Five Seats.
One Ballot.

Built the Civil Rights Division at the WA AG's Office over years — housing discrimination, consumer protections, immigrant rights. This is a career, not a campaign.

Yes — spent her legal career directly in civil rights enforcement. Not writing about it. Doing it. Housing discrimination cases, immigrant rights work, consumer protection.

Nuanced. Appointed by Ferguson who signed the income tax. Critics raise recusal questions. Her endorsement coalition is progressive and labor-aligned. No judicial record yet to evaluate.

Family law practice and court commissioner work. No prior record on civil rights, constitutional law, or the issues most likely to reach the WA Supreme Court in 2026–27.

Family law experience is real and valuable — but it's a different room than the constitutional and civil rights cases that dominate this court's docket.

Backed by the state Republican Party. That party's stated goal is to overturn the progressive composition of this court. Who benefits from her being on the court rather than Melody?

Corporate law practice. No civil rights background, no public interest track record, no judicial experience.

Corporate litigation is a different room entirely from the civil rights, criminal justice, and constitutional cases that define this court's work.

Previously challenged the state's capital gains tax — the forerunner to the millionaires' tax. Built a career representing institutional interests against the kind of policy this court will be asked to uphold.

Public defender, then civil rights attorney, then Superior Court judge. This is a career built entirely in the rooms where justice is made or denied — before any Supreme Court race was on the table.

Public defense is as close to the problem as you can get. She has sat across from people who have nothing — and fought for them anyway. That's the deepest possible proximity.

No institutional or financial incentive to keep the problems she's spent her career fighting. Her entire career has been oriented toward resolution, not perpetuation, of injustice.

Appellate court judge with a track record of written decisions — you can actually evaluate his reasoning. That's rare transparency in a judicial race. Endorsed by Montoya-Lewis as her preferred successor.

Appellate experience means he's been reviewing how trial court decisions affect real people's lives. Strong proximity — though appellate work is a different kind of proximity than Hawk's public defense background.

Broad establishment progressive support — former governors, AG Nick Brown, current justices. Career trajectory aligned with court's progressive direction. No evident conflict.

Prosecution career and Superior Court judgeship in Mason County. Judicial experience is real. But the framing of his candidacy is largely oppositional — against the court's direction — not built on a positive civil rights track record.

Trial court experience counts. But prosecutors sit on the opposite side of the room from the communities whose rights most often come before the WA Supreme Court.

Has cited Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito as judicial heroes. Both of those justices spent their careers dismantling the protections this court upholds. Backed by state GOP whose stated priority is shifting this court's composition.

Appellate judge with a written record of decisions. Generally regarded as the progressive candidate in this race. Strong fundraising suggests broad institutional confidence.

Appellate experience provides strong proximity to how decisions actually affect people on appeal. His written decisions are publicly available — more transparency than most candidates offer.

Progressive institutional backing. Endorsements still developing — worth tracking through the summer for full picture of incentive alignment.

King County Superior Court experience — trial-level proximity to how the law actually affects people. Endorsed by US Reps. Adam Smith and Marilyn Strickland, former Mayor Harrell, police and prosecutors.

Trial court judges see the consequences of law directly — in people's faces, in real time. Strong proximity from a different angle than appellate experience.

More moderate coalition including police/prosecutorial endorsements alongside Democratic officials. Ideologically less clearly defined than Birk. Track this through November.

12 years at Thurston County Public Defender's Office. 25+ years US Army military intelligence. Elected to Superior Court in 2020 — first person of color on that bench. This is a career of sustained public service, not a launch pad.

Public defense, family courts, child welfare, juvenile justice, multi-million-dollar tax disputes, administrative law, appellate review as pro tem judge. She has been in more rooms than any other candidate in these five races.

Her career has been built in service of people with nothing — not institutions with money to protect. No financial ties to the parties most invested in this court's outcome. Endorsed by Justice Whitener, labor, WEA.

Corporate litigator at K&L Gates — a major corporate law firm — for years. Volunteer work with immigrants and refugees is real and meaningful. No prior judicial record since he was appointed directly to the Supreme Court.

