Scott Edwards

How this candidate is likely to rule, and why.

Scott Edwards is the most directly relevant professional challenger on the ballot for understanding where Culliton fits in 2026 litigation politics.

He is a tax specialist who has spent nearly two decades teaching state and local tax at UW Law and representing clients before the Washington Department of Revenue at Ballard Spahr, and Ballard Spahr itself tracked the capital gains tax through every stage of Quinn litigation and the subsequent SCOTUS cert denial.

Edwards was a party to client-side commentary on the Douglas County superior court ruling that found the capital gains tax unconstitutional in 2022, and the firm's client advisory position has consistently noted that Quinn's excise-tax framing makes a broad income tax harder to implement, not easier.

His campaign materials emphasize constitution, statutes, and precedent as the trifecta of decision-making, and he holds out analytical discipline and rule-of-law framing as distinct from the sitting court's orientation.

The record is thin enough that specific public positions on Culliton overruling are absent, but the combination of practice area, client base, and professional commentary leaves the inference clear: he represents the taxpayer side of the revenue argument, and that side has a structural interest in keeping Culliton in place.

• Ballard Spahr Quinn tracking and client advisory record

  Ballard Spahr, where Edwards is a partner, published client alerts at every stage of Quinn litigation: the 2022 Douglas County ruling finding the capital gains tax unconstitutional, the 2023 Washington Supreme Court 7-2 reversal, the subsequent initiative campaign to repeal the tax, and the January 2024 SCOTUS cert denial.

  These alerts consistently framed the capital gains tax as a borderline revenue instrument and noted that Quinn's excise-tax framing, while upholding the specific tax, made future broad income taxes more difficult, not less.

  Edwards is the firm's named state and local tax specialist and was identified by the firm as continuing to help clients 'navigate and minimize' the tax after the cert denial.

• 20-year academic position in the exact doctrinal space

  Edwards has taught state and local tax at UW Law as an adjunct faculty member for nearly 20 years, a period that spans the full cycle of post-Culliton tax litigation in Washington. That academic role means he has lectured on Article VII, the uniformity clause, and the income-as-property doctrine in a formal instructional context.

  It is difficult to teach Article VII for two decades without forming a settled view of what Culliton means and whether it should survive. His campaign's emphasis on 'predictability' and 'fair tax system' in its policy framing is consistent with the pedagogical posture of someone who teaches the existing doctrinal framework as authoritative.

• Princeton and UW Law academic background

  Edwards graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University, winning the Paul Volcker award in economics, and earned his law degree with honors from UW Law. The economics background is notable: state and local tax practitioners who come through economics-oriented undergraduate programs tend to think about tax incidence and distributional effects in systematic terms, which reinforces a rule-based rather than result-oriented approach to questions like whether income is constitutionally classifiable as property.

• Campaign launch with minimal fundraising as signal

  As of late April 2026, Edwards had raised approximately $306 in reported contributions, compared to Melody's $154,000. That gap is not primarily an indicator of his legal positions but of his competitive profile: he filed in mid-March, later than most candidates, and does not yet have the anti-income-tax independent expenditure infrastructure behind him that backed Dave Larson in 2024. Whether Project 42 or similar groups engage in this race is a material open question for his electoral viability.

An analytical read on public signals. Not a prediction of any individual vote.