With all due respect to Judge Hancock, it was not the nine justices of the Washington Supreme Court who were wrong. Judge Hancock publicly criticized the high court in a December 21 guest editorial. Criticism from such a highly esteemed judge may unjustifiably erode public confidence in our judiciary, and particularly in our Supreme Court.

Judge Hancock said the justices “violated elementary principles of logic” when analyzing a statute in one section of the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in State ex rel. Banks v. Drummond. His belief that the statute authorized the hiring of attorney Drummond was properly rejected by the court. Even if Judge Hancock were correct, it would have made no difference. The Supreme Court also ruled that the commissioners’ use of the statute to hire Drummond was unconstitutional. Judge Hancock’s editorial made no mention of the constitutional underpinning of the high court’s decision.

Judge Hancock argued that the commissioners could hire Ms. Drummond because the statute said it would be “unlawful unless” their contract was in writing, approved by the presiding judge, and lasted no more than two years. He asserts that in logic and law, the use of the word “unless” always means that as long as those conditions are met, the contract would be legal.

He is wrong.

There are many reasons why a contract which met those conditions could still be “unlawful.” In this case the reason was that the commissioners had no legal authority to contract around the voters’ selection of the county prosecutor. To do so, as our highest court just said, violates the Washington Constitution.

There are numerous examples where the “unlawful unless” phrasing means exactly what the Supreme Court said it means. One simple example is RCW 46.37.420, which states “it is unlawful to operate a vehicle … unless it is completely equipped with pneumatic rubber tires.” That does not mean that a car with no lights or brakes or windshield would be legal to drive, so long as it had pneumatic rubber tires. The same principle applies to the statute in the Drummond case.

Our citizens should continue to have confidence in our centuries-old judicial system. While not perfect, it is better than any other. It provides parties opportunities to fully present their cases to impartial judges and juries. And, as happened here, it includes higher courts that can review the decisions of lower courts and correct mistakes. Now that the decision has been made, our job as elected officials, legal professionals and voters is to understand and abide by the high court’s decision, not try to cast doubt on its validity.

Greg Banks is the Island County prosecutor and was a plaintiff in this case.