Immigration and refugee volunteer work shows real proximity to vulnerable communities. Corporate litigation background is a different room. The ratio matters — what shaped his professional worldview?

Worked at K&L Gates with Gov. Ferguson. Endorsed and funded by Ferguson, Sen. Pedersen (who sponsored the income tax), K&L Gates attorneys, and Amazon employees. These are the parties most invested in how this court rules. That's a meaningful signal.

Municipal court judge handling lower-level cases. No civil rights work, no constitutional litigation experience, no record engaging with the issues most likely to reach the WA Supreme Court. His entire profile is built on this race, not on the work.

Municipal court is a fundamentally different room from the constitutional and civil rights cases that define this court's work. The experience gap between Larson and the other serious candidates in this race is significant.

This is his fifth campaign for the Supreme Court — 2000, 2016, 2020, 2024, 2026 — four straight losses, the closest being 2024, which he lost by just 0.61%. The outrage IS the platform. Backed by state GOP whose stated goal is shifting this court's direction. This is Q3's sharpest application: ask what his campaign looks like if the court's direction changes.

Four decades as an appellate attorney, co-founder of his firm's appellate practice group, judge pro tem for Seattle Municipal Court, judicial law clerk at the WA Court of Appeals early in his career. Genuinely long, substantive legal record — but entirely inside the profession, never elected or appointed to anything before this race.

Argued and won Washington State Hospital Association v. Department of Health (2015), and Keene v. Edie, where he successfully asked the court to overturn a 107-year-old precedent. Real, high-level proximity to how this court actually reasons. His client list is a genuine mix — institutional clients like UW Medicine (as Special AAG in 2025) alongside individual clients like an L&I claimant. Less proximity to the people the court's decisions land on day to day than Amamilo, more than Larson.

Self-funded a meaningful share of his own campaign (~$4,800 of roughly $21,500 raised as of early July), a first-time candidate without a party machine behind him. Worth knowing plainly: he has donated to Gov. Ferguson's campaigns in the past, same political network as Angelis, though nothing suggests that shaped this specific run.

She IS the track record. On the court since 2008 — through McCleary, Blake, and every major WA constitutional moment of the last 17 years. This question has the richest answer of any candidate in these five races.

She has been on the highest court in WA for 17 years. She has worked to make courts more accessible and transparent — particularly for people who navigate the system without money or power behind them.

Her entire career has been on a public bench. No private clients, no corporate interests. Her professional success is tied to the court functioning well for the people who use it — not the institutions that fund campaigns to change its composition.

Fifteen years as a King County public defender before opening his own criminal defense practice in 2023. A genuine, sustained record inside the criminal-legal system, first run for any elected office.

Direct, sustained proximity to how the criminal-legal system actually treats people who can't afford private counsel, a genuinely different vantage point on this court than most sitting justices have had.

Positions himself explicitly as challenging what he calls the court's "establishment culture," saying he'd apply the law as written rather than partisan politics. Has raised roughly $9,800 against Stephens' $82,900, a first-time candidate's funding reality, not necessarily a reflection of merit.

A solo practice in family law, estate planning, and tax, plus multiple advanced law degrees. Ran for Position 2 in 2024 and received 3.7% of the vote in a four-candidate field. No appellate litigation or constitutional case work identified.

Estate, family, and tax compliance work is real legal experience but distinct from the constitutional and criminal justice questions that dominate this court's docket.

As of the filing deadline, no campaign manager, no fundraising apparatus, and no institutional endorsers, by his own choice, framing the lack of endorsements as a judicial-impartiality stance. He has stated opposition to a state income tax in the voters' guide. Self-funded roughly $2,847 in spending.

Estate planning attorney in Port Orchard. No judicial experience. No constitutional law background. No civil rights record. Challenging the Chief Justice with an estate planning practice is the experience gap speaking for itself.

Estate planning is a different planet from the constitutional, civil rights, and criminal justice cases that define this court's work. No proximity to the problems this court is asked to solve.

Backed by state GOP. No evident personal professional reason to run for the Supreme Court other than to challenge its direction. The campaign is the platform.