Richard Serns
Elections and appointments
Personal
Contact
Richard Serns ran in a special election for the Position 6 judge of the Washington Supreme Court. He lost in the special general election on November 3, 2020.
Serns completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2020. Click here to read the survey answers.
Biography
Richard Serns was born in Edgerton, Wisconsin. Serns served in the U.S. Army from 1970 to 1971. He obtained a Ph.D. from the University of Oregon in 1997 and a J.D. from the University of Washington School of Law in 1999. His professional experience includes working as a superintendent of schools, as an adjunct law school professor, as the lead negotiator for over 20 collective bargaining agreements, and as a Title IX, non-discrimination, anti-bullying, and anti-harassment compliance officer. He also worked with special education administrators, principals, teachers, and parents to ensure compliance with special education laws and regulations.[1]
Serns is involved with the Lions Club. He was previously a board member of Seattle/South King County chapter of Habitat for Humanity, and a member of the Rotary Club, the Washington Education Association, the Washington School Personnel Association, and the Washington Association of School Administrators.[1]
Elections
2020
See also: Washington Supreme Court elections, 2020
General election
Nonpartisan primary election
The primary election was canceled. Incumbent G. Helen Whitener and Richard Serns advanced from the special primary for Washington State Supreme Court Position 6.
2020
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Richard Serns completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2020. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Serns' responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
Expand all | Collapse all
Dr. Richard Serns is a K-12 educator and an attorney. After working as a teacher, (including teaching in the areas of Washington State History and Government), and then as a school principal, Dr. Serns completed a Ph.D. in Policy Development and Analysis, researching the Process and Politics of Education Legislation in Washington State. He then completed a J.D. degree from the University of Washington School of Law in 1999, and continued working in K-12 education as a Human Resources administrator and a school superintendent. He also was an adjunct professor for two different universities teaching School Law to principals in training. In all of his administrative roles in education, Dr. Serns dealt with the many issues of law that impact and guide students, staff, board members, and community members on a daily basis, including legal issues involving Personal Rights and Constitutional law; Employment and Labor law (as a lead negotiator for over 20 collective bargaining agreement which were all settled amicably with mutual beneficial provision for all stakeholders); Special Education law; Family law, and Public Records and Freedom of Information law; Title IX and Non-Discrimination law; and Anti-Bullying and Anti-Harassment law. Because of his Ph.D. in Policy Development and Analysis and his J.D. degree, Dr. Serns reviewed and revised all policies and procedures for two major school districts, insuring that all policies and procedures conformed with all state and federal laws.
- Judicial candidates and judges should be non-partisan, not only in name but being true to the true meaning of that label.
- Judicial candidates and judges should never be influenced by campaign contributions. The best way to do that is to not accept any financial donations, which this campaign is committed to.
- Your experience with the criminal justice system should not vary based on your income, your race or ethnicity, your religious beliefs, or your political ideology.
I believe our criminal justice system needs to do a better job of providing equal justice to everyone regardless of income, race or ethnicity, religion, or political ideology. There are many ways that this goal can and must be achieved, including, better training for everyone in the system, including police officers, other public service officials, attorneys, and judges. I believe that most all public officials and police officers, and officers of the courts, enter their professions for the right reasons and have the best of intentions, however, there is still a profound need for better training and appropriate discipline or sanctions for those who do not seek to further these goals. The inequities in our system because of the influence of money, which effects all races and ethnicities, in my view, is the most pressing, however, because of the distribution of wealth in our society, these inequities fall even greater on people of color. And these inequities must be better recognized and addressed.
I believe strongly that anyone who strives for a leadership position of any kind should be a role model for others, especially for our future generations of young people who look to us as their examples. This includes integrity; transparency; honesty; empathy; and a commitment to fairness, justice, and equity.
I believe this also includes showing respect for others, even those that we disagree with and who don't always show respect back. My campaign slogan is, "Finding Solutions, Not Finding Fault." I am deeply concerned about the partisan bickering and name calling that is all too prevalent among many of our public officials today; where too often people won't even listen to and consider the thoughts and ideas of those who have different views than they do, and they show distain and disrespect that is anything but what we should be modeling to our young people, and to each other.
