Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals, Division 1, District 3, Position 1, which translates to Skagit, Whatcom, San Juan, and Island counties.

Cecily Hazelrigg-Hernandez
Tom Seguine


Cecily Hazelrigg-Hernandez    https://cecilyforcoa.com/   https://www.facebook.com/cecilyforcoa
cecilyforcoa@gmail.com
 
Ms Hazelrigg-Hernandez is a Skagit County public defender.

Statement: Born and raised in Northwest Washington, I attended Oak Harbor schools, SVC and WWU before Gonzaga law school. I am a seasoned trial attorney focusing on criminal law and a former instructor at Western Washington University. My years working as a public defender in the Skagit County courts, teaching at the university level, and demonstrated commitment to community service have uniquely prepared me to represent the residents of Skagit, Whatcom, San Juan and Island Counties at the Court of Appeals.

My legal career has been focused on access to justice and centered on providing quality advocacy for my clients, regardless of their socioeconomic status. I am a bilingual attorney, enabling me to connect with a broader cross-section of our local communities. Sharply inquisitive by nature, my approach to legal representation is thoughtful and reasoned. While I am open and effective in collaborative efforts, I will stand with confidence on independent positions.

I pursued a legal career to engage my love of research, analytical skills and advocacy for the benefit of the community where I live and raise my children. My work ethic is formidable, and I am ready to put it to work for District 3.

https://progressivevotersguide.com/washington/2018/primary/cecily-hazelrigg-hernandez#race3441

I have now had a long and very positive conversation with Ms Hazelrigg-Hernandez. I am most favorably impressed. I asked a lot of probing and difficult questions and each one led to a major discussion.

Tom Seguine    http://tomseguine.com/
northcascadeslegal@gmail.com
This announcement courtesy of Skagit Republicans:
It’s Official! Tom SeGuine, appellate attorney at law and former prosecuting attorney for Skagit County, has filed to run for Judge on the Court of Appeals in Division I, District 3. One judge will be selected to represent Island, San Juan, Skagit and Whatcom counties, following the November 2018 General Election. Tom wants to be YOUR Judge on the court. Tom has been a respected attorney in Northwest Washington for over 25 years. His specific experience in appellate law… with many cases going on to the state Supreme Court… along with his critical thinking and fair-mindedness make him an ideal candidate for the position!
What goes on at the Court of Appeals? Most cases appealed from superior courts go directly to the Court of Appeals. It is a non-discretionary appellate court--it must accept all appeals filed with it. The Court of Appeals has authority to reverse (overrule), remand (send back to the lower court), modify, or affirm the decision of the lower court.
The court decides each case after reviewing the transcript of the record in the superior court and considering the arguments of the parties. Generally, the court hears oral arguments in each case but does not take live testimony.
To qualify for a position on the Court of Appeals, a person must have practiced law in Washington state for five years and, at the time of election, lived for a year or more in the district from which that position was drawn. Of course Tom surpasses all these minimums by leaps and bounds!
https://skagitrepublicans.com/ElectTomSeguineStateAppellateCourtJudge


Back in May I received a letter from Mr Seguine inviting me to donate and to work on his campaign. It would be a frigid day in a very hot region before I would do so. I have no clue where he got my name, but I have experience with Mr Seguine and it has not been good. Remember the godawful case of Wonn Road public beach access? The wealthy neighbor stealing the access hired none other than Tom Seguine to represent the neighbors in that case. In effect he was getting a second shot in court. Seguine demonstrated himself to be inarticulate, unprepared, and generally incompetent. Not what I would want to see on the Appellate court.

Ms Hazelrigg-Hernandez told me that Tom Seguine has been emphasizing the fact that he has practiced law for many more years than she. True enough. She then said that while quantity is a useful measure, one has to look more closely at quality, and she has the qualities to be a good judge. I agree with her.

In comparing their fields of law I note that Mr Seguine has been a prosecutor – on the accusatory side, while Ms Hazelrigg-Hernandez has been a defender – speaking for the accused who cannot speak for themselves.  She also pointed out that perspective, point of view, and life experience go a long way toward tempering what a judge sees in the facts presented. What I see in Tom Seguine in this regard is your classic privileged white male representing that privilege. In his letter he emphasized his experience as a prosecutor. And of course he chose to represent the rich landowner against the public at Wonn Road.

