A Supreme Court That Welcomes Cameras   

Throughout history, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have adamantly opposed cameras in their courtroom. But in Washington state, Supreme Court justices have not only welcomed cameras, they have become powerful advocates of televising legal proceedings in light of a bold experiment that has brought an entire term of the court's hearings to local viewers.

While there is a ban on cameras in federal courts, 47 states have experimented with some degree of televised court coverage since 1981. Washington's full coverage of Supreme Court arguments during the past year stands out, however, because of the enthusiastic response of the justices themselves, the legal community and the general public.

In 1993 a former state legislator, Denny L. Heck, had the idea to start the Washington Public Affairs Network, a free, around-the-clock cable channel. In April 1995 TVW was born, and for the first time gavel-to-gavel coverage of arguments before the state Supreme Court, along with coverage of executive commission meetings and the state legislature, were on the Washington airwaves. TVW soon reached 670,000 households.

Heck's idea was to make the workings of government accessible to the people. "C-SPAN set the precedent for civic discourse. We're applying its idea on a state level," Heck says.

When TVW began, Heck assumed the justices would have no interest in having their proceedings televised, so he never even bothered to contact them. "Every other court in history was against this idea, so I thought ours would be too," he says. But to his surprise, the administrator of the state courts, which include trial and appellate courts as well as the Supreme Court, contacted him to find out why the Supreme Court had been left out. After Heck met with the high court's bailiff, the justices of Washington's Supreme Court unanimously approved a plan.

At the time, Heck wondered if appellate arguments would be too esoteric to interest a general audience. But he soon discovered that Washington's television viewers were hungry for the public policy questions debated before the state's highest court. "Our experiment was dramatically successful overnight," Heck says.

"As I get around the state, I'm amazed by how many people watch it," says Justice Charles Z. Smith, who was once a television commentator. "When the idea was presented to us, I was reluctant because of the technical aspect of the production. But there were no unintentional intrusions by the cameras. I have no questions about..the quality and the value of it."

Smith is not alone in his approval. Since TVW began broadcasting, one justice has campaigned as a champion of open hearings, another has helped TVW convince the state legislature to fund the project, and a third has endorsed TVW before the state bar association.

The 45 Supreme Court cases televised in the first year ran the gamut of legal issues: procedures governing the prosecution of juveniles and the mentally ill, the constitutionality of the "three strikes and you're out" law, term limits for elective office and requirements for labeling obscene music, among others.

Heck says the network stops short of providing legal interpretation and analysis. Promotion of sensational cases is not the network's intention, says Heck, who insists that ratings are not an issue. There are no sound bites, no dramatic zoom-ins on subjects and no editorial commentaries. If viewers want deeper insights, TVW has a Web site with a database of background information, as well as the audio of all oral arguments (www.tvw.org).

Free access to the network is provided for classroom use, and a permanent video and audio record of all arguments is provided to the state's archives. But TVW denies use of its programs for commercial or political purposes.

Contrary to the fears of many legal experts, there has been a consensus that justice in Washington has not been perverted as a result of televised court proceedings. And whether or not TVW's experiment is, as its annual report boasts, "a serendipitous blend of the wisdom of our founding fathers and the technology of the 21st century," it is at the very least one successful example of open government and an overdue step in the demystification of the judicial process.