3 judges vie for Washington Supreme Court position 3

Three judges with varying judicial philosophies want to replace a retiring Washington Supreme Court justice.

Five seats on the state Supreme Court are up for election this year and they have generated intense competition. Three candidates opted to run for position 3 after incumbent Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis opted not to seek re-election. When Montoya-Lewis won her term in 2020, four seats were on the ballot. Two ran unopposed and two, including Montoya-Lewis, had only one opponent.

This time, all the seats have competitors and voters will choose among four candidates for three of the seats.

In the Aug. 4 primary for position 3, two of the candidates have high profile endorsements from Democrats and judges.

Judge Mike Diaz, of the Division I State Court of Appeals, is backed by former Govs. Gary Locke, Chris Gregoire and Jay Inslee. He’s also backed by Attorney General Nick Brown and five current and four retired state Supreme Court justices.

King County Superior Court Judge Jaime Hawk is endorsed by Gov. Bob Ferguson, Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown, Supreme Court Justice Helen Whitener and retired Justice Mary Yu.

Mason County Superior Court Judge David Stevens, a former Spokane County deputy prosecutor, is backed by the Washington state, King County and Snohomish County Republican parties.

Diaz says he is the best choice for the court because of his extensive experience, already having served as a pro tem (substitute) justice for the Supreme Court.

“I’m the only person out of all 16 candidates who’s both been a trial court judge and an appellate court judge,” Diaz said. “I’ll be ready on Day 1.”

Having spent around 25 years in trial, federal and international courts, Stevens points to his extensive court experience.

“ I’ve seen the real world effects of what the state Supreme Court does through its rulemaking,” he said. “I think I would be an asset to the court.”

Hawk said she brings a bird’s-eye view of the state.

“I’ve worked all across our state, including in central and Eastern Washington,” Hawk said. “Most of the candidates are pretty Seattle and King County-centric, so I bring that statewide perspective.”

Hawk hopes to support and expand the resources of state courts.

“Our courts need more money and more resources. Jurors aren’t paid enough,” Hawk said. “Most places around the state get $10 a day, and most employers don’t pay when you serve on a jury, so it’s a hardship.”

She said the court should expand outreach and transparency.

“I’d love to see the court do more traveling court, going around the state so students can attend, and any member of the public could be present.”

Stevens said that he and many others are concerned about the progressive leaning of the court.

“What the Washington state Supreme Court is doing through its rulemaking decisions, which I believe are based on ideology … really disturbs me and lots of other judges,” Stevens said.

Diaz disagrees that the court is being politically predictable.

“I’m not defending every decision the Washington Supreme Court has made, but when people make accusations, I’d ask them just to be careful,” he said.

Hawk feels a similar way in response to the claim that courts may be politically biased.

“It’s not like every case is nine to zero,” Hawk said. “We see a lot of cases with dissent or concurring opinions … you don’t know how the court’s gonna rule in a case.”

Stevens said this election cycle is different and important due to political bias.

“I think because the courts have become so ideological that people are waking up to the impact of the Washington state Supreme Court,” he said.

Diaz believes the most important issues in the court have to do with the relationship between state and federal powers.

“The federal government is, on many levels, turning away from (civil-rights enforcement), and there’s been a renewed focus on what our state government, our state constitution can do to protect our rights and freedoms,” Diaz said.

Hawk said she grounds her beliefs on strengthening trust and transparency within the courts.

“My judicial philosophy is grounded in strengthening public trust and confidence in our courts and faithfully applying the rule of law, so judges decide cases based on our constitution, our statutes … precedent or case law … not personal views or policy preferences,” Hawk said.

Stevens calls himself a “strict constructionist.”

“You read what the statute says, unless there’s any ambiguity, that’s where you stop,” he said.

“I would agree with somebody like Clarence Thomas, where he says you shouldn’t look at what individual senators or individual representatives have said to interpret a statute, because they say all kinds of things; all you should look at is the statute itself and precedent,” Stevens said.

Thomas, a U.S. Supreme Court justice appointed by President George H.W. Bush, is the longest serving justice on the court and considered one of the most conservative judges.

That judicial philosophy is starkly different from the other candidates.

“I believe in a school of philosophy called American pragmatism, that is a school most recently popularized by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer,” Diaz said. The philosophy “has a long and proud history of viewing the law as something that has to be organic and responsive to the needs of the community.”

“That doesn’t mean judges are making policy. It does mean that judges have to meet the community where they are, as opposed to relying on rigid principles for deciding cases,” he added.

Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, retired from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 and was considered to be in the liberal bloc of the court.

Hawk lands somewhere between the two philosophies.

“Precedent is important to follow. It provides stability, but at the same time, if precedent is clearly wrong and harmful and it’s inconsistent with governing law, then courts can carefully consider potentially overturning precedent,” Hawk said.

This race is significant to the candidates for personal reasons.

“I immigrated here. My family came with nothing,” Diaz said. “My dad washed dishes, he … cleaned some of the buildings I worked in later as a lawyer.

“I have a tremendous amount of gratitude to this community, and that’s why I went into public service almost 20 years ago.”

Hawk highlights the significance of the Supreme Court in everyday life.

“Our Supreme Court of Washington is the ultimate decider of all important legal issues in our state that affect families and individuals and our constitutional rights and civil liberties … it’s just never been more important who our justices are,” Hawk said.

Stevens said progressives on the court have pursued an ideological agenda.

“I don’t think (the justices) really care about the effect their rulings have,” Stevens said. “They have an ideological agenda, and they’re pursuing it through our courts.”