Washington State: Tribes jointly opposing high-court candidate

By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times staff reporter

10/25/02

Dubbed "Mr. Anti-Indian" by his critics, state Supreme Court candidate Jim Johnson is facing the wrath of Washington tribes in the final weeks of his campaign.

Fund-raising is under way for a TV ad campaign, primarily funded by tribes, to run in the Seattle market beginning next week calling Johnson "too extreme for the Supreme Court."

So far, 10 tribes have contributed $40,000, and more is expected. Washington Conservation Voters also chipped in $20,000, and more is expected, said Bruce Gryniewski, executive director of the environmental group.

It's only the second time the tribes have taken this kind of step, said W. Ron Allen, chairman of the Jamestown S'Klallam tribe. The first was in former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton's failed re-election campaign in 2000.

"He has opposed tribes, tribes' treaty rights, and tribes' standing as governments," Allen said of Johnson. "He has made every effort to undermine our destinies as independent communities. We believe he is very biased and inappropriate for the supreme court."

Such opposition is no surprise, Johnson said. "If, God forbid, you were in a divorce, you would always hate the attorney on the other side. I am not trying to make light of the issue. But people do not like an attorney who has been on the opposite side of a case they felt was important."

Johnson has argued against key treaty disputes, from the 1974 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt, which secured a tribal right to half the catch, to U.S. District Judge Edward Rafeedie's 1994 decision that gave tribes access to private tidelands for shellfish harvesting.

Johnson also testified at a 1998 hearing in Washington, D.C., in favor of a Gorton bill, which went nowhere, that would have waived tribal sovereign immunity to lawsuits. "I know how Custer felt," Johnson said, recalling the hearing, packed with Native Americans opposing the bill.

Builders and developers had contributed the bulk of the $267,538 in cash contributions taken in by Johnson's campaign as of yesterday. That's more than three times as much as the $86,452 in cash contributions raised by Mary Fairhurst, Johnson's opponent for Position 3. Her largest contributions have come from tribes and unions, including public-school teachers, firefighters and other public employees.

Johnson says voters should be assured no one will get any special treatment if he wins. "I would not, do not and shall not represent any special interest on the bench. I'll take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, not any special interest, not the builders, the landowners or the tribes.

"I am assuring anyone, not just those who have been on the opposing side of my cases, and even those I've represented in cases, of my vehement determination to uphold my oath of office without respect to these prior cases and participants."

Then state attorney general, Gorton put Johnson to work in a series of trials and appeals that arose from the Boldt decision. Johnson also worked under state Attorney General Ken Eikenberry, handling cases for 25 state agencies, including all state elections cases. Johnson worked in the state Attorney General's Office from 1974 to 1993.

Later, as a private attorney, Johnson represented 65,000 private property owners opposed to the tribes harvesting shellfish on private tidelands. He lost but was able to limit harvests at any one property to five days a year and daylight hours, with access to the tidelands only by boat.

That made him a hero to some property owners, but further cemented the animosity of the tribes.

"He's son of Slade," said Marty Loesch, attorney for the Swinomish Tribe in La Conner. "He has these strikes against him, Boldt and Rafeedie, and you can't get much bigger than that, and he's quite proud of it."

Steve Robinson, policy analyst at the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission called Johnson "Mr. Anti-Indian."

"Anyone who supports the concept of Indian and non-Indian governments trying to find common ground to common problems had definitely better oppose Jim Johnson, because he does not stand for that."

Johnson called such criticism "a skewed perspective" that in no way reflects the breadth of his career. For instance, he said, he argued several cases that required protections for fish runs hurt by hydroelectric dams, some of which required payment to tribes for fish and wildlife programs.

Johnson, 57, has been active in Washington's legal scene on a wide range of issues. Over the years as a private attorney, Johnson also defended the constitutionality of Tim Eyman's 1999 car-tab measure, Initiative 695; represented a coalition led by builders, farmers and cattlemen seeking to remove federal protections for chinook salmon; defended Washington voters' right to vote for any candidate, without declaring a party affiliation; and defended the constitutionality of I-601, the spending-cap initiative.

Johnson said he also blocked an attempt to ease environmental controls on the Satsop nuclear plant in Southwest Washington, then under construction but never completed.

Some say the nonpartisan race is important because on an ideologically divided Supreme Court, Johnson — endorsed by the state GOP — would shift the balance of the bench.

His endorsements are a Who's Who of Republican Party leaders and current and former GOP lawmakers.

Alex Hays, Johnson's campaign manager, said the tribe's criticism is misplaced.

"Attacking Jim Johnson because of who his clients are is a dangerous attack on our justice system," Hays said. "It's important to remember that Jim Johnson was just the attorney. He represented the people of Washington, and he has always defended the constitutional rights of every person in Washington state."

Lynda V. Mapes: 206-464-2736 or lmapes@seattletimes.com.