(The Center Square) – With a dozen candidates already in the race for five out of nine positions on the bench, the 2026 Washington Supreme Court election could be among the most consequential in years.
The race comes at a pivotal moment in state history, as the court might rule on the constitutionality of a new 9.9% state income tax on annual household earnings over $1 million in the next year or so. Voters rejected income taxes 10 times in the last century, and the high court has struck them down three times.
Emails uncovered by The Center Square between the state Office of the Attorney General and lawmakers frame the legislation as a way to force the court to reconsider a 1933 ruling that outlawed income taxes.
In recent years, the justices have weighed in on other cases with major taxpayer impacts, upholding a capital gains tax that opponents argued was essentially an income tax; striking down initiatives to cap automobile tab fees at $30; and declaring the state’s felony drug possession statute unconstitutional. The latter costs taxpayers millions of dollars to resentence defendants in cases going back to 1971.
According to a 2020 Ballotpedia study, the Washington Supreme Court is made up of “mild democrats,” citing Stanford University professors who ranked the bench as the fifth most liberal nationwide in 2012. Five of the nine seats are now up for grabs, and whoever wins could have a say in one of the court’s most consequential decisions yet, ruling whether income is a form of property as the court decided in 1933.
Overturning that ruling could allow lawmakers to impose an income tax on everyday Washingtonians.
Hugh Sptizer, a retired constitutional law professor from the University of Washington, is skeptical that the makeup of the court will change after the election because there are few conservative candidates running.
“I think that fundamentally the state Supreme Court is going to stay the same,” Spitzer told The Center Square, when asked how the races could affect a future ruling. “I honestly don’t think that the election is going to make a heck of a lot of difference one way or the other in how they approach that case.”
This article breaks down which candidates have already registered with the state’s campaign finance commission. The official filing period is May 4 to May 8, so other candidates could still join the race.
Position No. 1: Incumbent Justice Collen Melody
The first Supreme Court position up for grabs is held by Justice Colleen Melody, who succeeded former Justice Mary Yu upon Yu’s retirement in January. Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed Melody after she served under him in the Office of the Attorney General when he was the state’s head law enforcement official.
He picked Melody after Solicitor General Noah Purcell issued the “strongest possible recommendation.”
Records obtained by The Center Square show that Purcell later discussed with Democratic lawmakers in a series of emails how to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1933 income tax ruling. Notably, Melody is the only campaign that Purcell and AG Nick Brown have donated to so far this election year.
The Washington State Republican Party wants Melody to recuse herself from future high court rulings on the income tax, given her relationship with Purcell and the AGO. According to the Public Disclosure Commission, she has also received thousands of dollars in other campaign donations from AGO staff.
Melody is endorsed by Ferguson, Brown, every other sitting Supreme Court justice, former Gov. Jay Inslee, other state executives and several lawmakers who voted to pass the income tax. When asked, Spitzer doubted that Melody’s relationship with the AGO would affect her ruling, should she win in November.
“Colleen was a close coworker of Noah’s,” Spitzer told The Center Square. “She ran one of the major offices within the attorney general’s office, and [Purcell] runs one of the other major offices.”
So far, she has raised nearly $154,000 for her 2026 campaign. Only one candidate has registered with the PDC to challenge her ahead of the state’s official candidate filing deadline on May 8. Seattle-based attorney Scott Edwards has reported about $306 in donations to the PDC for his 2026 campaign so far.
Edwards was one of the attorneys who challenged Washington’s capital gains tax. He litigated against an income tax in Seattle, too, and taught tax law at the University of Washington for nearly 20 years.
Position No. 3: Outgoing Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis
The next position up for election this year is held by Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who plans to leave after serving just one six-year term. The timing allows voters to choose her replacement on the ballot in an open race this fall, rather than leaving the governor to appoint an interim justice of his choosing.
Three challengers have registered with the PDC so far in hopes of securing Montoya-Lewis’s position.
