Clallam County Superior Court Judge Brent Basden sent a lengthy email to former County Commissioner Bill Peach in November 2020, a message that was shared publicly earlier this year. The communication, which spanned multiple pages, was a response to a newspaper article and appeared to express significant frustration over a comment regarding the process for appointing judges to the bench.
The core of the issue stems from a political comment published in the Peninsula Daily News on Sunday, November 29, 2020. Commissioner Peach, an elected official, was quoted as saying, “I really don’t appreciate this wink-wink, nod-nod of superior court judges stepping down a year before the end of their term, and that allows the governor to make a decision.” This statement reflected a political opinion on a documented statewide trend concerning judicial vacancies.
In response to that published quote, Judge Basden sent an email the following evening at 7:45 PM. The message was addressed to Commissioner Peach but also copied fellow commissioners Randy Johnson and Mark Ozias. It was sent from the judge's official county government account and used the subject line “Judicial Independence.”
On June 13, a formal complaint was submitted to the Commission on Judicial Conduct regarding the email. The complaint alleges that the judge’s actions violated the Washington State Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.3, which forbids a judge from using the prestige of their office to advance personal interests or coerce others.
The complaint argues that by using his official government email to criticize an elected representative, the judge engaged in a retaliatory act intended to chill the commissioner’s First Amendment-protected political speech.
A specific detail in the email's signature block is cited as evidence of intentional conduct. The message concluded with the signature: "Judge Brent Basden Presiding Judging [sic] Clallam County Superior Court." The complaint asserts that the typographical error in that line proves the judge manually typed his official title into the message rather than using an automated signature block, demonstrating a deliberate choice to invoke his judicial authority against the commissioner.
A judicial official’s recent correspondence with a county legislative member has drawn scrutiny for its tone and content, raising questions about the appropriate boundaries between the judicial and legislative branches.
The dispute centers on an email sent by the presiding judge of the superior court to a member of the County Board of Commissioners. The judge characterized the commissioner’s recent remarks in a local newspaper as "irresponsible" and "disheartening," describing the comments as a "disservice to the judiciary." The judge further reproached the elected official for failing to seek input from the bench before speaking to the media.
Critics argue that by requiring the legislative branch to consult the judicial branch prior to making public statements, the judge established an expectation of prior restraint that may be constitutionally improper. Additionally, the tone of the communication appears to conflict with CJC Canon 3, Rule 3.1, which prohibits judges from engaging in extrajudicial activities that are coercive. Utilizing official channels to publicly critique a peer in a coordinate branch of government is viewed by some as a form of coercive political retaliation.
Judicial conduct standards, specifically Rule 1.2, require judges to act in a manner that fosters public trust in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the court system. Sending a defensive and hostile message to an elected official over a media quote is seen by observers as indicative of a lack of judicial temperament. The judge also engaged in what critics describe as political counter-criticism, referencing the board’s own appointment process for a district court judge within the same email.
This incident aligns with a pattern of behavior noted in earlier reporting from March, which highlighted the judge’s apparent hostility toward public debate. In previous courtroom instances, the judge has described critical journalism as "cyberbullying."
Proponents of democratic oversight argue that while legislative scrutiny can be politically uncomfortable, the judicial branch should not use its institutional authority to suppress or chill the speech of citizens or other elected officials. By explicitly including his title of "Presiding Judge" in the scolding email, the judge may have intentionally used the prestige of his office to exert pressure, a move described as a significant overstep of judicial boundaries.