News Release:
Monday, October 28, 2024
For Immediate Release
Oct. 28, 2024
Contact information: [email protected]
SEATTLE – The ACLU of Washington (ACLU-WA) filed a lawsuit today in King County Superior Court challenging the Seattle City Attorney’s Office’s misuse of prosecutorial power, which results in an elected judge being barred from presiding over the cases she should be adjudicating.
The case concerns a mandatory policy issued in February 2024 by the Seattle City Attorney’s Office directing all assistant city attorneys to file an “affidavit of prejudice” against Judge Pooja Vaddadi on all criminal cases. Judge Vaddadi was elected to serve in Seattle Municipal Court, which is foremost a misdemeanor criminal court. The Seattle City Attorney’s Office has the exclusive authority to prosecute misdemeanor cases in Seattle Municipal Court. Under its mandatory policy, the city attorney’s office went from filing only a few disqualifications per month to filing on average several hundred – a rate that overwhelmingly exceeds the city’s prior use of judicial disqualifications.
Due to the city attorney’s mandate, Judge Vadaddi’s role on the bench has been limited to addressing traffic and parking citations, a function typically performed by magistrate judicial officers, not elected judges. Through its mandatory policy, the city attorney has effectively removed Judge Vaddadi from the position she was elected to by the voting public.
The issue at the heart of the lawsuit is not the general rule permitting judicial disqualification – it is the city attorney’s mandatory requirement that all assistant city attorneys disqualify Judge Vaddadi. Prosecuting attorneys are afforded wide discretion in exercising their duties as prosecutor, but that power is not limitless.
The city attorney’s actions go beyond a mere impediment to functionality – the city attorney has effectively removed a sitting judge from the bench.
The suit was brought on behalf of the Washington Community Alliance (WCA), as well as three individual Seattle voters. WCA is deeply concerned that the Seattle City Attorney’s use of this blanket affidavit policy usurps the will of the voters who elected Judge Vaddadi to serve on the Seattle Municipal Court Bench, undermining the democratic process.
“The Seattle City Attorney’s use of a blanket policy against Judge Vaddadi is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, expanding what is intended to be a case-specific tool into a mandatory policy, effectively usurping the will of the voters,” said La Rond Baker, legal director for ACLU-WA. “The people of Seattle elected Judge Vaddadi, and another elected official is undermining the democratic will of Seattle voters by preventing Judge Vaddadi from doing her job.”
Representing the plaintiffs are ACLU-WA legal director La Rond Baker and staff attorneys Adrien Leavitt and Jonathan Nomamiukor.
Oct. 28, 2024
Contact information: [email protected]
SEATTLE – The ACLU of Washington (ACLU-WA) filed a lawsuit today in King County Superior Court challenging the Seattle City Attorney’s Office’s misuse of prosecutorial power, which results in an elected judge being barred from presiding over the cases she should be adjudicating.
The case concerns a mandatory policy issued in February 2024 by the Seattle City Attorney’s Office directing all assistant city attorneys to file an “affidavit of prejudice” against Judge Pooja Vaddadi on all criminal cases. Judge Vaddadi was elected to serve in Seattle Municipal Court, which is foremost a misdemeanor criminal court. The Seattle City Attorney’s Office has the exclusive authority to prosecute misdemeanor cases in Seattle Municipal Court. Under its mandatory policy, the city attorney’s office went from filing only a few disqualifications per month to filing on average several hundred – a rate that overwhelmingly exceeds the city’s prior use of judicial disqualifications.
Due to the city attorney’s mandate, Judge Vadaddi’s role on the bench has been limited to addressing traffic and parking citations, a function typically performed by magistrate judicial officers, not elected judges. Through its mandatory policy, the city attorney has effectively removed Judge Vaddadi from the position she was elected to by the voting public.
The issue at the heart of the lawsuit is not the general rule permitting judicial disqualification – it is the city attorney’s mandatory requirement that all assistant city attorneys disqualify Judge Vaddadi. Prosecuting attorneys are afforded wide discretion in exercising their duties as prosecutor, but that power is not limitless.
The city attorney’s actions go beyond a mere impediment to functionality – the city attorney has effectively removed a sitting judge from the bench.
The suit was brought on behalf of the Washington Community Alliance (WCA), as well as three individual Seattle voters. WCA is deeply concerned that the Seattle City Attorney’s use of this blanket affidavit policy usurps the will of the voters who elected Judge Vaddadi to serve on the Seattle Municipal Court Bench, undermining the democratic process.
“The Seattle City Attorney’s use of a blanket policy against Judge Vaddadi is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, expanding what is intended to be a case-specific tool into a mandatory policy, effectively usurping the will of the voters,” said La Rond Baker, legal director for ACLU-WA. “The people of Seattle elected Judge Vaddadi, and another elected official is undermining the democratic will of Seattle voters by preventing Judge Vaddadi from doing her job.”
Representing the plaintiffs are ACLU-WA legal director La Rond Baker and staff attorneys Adrien Leavitt and Jonathan Nomamiukor.
Explore More:
