About this guide

One question. Twelve candidates. Independent and nonpartisan.

Why this exists

Washington Supreme Court races sit at the bottom of your ballot. Most people skip them or pick whoever's the incumbent. That means the court that decides how the state collects revenue swings on tiny turnout among voters who didn't know the question was even on the table.

This guide doesn't try to fix that with another generic biography. It picks one durable question — whether the 90-year-old ruling that blocks a state income tax survives — and shows what the public record says about each candidate on that one question.

What this guide isn't

• Not a complete voter guide. Judicial temperament, criminal law, civil rights, environmental rulings — all matter. This guide narrows to one durable question. Use the League of Women Voters and the Washington State Bar for the full picture.
• Not a partisan publication. We don't endorse candidates. We have no affiliation with any party, campaign, or expenditure committee.
• Not a vote predictor. Judges can't pledge how they'll rule on specific cases, and this guide won't pretend otherwise.
• Not telling you who to vote for. We show the public record and let you draw your own conclusion.
• Not a substitute for reading the candidates' own websites. Please do that too.

How we read each candidate

For every candidate, we read four things from the public record:

1. Who put them on their current bench. For sitting justices, this matters — appointing governors tend to share priorities with their appointees. For elected county judges, it matters less.
2. What they did before. A career civil rights lawyer reads the 14th Amendment differently than a career tax-defense lawyer. Background is signal, not destiny.
3. How they describe their own approach. Textualist? Restrained? Admiring of a particular justice? These are clues.
4. What they've actually said or written. Direct opinions or public statements on Article VII, Culliton, Quinn, or ESSB 6346. Often there's nothing — and that absence sets the confidence level.

Then we sum it up: likely to keep the wall, likely to knock it down, or not enough to tell. We show the work so you can disagree.

Other resources worth your time

• League of Women Voters of Washington — nonpartisan voter guides covering every race.
• Washington State Bar Association — judicial candidate ratings.
• King County Bar Association — county-level ratings.
• Washington Courts — official biographies and opinions.
• Public Disclosure Commission — campaign finance filings.

How we work

We describe rather than judge. If the record is clear, we say so. If it's mixed, we say so. If we don't know, we say that. We don't run anonymous tips or opposition research. Every claim should be traceable to a public source listed at the bottom of the candidate's page.

Corrections

If we got something wrong, tell us. Candidates, campaigns, and the public can submit corrections through the response form. Documented corrections get appended to the relevant page with credit.

Photos and fair use

Candidate photos come from official government bios, campaign websites, and firm directories. They're used for noncommercial civic education. If a candidate or rights holder objects to a specific image, submit a removal request through the response form and we'll substitute or remove it.

Nothing on this site is legal advice. The constitutional questions are simplified for a general audience. If you want the real legal analysis, read the cited opinions directly.