Court Opinion

ID: 9564906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:11:13.314055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:14.813250
License: Public Domain

Andersen, J.
(concurring) — I concur with Justice Dore's opinion except in one respect; I would not reach the issue of Judge Kaiser's constitutional free speech rights. This is because Judge Kaiser's statement that "My opponent . . . has received the majority of his financial contributions from drunk driving defense attorneys" is false, and in this context is not entitled to constitutional protection. See CJC Canon 7B(l)(c); In re Donohoe, 90 Wn.2d 173, 181-84, 580 P.2d 1093 (1978); In re Baker, 218 Kan. 209, 542 P.2d 701 (1975). "A reviewing court should not pass on constitutional issues unless absolutely necessary to the determination of the case." State v. Hall, 95 Wn.2d 536, 539, 627 P.2d 101 (1981).