It appears the state citizen Commission on Judicial Conduct may be grasping at straws in asserting that Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders engaged in ethical misconduct in visiting a center for sexual offenders at McNeil Island prison more than a year ago.

In fact, the charges by the commission against Sanders seem to have at least the appearance of being politically motivated. Is it more than coincidence that the commission voted in closed session to pursue the case just two days before Sanders announced his bid for a second full six-year term on the court and publicly revealed the charges just a few days after his announcement last week?

Why now, when Sanders' visit to the prison occurred more than a year ago, in January 2003?

The panel said it has probable cause to believe Sanders violated three canons of judicial conduct dealing with impartiality, avoiding impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, and upholding the integrity of the judiciary.

The panel said Sanders talked with sexual offenders at the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island about pending legal issues. At least 15 of them had cases pending or were likely to and Sanders accepted documents from two with pending cases, the commission said.

Neither prosecutors nor defense counsel were informed of the contacts or gave permission, and an appearance of bias was created, the commission contends.

However, Sanders said he did not discuss any legal proceeding with the offenders and did not sit in judgment in any case involving anyone he met. After the McNeil Island trip came to light, Snohomish County demanded that Sanders be removed from participating in a pending Supreme Court case involving six of the offenders. Sanders recused himself from the case while asserting he didn't step over any conduct boundary.

A statement from Sanders' office Monday said he expects to be cleared either by the commission or "ultimately by the courts if an appeal is necessary."

The statement said he "intends to vigorously defend his professional reputation as a conscientious and ethical member of the judiciary who is doing his job by occasionally touring prisons. Justices are encouraged to educate themselves about state institutions and they do so by visiting them, with many justices regularly visiting prisons."

Some of Sanders' colleagues in the legal profession have come strongly to his defense. "No judge in Washington has ever been sanctioned for visiting a prison and talking to prisoners. The rules cited by the (commission's) charges have never been applied to circumstances like these anywhere in the country. I expect the commission, and if necessary the courts, to exonerate Justice Sanders' efforts to be informed of the circumstances in our prisons," said John A. Strait, professor of legal ethics at the Seattle University School of Law.

"There is nothing unethical about what Justice Sanders did. If anything, he should be commended for touring the state's institutions and learning more about how they function," said former Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge, a Democratic candidate for governor in this year's elections. Indeed, if Sanders is punished for the alleged violations, it will discourage such visits by justices and that would diminish their general knowledge about what's going on in our prisons and their ability to appropriately decide related cases that come before them.

Sanders has 21 days to answer the commission's charges. If in a subsequent hearing the panel finds a violation of the state Code of Judicial Conduct, it may admonish, reprimand or censure him or may censure him and recommend that the full Supreme Court suspend or remove him from office.

We were apparently the only daily newspaper in the state to endorse Sanders when he ran in a special election in 1995 for a position on the court and supported his reelection in 1998.

Sanders has brought a decidedly independent and civil libertarian, if controversial, perspective to the court. We believe he has done an excellent job overall and hope he is exonerated of the questionable ethical charges against him.