Ok, a little more on the judge races.
And specifically on the question of how to figure out who is really qualified to sit on the bench.
The table below is from VotingForJudges.org. VFJ does not do a rating, it simply compiles and attempts to present an unbiased presentation of the judge races. All of the groups that provide ratings are subject to charges of bias.
In order to receive a rating, a candidate sometimes needs to sit for an interview or complete a questionnaire and submit documents.
The asterisks below indicate that for one reason or another, a candidate was not rated by an organization. Sometimes that means the candidate did not respond to an organization, other times it may mean that scheduling conflicts made it impossible for a candidate to make an interview with an organization. It can also mean that a candidate was not contacted by an organization that was conducting ratings.
These ratings are all reference points to help a voter make an informed decision about voting for judges in non-partisan elections. These are difficult decisions and many voters do not have time for research so they rely on these tables of ratings (or on the presence of sign-wavers at busy intersections and simple name recognition).
Sorry about the readability of this table, I had to squeeze it pretty hard to get it to fit in this space available at WA Liberal website.
Important note! Each of these organizations uses its own standards and rating terms when evaluating candidates; please check their pages for further information. We do not have ratings for candidates with an asterisk (*), and the reasons vary. Some evaluations may still be in process, or we might not have received them yet; some candidates may not have been offered an opportunity to participate, or they may have declined to participate. Again, please check the organizations’ pages for further details.