Committee favorably recommends amended resolution admonishing and censuring Judge Don M. Torgerson after debate and public comment

Representative McPherson opened discussion of House Resolution 8 by summarizing reporting and public concern about comments the judge made during a sentencing hearing for a defendant convicted of child sexual exploitation offenses. McPherson said the judge’s statements were "wild...and considered inappropriate," that there has been no public apology or public discipline, and that "we hold the standards very high and we expect that our judges take ownership when they make mistakes."

During public comment, Michael Drexel, assistant state court administrator, urged caution. He told the committee the resolution "goes beyond just some statements that were made by a judge" and said the bill’s language could mislead the public about the sentence. Drexel said the sentence was consistent with legislative sentencing guidelines and stated, "the jail sentence that the defendant received in this case was 7 days longer than the guideline amount." He also described plea‑agreement language limiting incarceration (he referenced paragraphs 5 and 7 of the plea agreement) and noted the judiciary posted the audio of the full sentencing hearing and convened training for district court judges in response.

Committee members asked Drexel whether the judiciary had communicated with prosecutors; Drexel said it would be outside the normal practice for courts to engage prosecutors in that manner and declined to speculate about disciplinary action by the bar. Representative Peterson moved an amendment to strike several lines that, he said, blurred the judge’s conduct with prosecutorial decisions. Representative McPherson, the sponsor, said he was willing to accept the amendment if it helped keep focus on the judge’s statements and discretion. The amendment passed, with Representative Burton recorded as voting against it.

Representative Lee moved that the committee favorably recommend HR 8 as amended. Committee members spoke in favor, stressing the legislature’s infrequent but important role in expressing public concern about judicial conduct and the value of transparency for retention elections. The committee favorably recommended the amended resolution by voice vote and adjourned.

The committee’s action is procedural: the resolution admonishes and censures the named judge and will be forwarded with the committee’s favorable recommendation. The committee did not adopt any formal disciplinary sanction beyond the resolution; Drexel and others emphasized internal judicial processes and training already undertaken.