Often dealing with highly emotional and important issues that tend to divide people such as labor disputes, discipline investigations, or school policies, I have been acknowledged by multiple stakeholders with divergent viewpoints and agendas as one who listens carefully to all sides; one who seeks to give all stakeholders a voice and who shows them respect regardless of their point of view; and one who seeks to make decisions, policies, and practices that are fair and just to all parties, irrespective of their social, economic, or political status. It is this legacy that I am most proud of, and one that I believe provides the qualities that are most needed in a Supreme Court justice.
Often dealing with highly emotional and important issues that tend to divide people such as labor disputes, discipline investigations, or school policies, I have been acknowledged by multiple stakeholders with divergent viewpoints and agendas as one who listens carefully to all sides; one who seeks to give all stakeholders a voice and who shows them respect regardless of their point of view; and one who seeks to make decisions, policies, and practices that are fair and just to all parties, irrespective of their social, economic, or political status. It is this legacy that I am most proud of, and one that I believe provides the qualities that are most needed in a Supreme Court justice.
I remember we had recently purchased our first TV when I was a 12 year old child growing up on the farm. I was watching the March on Washington coverage live and I saw the MLK, Jr. "I Have a Dream" speech live. It moved me and, along with the influence of my parents example, I have always been passionate about equal justice for all.
I like all of C.S. Lewis's books, especially his Christian apologetics works such as, Mere Christianity, The Great Divorce, and Pilgrim's Regress. He takes the profound and makes it simple; for example, one of his well-known quotes is, "Sometimes the longest way around is the shortest way home," meaning if we are persistent, faithful, sincere, and diligent in our pursuit of truth and justice, we will get to where we need to be, even if there are some well-intentioned, but distracting detours along the way.
I believe that empathy is an important quality for any human being. While it should not unduly influence the ruling of a judge, it certainly needs to be a characteristic that acts as a filter when weighing the appropriate outcome of a case with legal precedent and requirements.
In our state, Supreme Court Justices, and all judges for that matter, are elected positions; and the candidates are to be nonpartisan. To the extent that that is judicially followed, that requirement can and should serve as a check and balance against the actions of the executive and legislative branches, and is therefore a very positive aspect of our state government. However, at both the state and federal levels, there is a troubling tendency for this separation of powers to be eroded by partisan politics. For example, in our state, often a sitting judge will retire mid-term so that the executive branch (the governor) can then appoint someone to fill the remaining term of that judge, so that he or she then has the advantage of running as in incumbent in the next election. To the extent that this is necessary (death or incapacity of a judge), and the executive does not limit his or her pool of applicants to party loyalists, this is not a problem. However, too often, this serves as a way of rewarding the executive's political base which (even though the appointees may have excellent qualifications) has a chilling effect on the potential of the judicial branch serving its proper role of being a check and balance on the other branches (or at least it gives that perception and erodes the confidence that people have that the court is truly neutral and free from partisan influence).
I believe that experience is always valuable, however, non-traditional experience can often provide insights and perspectives that would otherwise be missing. When it comes to the qualifications for judicial offices, it is important to understand the role of that court. For a person to be a trial judge it would be extremely important, and probably invaluable, to have a judge that has trial experience as an attorney. However, at the appellate court level the process is quite different. At the appellate level, there is usually a very strong legal argument to be made on both sides of an issue. The legal issue is usually quite narrowly defined and a great deal of research and support have been provided from the lower courts and the attorneys. After hearing the oral arguments and studying the written documents, the justices, as a group, deliberate regarding the merits of the case, do further research individually, deliberate further and ultimately decide which argument in their view has the stronger legal basis. Regardless of the types and levels of experience the individual justices have there is still often a split regarding what the outcome should be. (When there are never dissenting opinions, that is probably a sign that there is a lack of balance in the court). In Washington state, there is a Constitutional requirement that a justice on the Court of Appeals have at least five years of experience. However, at the Supreme Court there is no such requirement. I believe that this is a clear indication that the framers of our state Constitution and those that ratified it, recognized that from time-to-time it would be valuable to have justices elected who brought a fresh perspective because of their non-traditional, but valuable experience.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
See also
External links
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on August 20, 2020