Division 1 Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Diaz has already been endorsed by five justices, Brown, Inslee and former Govs. Christine Gregoire and Gary Locke. Diaz previously served as a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under then-President Barack Obama.
Diaz has reported around $108,000 so far for his 2026 election campaign, receiving several donations from K&L Gates, a legal firm where Ferguson and Justice Theodore Angelis previously worked together.
King County Superior Court Judge Jaime Hawk announced her bid for Montoya-Lewis’s seat on April 8.
Hawk is endorsed by Ferguson, Yu and Justice Helen Whitener. She once served as a public defender and civil rights attorney and has reported about $55,000 in campaign donations to the PDC so far. She also previously served as a legal strategy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
Washington State Treasurer Mike Pellicciotti donated $4,800 to Hawk’s campaign, hitting the PDC’s cap.
Mason County Superior Court Judge David Stevens is the last candidate registered with the PDC so far to run for Position No. 3. He recently told The Jason Rantz Show that the high court doesn’t “have any diversity of thought,” and didn’t mind being called a “conservative” for holding to the Constitution.
Stevens has reported around $580 in campaign contributions so far, and is one of two candidates that the Washington State Republican Party has endorsed, or “recommended,” voting for this election cycle.
Position No. 4: Outgoing Justice Charles W. Johnson
The Washington State Constitution requires Supreme Court justices to retire at the end of the calendar year in which they turn 75 years old. That forces Justice Charles W. Johnson to step down after the end of his term, leaving an open seat for another group of hopeful candidates to battle over this cycle.
Division 1 Court of Appeals Judge Ian Birk is one of the three candidates who have registered with the PDC ahead of the official filing period in May. He has served on all three state appellate courts, penned more than 200 legal opinions and fought for families and small businesses against corporate interests.
Birk has been endorsed by Yu and four current justices, state Insurance Commissioner Patty Kuderer, King County Executive Girmay Zahilay, Inslee and several state Democratic lawmakers. One of those Democrats is Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, who sponsored the state’s income tax and appears in emails The Center Square obtained plotting how to overturn Supreme Court precedent.
The candidate has reported just under $201,000 in campaign contributions, the most of anyone so far.
King County Superior Court Judge Sean O’Donnell is the third candidate in the race for Johnson’s seat.
The longtime former prosecutor helped put the Green River killer behind bars and once served on the Supreme Court as a pro tem justice. O’Donnell is endorsed by Whitener, Gregoire and elected officials across the political spectrum and has reported about $143,000 in campaign contributions to the PDC.
He received $500 from former AG Rob McKenna, who filed a lawsuit with Citizen Action Defense Fund to block the implementation of the income tax, which is anticipated to eventually reach the high court.
Spitzer described both Birk and O’Donnell as moderate, professional judges.
The third candidate to register a campaign with the PDC to replace Johnson is David Robert Shelvey.
The Sumner-based attorney and former radio jockey had not reported any campaign contributions to the PDC, as of April 24, or endorsements to his campaign website. Shelvey wrote online that he chose to run for Johnson’s position because, had he not, he would have never known whether he could win.
He argues on his campaign website that candidates should run as nonpartisan as intended, stressing that endorsements can send a message to voters that a candidate accepts a certain political agenda.
Position No. 5: Incumbent Justice Theodore J. Angelis
Ferguson appointed Angelis to fill a vacancy left by Justice Barbara Madsen’s retirement earlier this month. He took over the position only a few weeks ago and hopes to secure a full six-year term by winning the election this fall. So far, two other candidates have registered campaigns with the PDC.
Angelis was a partner at K&L Gates, where he previously worked with Ferguson about 20 years ago.
He is endorsed by Ferguson, Gregoire, Zahilay, five sitting justices and Pedersen, who proposed the income tax this session, among other state and local leaders. Angelis has reported about $103,000 in campaign contributions so far, including thousands of dollars from his former coworkers at K&L Gates.
