POLITICS / WHY DID HE WIN? : Washington State Puzzled as Voters Oust Chief Justice : What’s in a name? A lot, for Charles Johnson. Or maybe the dangerous-dog lobby’s bite is worse than its bark.

Maybe it was the woman down the street with that snarly dog, Rufus. Or perhaps it was that television anchorman in Tacoma, maybe it was his doing. Or maybe it was everyone’s good friend Charlie.

Surely, something can explain one of America’s more dumbfounding electoral upsets.

All over the state of Washington, people are trying to figure it out--just how did it come to pass that respected state Supreme Court Chief Justice Keith Callow lost his reelection bid to a publicly unknown and self-described “blue-collar attorney” named Charles W. Johnson who did not even mount a campaign?

This upset, called the Fluke of the Decade by the newspapers here, occurred on Sept. 18 in a low-turnout statewide election. It has brought on a wave of self-examination in the state of Washington, calling into question the ability of voters to cast an informed judgment on their judges and undermining Washington’s confidence in its electoral process.

The facts on which most agree are these:

Callow, 65, has been an esteemed jurist who avoided political hot water during six years on the nine-member high court. Johnson, 39, a lawyer in solo practice who handles minor criminal cases and divorces, filed for the seat on the ground that judges “need to be challenged.”

And that’s pretty much where it rested. Neither man mounted a traditional campaign. The news media gave the contest barely a glance.

On Election Day, voters went to the polls without benefit of a voter pamphlet. Washington does not issue one in primary elections. As usual, judges on the ballot were not identified by incumbency, job title or political party. Just one name next to the other.

The result: 53% to 47% for Johnson.

“Well, there are a lot more Johnsons out there than Callows,” the ousted chief justice remarked later.

Confusion over names has emerged as the No. 1 theory to explain the election. With no campaign to help them and no ballot pamphlet to identify the candidates, did voters just pick a name that seemed most familiar and comfortable?

“Who doesn’t have a friend named Charlie Johnson?” shrugged Secretary of State Ralph Munro.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer counted 27 in Seattle alone.

More important, Charles V. Johnson is a veteran King County Superior Court judge. And then there is Charles Johnson, the Tacoma television anchorman, whose broadcasts are seen statewide on cable. Did these prominent namesakes confuse voters?

There are other theories, too.

A few days after the vote, a group of dog-owners came forth to say they had brought Callow down. They faulted him for concurring in a court decision upholding municipal restrictions on bull terriers and other breeds deemed to be dangerous. In an election with a 20% turnout, some experts said, small special-interest groups could indeed have an enlarged impact.

Political consultants suggested that a judge who stands for election without mounting a campaign is courting disaster.

State Bar President Lowell Haverson said the result was not a fluke but a rebellion. He told a reporter: “Even the finest and most distinguished of judges are not immune from the electorate’s concern about the administration of justice in this state.”

This theory, however, overlooks the fact that another incumbent justice, Richard Guy, beat a give-’em-hell challenge by former Gov. John Spellman, 55% to 45%.

For all the hand-wringing about the outcome, Johnson remains mostly a subject of curiosity. By law, he will not take office until after he “wins” the November election. But, because he beat the incumbent in September, there will be no other candidate on the ballot. Once all justices are seated, the chief justice will be selected from among them.

In his law office the other day, Johnson seemed surprised when asked what kind of judge he will be.

“Boy, that’s a big question,” he began. Then he paused. And paused more. “I’ve got the common-man, hard-working ethic. If there is such a thing as a blue-collar attorney, that’s me . . . .

“No telling where I’ll align, conservative or moderate or liberal. I don’t know where I’ll be.”