What I see in Ms Hazelrigg-Hernandez is a passion for justice on behalf of those who rarely experience it. I asked her specifically how she would deal with those situations in which the facts and the law stand against her personal sympathies. She assured me that she was bound to uphold the law in spite of any such sympathies but added that there is a big emotional cost in having to rule against one’s own beliefs - but that is what the job requires so she would do it.

Ms Hazelrigg-Hernandez, after a rigorous vetting process, has been endorsed by Judge Becker, the respected and brilliant judge whose retirement is leaving this position open.

There is much much more to say, but in the interest of keeping this relatively short and sweet I will refrain. In this race we have a highly qualified, passionate, intellectually curious candidate as opposed to a white male darling of the Skagit County Republicans. I, for one, prefer a non-partisan judiciary.

I will be voting enthusiastically for Cecily Hazelrigg-Hernandez.





If you really want to go there, here are my notes from that long conversation. There are some gems in here.

10-15-18 notes of phone conversation with Cecily Hazelrigg-Hernandez
candidate for Court of Appeals, division 1

Ms H-H phoned a bit before noon. We finally got off the phone a bit after 3:00 pm. We had a great and wide-ranging conversation.

She says Tom Seguine is emphasizing his many years of experience. Ms  H-H counters that while he may have the quantity, she has the quality, as shown by the endorsements of respected judges.

She is bi-lingual, Spanish and English, and is raising her 2 daughters in a bi-lingual environment. Her husband is an immigrant from Mexico. She herself is half Chicana. Her husband has recently founded a construction company with a partner.

She has practiced immigration law and taught at WWU.

As a public defender she deals with Spanish speaking immigrants. She initiated a policy concerning ICE detainers, both to clarify the process and to empower the defense.

As a student she worked as a paralegal, with a focus on family law, at the Spokane Child Abuse Prevention Center, in a program to help estranged fathers reconnect with their children.

In Skagit County she has done mostly criminal defense. There are heavy caseloads. She has worked two trials during the campaign so far and expects to do a third.

She was an independent attorney in Bellingham. When her elder daughter went to Evergreen, her younger daughter felt lonely so they moved to Mt Vernon.

Ms H-H grew up in Oak Harbor as a Navy brat. She mentioned that the places where she used to play in the woods are now housing developments, and lamented the loss.

We discussed Island Transit and its impact on people’s lives. She said that immigrants struggle with transportation issues. They often are unable to appear in court because their ride fell through or the bus was late or they couldn’t afford the bus. This tends to result in a bench warrant and a new felony charge. It is part of the criminalization of poverty. It places all sorts of extra burdens on an indigent defendant. We discussed options and I suggested a code change to allow people to phone in and explain their transportation problem to avoid the bench warrant. Ms H-H said that there were possibilities, but that most judges would not allow a Zoom or Skype appearance. She said phone calls are not accepted in court, so the defendant would need to phone the defense attorney before the trial, but that she knew Laura Riquelme (who was a Skagit Co Superior Court judge for a while), when she was a civil defense attorney, did use such a technique once. She thought the idea had merit and should be pursued. She pointed out that criminal law by its nature always has a Constitutional component.

She said she had not practiced civil law, but she knows the judicial standard of review, how to do legal analysis, and has the writing skills. All of these were part of the vetting process she underwent to earn the endorsement of the retiring Judge Becker. She describes the job in part as communicating the law effectively to the public.

She said Skagit deputy prosecutors are given great autonomy. She has heard of Jesse Eldred (recently hired as Island County civil deputy prosecutor). He prosecuted involuntary mental health commitments. He would have had good examples before him. The hearings are held in the mental hospital and the subject is not often present. There is one attorney in the office who represents the patients. There is precedent in the Trueblood case, Snohomish County v Western State Hospital. The hospital was slow to the point of negligence in providing documentation. This led to censures and fines, but ultimately little change in operations.

She said the Public Defender’s office puts out immediate fires, but can’t focus on systemic increase in these cases or the causes of that increase. Skagit County has suffered a major influx of mentally ill transients who have no solid connection to the community but have been given a bus ticket out of King County.

I asked what she thought might be the cause of this inordinate increase in mental illness. She replied that it was partly about drugs, but that Psychology Today claimed it had to do with social media. The claim is that adolescents suffer mental health problems because these social media are simultaneously anonymous and intimate. It described an epidemic of loneliness from lack of direct contact.

I asked what she thought of the opioid lawsuit. She said that Skagit County had joined, and the Prosecutor’s office had been asked to calculate how many cases might be drug related. They responded that it was impossible to determine, because there was no way to know whether a petty theft or a domestic violence situation was drug related.

