Opinion: My Recommendations for Washington’s Supreme Court

The Constitution limits judges, too. That principle should be at the center of Washington’s Supreme Court election. Free speech and due process deserve more than a campaign promise. Voters should examine how candidates have treated those rights when exercising public authority.

The Olympic Herald does not recommend candidates in partisan political races. We encourage readers to use our free tools to examine the records, use the relevant research tools and make their own decisions.

Washington’s judicial elections are nonpartisan. In the five Supreme Court races on the November 3 ballot, my recommendations are:

• Position 1: Colleen Melody
• Position 3: David Stevens
• Position 4: Judge Sean O’Donnell
• Position 5: Dave Larson
• Position 7: Debra Stephens

Melody and Stephens already serve on the court. Justice Colleen Melody joined in January 2026 after leading the state attorney general’s Civil Rights Division for 11 years. Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens has served on the Supreme Court since 2008, following service on Division III of the Court of Appeals.

David Stevens is a Mason County Superior Court judge whose voter-pamphlet biography lists work as a prosecutor, federal public defender and chief public defender for the Colville Confederated Tribes. 

Judge Sean O’Donnell has served on King County Superior Court since 2013, handling civil, criminal and family-law cases, and has served as a temporary justice on the Supreme Court.

Dave Larson is a retired Federal Way Municipal Court judge. His campaign biography describes 23 years as a trial lawyer before he took the bench.

Those résumés are a starting point. The harder question is how a candidate understands the limits of judicial authority.

Article I of Washington’s Constitution protects speech and publication in section 5, guarantees due process in section 3 and requires the open administration of justice in section 10. Those provisions impose obligations on the courts. A judge’s confidence in the outcome cannot substitute for the process the Constitution requires.

When a court restricts speech, closes a proceeding or withholds a court record, I want to see the legal justification. I also want to see whether the judge addressed the constitutional objection. That scrutiny matters especially when the person asserting a right is criticizing the government or the court itself.

The Herald’s newly released Washington Supreme Court tool gives readers a way to conduct that examination. It covers both candidates in every one of these five races, including the candidates I am not recommending.

Their backgrounds and campaign statements can be compared alongside campaign-finance records, election returns and selected judicial decisions.

A campaign statement is the candidate’s account. A judicial opinion supplies reasoning that can be examined. Writing an opinion, joining it, dissenting and presiding over the trial are different roles. The tool identifies those distinctions and links readers to the decisions.

Campaign money deserves examination as well. The campaign-money comparison shows fundraising, spending and the largest named contributors.

Independent spending for or against a candidate appears separately from contributions to the campaign.

Readers can also compare the certified August primary returns with statewide totals or another county’s results.

Readers should also know the limits of the collection. It does not contain every court decision and an empty search is not a complete account of a judicial career.

My recommendations are Melody, Stevens, O’Donnell, Larson and Stephens. Readers can use the tool to examine their records and those of their opponents. The judgment about whom to support remains the reader’s.