CCL President Robert S. Peck urged the Washington Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal of an action by plaintiffs whose cases were delayed due to systemic underfunding of the courts, arguing that the State's arguments in favor of dismissal lack support.

      In Ralston v. Washington, the plaintiffs argued that decades of pleas by state supreme court chief justices had fallen on deaf ears in the Legislature and has systematically starved the courts of resources. The trial court dismissed the action without an opinion explaining the decision. Peck argued the state's arguments miscontrued precedent. 

      The State relied heavily on an argument that only the judiciary itself could sue for increased funding, but Peck pointed out that the judiciary does not exist for its own benefit but to serve the people through the fair and timely administration of justice. He pointed to decisions where the judiciary was not the plaintiff but that the cases were decided against those seeking increased funding because of a failure of evidence, rather than a lack of standing. 

       Peck also pointed to the state constitution's guarantee of access to the courts "without unnecessary delay," as well as its guarantee of an inviolate right of trial by jury. He countered the State's claim that the former applied only to the judiciary and only guaranteed public trials with a decision that invalidated a legislative obstacle to filing a case in court, a decision he himself won in the Washington Supreme Court. He also pointed to a federal decision from the Ninth Circuit that found delays of jury trials because of budgetary constraints to violate the federal Constitution.

     The case is under advisement.