Debra Stephens

How this candidate is likely to rule, and why.

Debra Stephens is the author of the majority opinion in Quinn v. State, the 7-2 March 2023 ruling that upheld the capital gains tax by classifying it as an excise tax on transactions rather than a property tax on income.

Her opinion explicitly declined to revisit Culliton, stating: 'We decline to reexamine Culliton because article VII's uniformity and levy limitations on property taxes do not apply' to the capital gains tax. That choice was deliberate.

She had the votes, the case, and the doctrinal opportunity to confront Culliton head-on in 2023, and she chose the narrower path.

That choice defines the analytical baseline for ESSB 6346: the new bill's label as an excise tax is much weaker than Quinn's transactional framing, because it is measured from federal AGI rather than from a discrete sale or exchange event, and McCloud's dissent in Quinn made exactly this distinction explicit.

Stephens could uphold ESSB 6346 only by extending Quinn in a way that her own 2023 opinion did not anticipate, or by overruling Culliton directly, which she declined to do when she had the chance.

Her Gonzaga undergraduate and law school education, 18 years on the Washington Supreme Court, tenure as Chief Justice twice, and teaching background in state and federal constitutional law at Gonzaga Law all reinforce an institutionalist, careful, stare-decisis-oriented judicial style.

The most accurate read of her record is not that she is a conservative in the Culliton-preserve sense, but that she is a cautious institutionalist who will look for the narrowest path, and on ESSB 6346 the narrowest path is significantly harder to find than it was in Quinn.

• Quinn majority language on Culliton: an explicit choice not to act

  Stephens wrote: 'We decline to reexamine Culliton because article VII's uniformity and levy limitations on property taxes do not apply' to the capital gains tax. That sentence is not an endorsement of Culliton or a commitment to preserve it; it is a statement that the specific case did not require revisiting the 1933 ruling.

  But ESSB 6346, which attaches to federal AGI and lacks any transactional trigger, does not present the same avoidance opportunity. She will either have to extend Quinn's excise-tax logic to a tax that lacks Quinn's excise predicate, or overrule Culliton directly, or strike down ESSB 6346.

  Her 2023 record indicates she prefers the first option when available, but whether it is available for a pure income tax is the doctrinal crux of the case.

• Bipartisan and bar-association endorsement pattern

  Stephens's 2020 reelection drew endorsements from the Washington Education Association ($3,500), the Washington State Association for Justice ($1,900), and NARAL Pro-Choice Washington, along with the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Ballotpedia's partisan confidence scoring rated her 'mild Democrat' based on these sources. For the 2026 race, no new institutional endorsements have been publicly reported; the incumbent Chief Justice profile in a well-resourced race typically attracts a broad, bipartisan bar-association slate. She has not drawn a serious challenger as of May 2026.

• Taught state and federal constitutional law at Gonzaga

  Before joining the bench, Stephens taught state constitutional law, federal constitutional law, community property, and appellate advocacy as an adjunct professor at Gonzaga University School of Law. That academic background, combined with the 18 years on the state's highest court, makes her among the most doctrinally sophisticated justices currently on the bench on constitutional questions.

  Her approach to Culliton will not be driven by uncertainty about what the doctrine says; it will be a deliberate choice about what to do with a precedent she knows thoroughly.

• Co-chair of National Courts Science Institute: institutionalist framing

  Stephens serves as co-chair of the National Courts Science Institute and previously chaired ASTAR, a congressionally directed program enhancing courts' capacity to address scientific and technical issues. This role is not directly related to tax law but reflects a consistent pattern of building institutional capacity and reform within established frameworks rather than through doctrinal disruption. It is consistent with a justice who looks for incremental paths and is deeply invested in the court as an institution.

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