If the advertisement comes from a source other than the candidate, the candidate will be asked to disavow the advertisement in a public statement. The committee may also make a public statement regarding the advertising or activity at issue.

We do not want to act as "speech police," but we do want to bring attention to unethical judicial campaigns. While the committee has no authority beyond any other citizen to prohibit such ads, it is committed to carefully reviewing the background, substance and details of such ads and then exercise its free speech rights if an ad is determined to be improper. We believe this information can help the electorate, and editorial boards, with another valuable source of information upon which to rely when attempting to determine "fact or fiction" with regard to campaign ads about candidates for the judiciary.

Most of us do not know when or if he or she will be the next "customer" of the judicial system. Most of us hope it will be "never." However, if your controversy must be decided by the court system, you have the right to expect a fair and impartial judge, not someone who has been "bought and paid for" by some special interest group or decided by someone who has already decided the issues of your case before hearing the facts and the arguments of law involved with your case.

We all have a stake in maintaining the dignity, independence and impartiality of the court system.

* Jeffrey G. Frank is a Seattle attorney and a 1977 graduate of Eisenhower High School. Morris G. Shore is a Yakima attorney and a member of the Washington Committee for Ethical Judicial Campaigns. Frank is counsel to the committee.