Dave Larson, a former Federal Way Municipal Court judge who narrowly lost a bid against Justice Sal Mungia in 2024, is among the candidates seeking Angelis’ seat. Larson has reported around $94,000 in contributions to the PDC so far and remains the only other candidate “recommended” by WAGOP.
In prior campaigns, he positioned himself as a reformist outsider, arguing that the role of a justice is to apply the law as written rather than to impose personal agendas. Larson has advocated for publicly financed races in the past to eliminate outside interest, which he sees as potential conflicts of interest.
Spitzer said that, should Larson win this time, his presence could make a difference in the ideological makeup of the court, but that it probably wouldn’t amount to much without other conservative justices.
“I don’t see any other races where there’s likely to be any kind of big change,” he told The Center Square.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Sharonda D. Amamilo is the third candidate to file with the PDC for Angelis’ position. A veteran and former public defender, she currently sits on the state’s Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families’ Oversight Board.
Amamilo is endorsed by Whitener and judges and attorneys across the western half of the state. She has reported about $10,600 in campaign contributions so far, putting her well behind Angelis and Larson.
Position No. 7: Incumbent Justice Debra L. Stephens
Chief Justice Debra Stephens is seeking another term to extend her tenure on the high court to 2033.
Stephens joined the bench in 2008 by gubernatorial appointment, like five of her eight peers, and won her first full term later that year. In 2014, she beat John Scannell for a second term by a wide margin, with the Washington Education Association’s endorsement. She ran unopposed and won again in 2020.
WEA is well known for advancing transgender and LGBTQ-inclusive agendas. The union identified raising revenue through the income tax as its top priority this year, and will begin endorsing candidates for 2026 in the coming weeks. Whoever it picks could provide insight into how they might rule on the income tax.
In 2023, Stephens wrote the Supreme Court’s majority opinion upholding the state’s capital gains tax, which opponents argued was essentially an income tax. She’s the only person registered with the PDC for Position No. 7 so far, putting her in a position to win unless a challenger steps up to the plate soon.
Karl Triebel, a court commissioner for Division II of the Court of Appeals, filed to run for a spot on the court in February, but he didn’t list what position he was seeking. Triebel confirmed in an email to The Center Square that he no longer plans to run for office, after discontinuing his campaign on March 5.
Stephens has kept a low profile ahead of the May candidate filing deadline. According to the PDC, she has raised about $26,500 so far for her campaign, all of which appears to be a carryover from her last reelection bid in 2020. Stephens has not reported any recent campaign donations to the PDC for 2026.
She doesn’t have an active campaign website yet for her 2026 campaign, but her office confirmed in a phone call that Stephens is seeking reelection. She has no public endorsements listed yet for this year.
How much are they paid, and who’s next?
Washington state pays each Supreme Court justice $262,011 annually, which is set to increase 3% to $269,924 on July 1. The chief justice brings in $265,792, which will also increase to $273,819 in July.
The justices are the highest-paid public officials across the executive, judicial and legislative branches.
Mungia, Whitener and Justices Steven C. Gonzalez and Sheryl Gordon McCloud are not up for election this year. Mungia won Position No. 2 in 2024 and is up for reelection in 2030; Whitener is up again for Position No. 6 in 2028; and Gonzalez and McCloud are both up for Positions No. 8 and 9 in 2030, too.
This year marks the most Supreme Court positions up for election at a single point in recent history.
Washington state’s Supreme Court elections have lower turnout than other high-profile races. In 2024, when Gonzalez and McCloud both ran unopposed, and Mungia beat Larson, the average turnout across the races was 2.8 million, 27.7% fewer than in the presidential election, which saw 3.9 million voters.
With a ruling on the income tax expected before the next Supreme Court election in 2028, voters have a unique opportunity this year to weigh in on justices who could likely alter the course of state history.
“Win or lose, at least we get a court to weigh in on what is the law,” Andrew Villeneuve, executive director of the Northwest Progressive Institute, told The Center Square, arguing that the 1933 Culliton ruling rests upon a rocky foundation. “And this is an opportunity to decide if Culliton was it was improper or not.”
