A Spokane native and Gonzaga grad, state Supreme Court Chief justice Debra Stephens seeks another term

OLYMPIA – While the court itself is often overlooked, members of the Washington state Supreme Court have issued an array of consequential opinions over the past 18 years.

The court found in 2012 that the state had failed to “provide for the education” of all children and later imposed a $100,000-a-day fine on the state Legislature to compel lawmakers to fully fund K-12 public education. In the original decision, which was written by Chief Justice Debra Stephens, the court ruled that the state had “failed to meet its duty” under the constitution “by consistently providing school districts with a level of resources that falls short of the actual costs of the basic education program.”

The ruling resulted in the state providing billions in additional state funding to schools in the state.

In 2018, the justices unanimously found that the state’s death penalty was unconstitutional because it was imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner, which meant those on the state’s death row were resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Stephens concurred with the decision.

In 2021, the state Supreme Court found by a 5-4 decision that the state’s drug possession law was unconstitutional, meaning anyone convicted of simple drug possession on or before Feb. 25 of that year could seek to have their conviction vacated. While she joined with the majority in part, Stephens wrote a separate dissent departing in their rationale, and argued that it wasn’t necessary for the court to find that the law unconstitutional.

And in 2023, the court found that the state’s 7% tax on long-term capital gains was constitutional and that it was a tax on the sale of assets rather than on income. The 7-2 ruling, which was written by Stephens, found that the tax was an excise tax and “not subject to the uniformity and levy requirements” in the state constitution.

Although the court has seen a high level of turnover during that time, Stephens, the second-longest-tenured active member and the court’s Chief Justice, has been one of the few who have weighed in on the state’s most high-profile legal questions for nearly two decades.

The first woman from Eastern Washington to serve on the court, Stephens was appointed by former Gov. Christine Gregoire in December 2007 and won re-election three times. Stephens is again running for another six-year term, this time garnering three challengers who argue they want to bring moderation back to the court.

A Spokane native and graduate of West Valley High School, Stephens attended Gonzaga University for her undergraduate and law degrees.

Stephens did not respond to multiple requests for an interview prior to publication. In the TVW video voter’s guide, however, Stephens said she’s served on the court while “upholding the rule of law and striving to fulfill the constitutional promise of equal justice for all.”

“I’ve also helped to make court procedures more transparent and efficient. And I’ve led efforts statewide to expand access to justice for underserved communities,” Stephens said in the video voter’s guide.

Stephens said that as a former law professor at Gonzaga Law School, she understands and respects legal precedent and constitutional principle.

“I’ve always enjoyed broad public support across our state because people know that my pledge is to fair and impartial justice and not to any special interest group,” she said. “I ask for your vote to continue serving you and upholding the rule of law for every person in Washington.”

Six years after Stephens ran unopposed for a seat on the court, she finds herself with three challengers in the August primary, including two candidates who ran in 2024 but did not advance past the August primary. Stephens is comfortably out-fundraising her opponents, according to state campaign finance filings.

Stephens has raised $82,887.80 as of Thursday compared to the $9,811.99 Karim Merchant has received.

David Shelvey, who ran for a seat on the court two years ago, graduated with a Master of Business Administration from City University of Seattle, a law degree and a Master of Laws degree in taxation from the Thomas M. Cooley Law School and a Master of Laws degree in global law and economics from Antonin Scalia Law School.

Shelvey did not respond to multiple requests for an interview. Ahead of the 2024 primary, Shelvey told The Spokesman-Review that if he were elected, he would work to make decisions that benefit the whole of society.

Shelvey also said he initially planned to run for Pierce County Superior Court in 2024 but decided his tendency to be more inquisitive made the state Supreme Court a better fit.

Shelvey is the president of the Fraternal Order of the Eagles of Tacoma and previously told The Spokesman-Review that dealing with the organization’s rules and questions from members has prepared him for the role of justice.

While judges are generally restricted from weighing in on issues that could come before the court, Shelvey wrote in the 2026 voters’ guide that he opposes “a state income tax and won’t be soft on criminals.”

“I will pursue practical economic solutions to ease the heavy caseloads facing our prosecutors and public defenders,” Shelvey wrote.

In the voters’ guide, Shelvey wrote that he had learned “to judge no one by gender, skin color, language, health condition, or religion.”

“I approach every decision with respect, fairness, and impartiality–guided by sound judgment and common sense,” Shelvey wrote.

Todd Bloom also ran in 2024, though like Shelvey, he did not advance past the August primary.

Ahead of the 2024 election, Bloom cited his life and legal experience as making him the best qualified for a seat on the court. Bloom served in the Navy for a decade after 9/11 before starting at one of the “big four” accounting firms.

In an interview Thursday, Bloom said he didn’t know “what could possibly prepare somebody for this role, quite frankly,” but “really it’s a combination of almost everything I’ve done up to this point, really, is what I view as being the formative experience over the course of my life, and particularly my adult life as a lawyer and a licensed professional.”

According to the Washington state voters’ guide, Bloom has spent more than a decade as a tax attorney and senior manager in major accounting firms.

Bloom said Thursday he considers himself an “originalist” and that he looks to what the authors of the constitution intended when the document was ratified.

“We respect the citizens, we respect them by respecting their constitution that they’ve adopted and not discarding it in favor of current, modern trends or what we think the world should look like,” Bloom said.

Bloom said there’s a perception that the court is focused on outcomes, and an “appearance of politicization” on the current court. He pointed to two recent resignations on the court, which allowed the governor to appoint two new members ahead of the November election.

“The constitution of the state has the election of the judiciary as a prominent feature,” Bloom said. “And to the extent that we’re seeing that kind of defeat, and maybe demoralizes the public, and undermines the intent of the constitution to a certain extent.”

A first-time candidate, Karim Merchant spent 15 years as a public defender in King County before he opened his own firm in 2023. According to the Washington state voters’ guide, Merchant is a graduate of Bellevue Public Schools, Bellevue Community College, earned a bachelor’s degree at the University of Washington and graduated from the Howard University School of Law.

Merchant said in at interview Thursday he’s challenging Stephens because her judicial philosophy “in her rulings, has a tendency to increase the size of government by increasing taxes and increasing spending.”

“And I come with a completely different philosophy,” Merchant said. “Instead of being activist, like the chief justice, I come with restraint.”

Merchant pointed to a court deciding after the McCleary decision to hold the state Legislature in contempt until it fully funded public education as an example of judicial overreach.

“Our constitution is very clear about what everyone’s role is. The judiciary is to interpret the law, not make the law,” Merchant said.

Merchant added that he believes it was a “very activist” decision.

Merchant added that he disagreed with the court’s decision to invalidate the initiative to cap car tabs at $30 car tabs and to uphold the state capital gains tax.

“I just think it’s so important now to exercise judicial restraint, more than ever,” Merchant said. “We just really let things get out of hand.”