Judge Basden's Ruling: What the Herald Got Right — and What It Missed
A response to the original outlet's coverage of Judge Basden's recent ruling in Clallam County Superior Court. We agree with the core findings but highlight three underreported angles.
the original outlet’s October 18 piece on Judge Basden’s ruling did what it set out to do: it laid out the facts of the case, quoted the relevant court filings, and made clear why the decision has drawn fire from local attorneys.
We agree with the core of the Herald’s reporting. The ruling is unusual, the procedural history is messy, and the dissenting opinion raises legitimate questions about how the court handled the evidentiary record.
But we think the story is incomplete in three ways.
1. The Precedent Question
The Herald focuses on the immediate fallout — the attorneys’ letters, the community reaction, the political pressure. What it doesn’t dig into is whether this ruling is consistent with the court’s own precedent from 2023 and 2024.
In State v. Morrison (2023), Judge Basden wrote:
“The court must be cautious in departing from established procedure, particularly where the departure benefits one party over another.”
That language is directly relevant to the current case. The Herald quotes the ruling itself but doesn’t connect it to Basden’s own prior words. That’s a missed opportunity for context.
2. The Commissioner Parker Angle
The Herald mentions Commissioner Parker’s involvement in a footnote. But Parker’s role is not a footnote — it’s central to understanding why the ruling drew such a strong reaction.
Parker has publicly stated that she “expected a different outcome” and has called for a review. The Herald doesn’t quote her directly, which leaves readers to wonder: is this a judicial disagreement or a political one?
3. The Next Steps
The Herald ends with the ruling as a fait accompli. But the case isn’t over. There’s a pending motion for reconsideration, and the appellate window closes in 30 days.
Readers deserve to know what happens next.
Our Verdict
The Herald’s reporting is solid on the facts. It’s the context that’s missing. We’d encourage them to follow up with a piece on the precedent question and Parker’s role.
In the meantime, we’ll be watching the motion for reconsideration closely.