She volunteered that she had handled the first appearance of the Skagit valve turners and the videographer recording the event. The valve turners are heroes of mine, but that’s a whole other story.

She reported that Tom Seguine had bought 2 billboards in Bellingham, was spending a good deal on advertising but that it seemed rather scattered and untargeted. She reported great crossover with the other primary candidates. She thought well of Rita Latsinova who has a daughter the same age as her own. Roger Leishman “seemed lovely” from their very brief contact. Lisa Keeler was ok but they had some differences. Mr Leishman endorsed her. There was no response from the other two. She said that the Becker endorsement “means a ton.” Judge Becker is respected and brilliant and she expects to follow in those footsteps.

I asked how she would deal with the fact that her personal sympathies might not be consistent with the law on a particular case. She assured me that she was bound to uphold the law in spite of any such sympathies. She continued that a judge’s life experience shapes their view of the facts. In the Appeals Court the facts are generally already established and all the judges are required to do is to follow the law and the reasoning of the trial court. There is a big emotional cost in having to rule against one’s own beliefs, but that is what the job requires.

I asked about legal citations and determining the validity of such citations. She replied that the vetting process included determining the validity of citations. She has never before had a law clerk and is used to doing her own research. She expects to mentor law clerks but not have them doing her homework. She has an intense personal dislike for typos (a woman after my own heart). If she found misleading or outright incorrect citations she would question counsel about them in open court.

I mentioned Arne Denny, former Island County civil deputy prosecutor who on one occasion severely abused a citation. Ms H-H said she had worked opposite Arne Denny in a case of civil quarantine. A man who spoke Spanish only was quarantined with a virulent case of drug resistant tuberculosis. The man continually violated the quarantine. Arne Denny was asking that the man be incarcerated until he no longer posed a threat. Ms H-H represented the man and translated for him. Eventually he agreed to be housed in the special medical unit of the Snohomish County jail. Ms H-H said that visiting him there involved wearing special face masks and 6 months of medical testing afterward.

She volunteered that as a judge she would experience great intellectual exercise and be able to dig into cases and issues.

She was an instructor at Huxley College (WWU) American Cultural program for 7 years, including teaching ESL in continuing education and a unit in Mexico. 3 of those years overlapped with working as a Skagit County public defender, which was a brutal workload.

She explained that the Court of Appeals has 3 divisions, NW WA, SW WA, E WA. The NW division includes King, Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, San Juan, and Island counties. SW includes the remainder of western Washington and E covers everything east of the mountains.

Division 1 has 10 judges. 7 of them sit in King County, 2 in Snohomish, and 1 covers the other 4 counties. They sit in panels of 3.

The entire Court of Appeals was created 40+ years ago (quite recently) to relieve the congestion at the Supreme Court level. That court hears cases on a discretionary basis. The Appeals Courts must hear all cases filed before them.

I asked what she thought of the Kavanaugh debacle. She replied that it had definitely affected the tone of appointments. She believes that integrity, fairness, and justice still matter. She was appalled at the way Kavanaugh refused to answer, threw questions back into Senators’ faces, and generally misbehaved. She said that she is physically small and unimposing but would be fierce as a judge if a defendant failed to respond in the way Kavanaugh had done. She said that trial experience matters so much to judicial officers. She said that any candidate needs to be ready to answer questions and own their past. Integrity and professional reputation really matter. She intends to try a clean case in every case. “I will own my mistakes and my humanity.”

She is a class A sex offense qualified defender, a qualified Spanish speaking defender, and qualified in indigent defense. The only qualification she lacks is in death penalty cases – but the death penalty has now been abolished.

I asked about the transition from public defender to judge. Ms H-H said that Judge Becker will remain until the end of the year so there can be a clean transition.  Ms H-H is preparing extensive file notes and will be reviewing cases with her boss. The office will be posting the position as soon as the outcome of the election is known, so while there may be a little gap, her colleagues should be able to cover that.

Ms H-H volunteered that this was a very big, very hard decision. She was asked to run and spent months thinking about the implications.

I asked about strict construction and judicial activism, pointing out that with the new Supreme Court there is the very real chance that women will be further disenfranchised. The Constitution does not mention women. Could women be ordered off the court? Out of the Senate and the House?  Ms H-H responded that she does not yet know her own judicial philosophy. Context matters. An independent judiciary is vital. She is very concerned about partisan judicial appointments.

Ms H-H has a strong background in community activism. Her BA is in social justice activism and the law. She is hopeful that the people, through public action, will change their government.