Jaime Hawk and David Stevens, both superior court judges in Washington state, are running for Position No. 3 on the state Supreme Court. The similarities between the candidates largely end there. Hawk, a King County judge and former director of legal strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union, has the support of most Democratic leaders. Stevens, a Mason County judge, Navy veteran, former public defender and prosecutor, is backed by the state Republican Party and holds significantly more conservative views.
Formally, elections to the Washington Supreme Court are nonpartisan: Candidates’ party affiliations do not appear on the ballot. However, judicial candidates go through partisan primaries and general elections, while parties, unions, professional associations and other political organizations may endorse candidates, finance advertising and mobilize voters. As a result, party coalitions and political views have a noticeable influence on the campaigns.
Five seats on the Supreme Court are up for election in November, potentially reshaping its membership for years to come. Position No. 3 was vacated by Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who decided not to seek a second six-year term. In the August primary, Stevens received 35% of the vote and Hawk received 33%. Hawk may nonetheless be considered the favorite: Liberal voters likely split their support between her and a third candidate, Mike Diaz, who was also backed by prominent Democrats.
One of the central issues will be a state income tax on wealthy residents, approved by the Legislature and placed on the ballot. Hawk declined to comment on it, citing rules that prohibit judges from discussing potential future litigation in advance. Stevens said he did not know what his ruling would be, but pointed to a 1933 precedent in which the court struck down a progressive income tax, as well as the state constitution’s requirement that tax rates be uniform. He also criticized the decision upholding a capital-gains tax, calling it an attempt to evade that requirement.
The candidates also differ on judicial precedent and the court’s role in protecting civil rights. Stevens describes himself as an originalist and textualist and believes precedents should be retained when people have long relied on them and they do not cause harm; he cites mandatory police warnings about the right to remain silent as an example. Hawk believes precedent should be overturned only when its error and harmful consequences have been demonstrated, warning that abruptly eliminating long-recognized rights undermines public trust in the courts. She views favorably the court’s decisions and statements aimed at combating racial discrimination in the legal system.
Stevens, by contrast, criticizes the court’s 2021 decision in State v. Blake. The Supreme Court ruled that the former law criminalizing simple possession of a controlled substance was unconstitutional because prosecutors were not required to prove that a person knew they possessed the drug. As a result, numerous convictions under the statute became legally invalid. Lawmakers had to revise the statute, add a knowledge requirement and establish procedures for vacating or reviewing old convictions, including the possible repayment of fines and other consequences for those convicted.
Stevens also opposes a rule limiting challenges to jurors when racial bias may have influenced the decision. He believes the court is thereby imposing a racial standard of its own. Stevens called the court’s public letters on systemic racism and discrimination against Indigenous peoples “performative,” while Hawk considers them a useful appeal to the legal community to account for the consequences of historical injustice.
Based on: Jaime Hawk and David Stevens present stark contrast in WA Supreme Court race