up for re-election this year, but do you know anything about them? A new resource may help.

Every year, voters are faced with the difficult task of voting for judges. It is difficult because, unlike ordinary candidates for elected offices, judges are very cautious about taking positions on specific issues. After all, that issue may come before that judge, and their duty is to untangle the law and the facts impartially without prejudging.

Yes, judges can talk about their judicial philosophy - insert “originalist,” “strict constructionist” or “progressive” - but these code words offer limited guidance to voters.

The best way to evaluate a judge is to review his or her opinions in past cases. Trouble is, many voters do not have time to slog through hundreds of pages of legalese.

Recognizing that, Evergreen Freedom Foundation launched a website last year called the Supreme Court of Washington Blog (wasupremecourtblog.com). Our attorneys read and discuss every opinion issued, preview major oral arguments and provide analysis of each justice’s voting trends.

Our goal is simple: Equip citizens with information about each case reviewed at the Temple of Justice.

One of the more interesting features on our blog is the year-end analysis of the court’s activity. The 2009 numbers offer several stories for court watchers.

The workload last year was fairly evenly distributed. Chief Justice Barbara Madsen was the most prolific writer, with 18 majority opinions and 39 total opinions. Justice Richard Sanders is the most frequent dissenter, writing nearly three times as many dissents (20) as any other justice, including a dissent to his own majority opinion. Justice Debra Stephens participated in the fewest decisions, as she joined the court after many of the cases had been argued, but she still managed to author the second-most majority opinions (15) and the most unanimous opinions (six). Justice Susan Owens was most frequently in the majority (92 percent), while Justice Sanders was least often in the majority (70 percent).

Ever wonder which justices agree with each other most frequently? Reviewing how often justices are on the same side of an opinion may give you an idea of the alliances that form on the bench. The justices with the highest rates of agreement were Madsen and Fairhurst (88 percent), Chambers and Stephens (88 percent), and Owens and Fairhurst (88 percent).

Surprisingly, the justices with the lowest rates of agreement were Sanders and Jim Johnson (64 percent), and they are generally seen as the most conservative justices. The low rate of agreement between them makes it difficult for opponents to offer sweeping generalizations about their approach to the law.

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, which sees many narrow 5-4 decisions, the state Supreme Court enjoys a number of strong majority opinions, with nearly half of its rulings unanimous or 9-0 in the outcome. Only 14 percent of cases were 5-4, which ensures legal continuity - case outcomes are unlikely to flip with the election of new justices.

We also looked at the number of days between oral arguments and the court’s opinion. The rule of thumb is the court takes about six months to issue a decision after it hears arguments.

On average, the court took 223 days (31 weeks) to issue opinions in the cases where arguments were heard. Fifteen decisions in 2009 were pending for more than a year, while 20 cases were disposed of in less than three months. One case, State v. Wright, which dealt with double jeopardy, sat for 674 days (96 weeks) before it was resolved.

The state Supreme Court heard some significant cases in 2009. For example, the court declined to invalidate the state’s requirement that tax increases be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature. The court refused to allow a man to inherit a portion of his mother’s estate after he murdered her and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The court ruled that an employer did not violate state law by terminating employees who protested their executive director’s managerial decisions. The court declined to micromanage education policy, and it ruled that salary disparities between employees in different school districts do not violate the state constitution.

All this information and more is available for citizens and voters who want to make informed decisions about the men and women who sit on the bench.

Michael Reitz is general counsel of Evergreen Freedom Foundation.