On Tuesday, October 29, 2024, Courthouse News Service reported that the Seattle City Attorney’s Office is facing legal action regarding its decision to bar elected Municipal Court Judge Pooja Vaddadi from hearing criminal cases. The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court, claims that the office has misused its prosecutorial discretion, effectively undermining the authority of an elected official.
Judge Vaddadi began her four-year term on the Seattle Municipal Court in early 2023, winning her election with 61% of the vote. However, in March 2024, the City Attorney’s Office implemented a policy that disqualified her from presiding over criminal cases, citing a pattern of biased rulings. This policy was challenged by a coalition of community organizations and three voters from Seattle, who argue that it contradicts the principles of democratic governance and the will of the electorate.
The lawsuit is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which asserts that the City Attorney’s actions violate Judge Vaddadi’s rights and the rights of the voters who elected her. La Rond Baker, the legal director for the ACLU of Washington, emphasized that the move to prevent Judge Vaddadi from performing her judicial duties represents a significant encroachment on the democratic process.
The City Attorney’s Office justified its actions by stating that Judge Vaddadi displayed a “regular pattern of biased rulings” and that her decisions indicated a lack of understanding of evidence rules. In response, the office announced it would file affidavits of prejudice against her in all criminal cases, thereby limiting her to handling only civil infractions.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend that this blanket policy not only disrupts Judge Vaddadi’s ability to fulfill her role but also strips city prosecutors of their capacity for independent judgment. They argue that mandating the filing of disqualification affidavits against her in all cases is an inappropriate expansion of prosecutorial discretion, traditionally a tool meant for case-specific applications.
One significant case mentioned in the lawsuit involves a civil infraction against a Seattle police officer charged with negligent driving after a fatal incident involving a pedestrian, Jaahnavi Kandula. The City Attorney’s Office filed an affidavit of prejudice to prevent Judge Vaddadi from presiding over this case, further asserting their stance against her judicial authority.
City Attorney’s Office spokesperson Tim Robinson stated that the office is currently reviewing the lawsuit and intends to respond in accordance with court guidelines. He pointed out that the presiding judge of the Seattle Municipal Court has previously ruled that affidavits of prejudice should be filed on a case-by-case basis, not as a blanket policy.
While Judge Vaddadi has chosen not to comment directly on the ongoing lawsuit, she previously addressed the accusations against her in a column for a local publication. In her writing, she firmly defended her commitment to judicial independence and ethical standards within her courtroom, accusing the City Attorney’s Office of fabricating claims against her.
The ongoing legal dispute raises important questions about the balance of power between elected judges and city prosecutors in Seattle, as well as the implications for judicial independence in the face of administrative policies.
Source: Courthouse News Service
