Five of nine seats on the Washington Supreme Court are up for grabs in 2026, and the outcome could determine whether a new 9.9 percent state income tax survives constitutional review, or whether the court finally opens the door to taxing ordinary Washingtonians' earnings for the first time in state history.

A dozen candidates have already entered the race, with the official filing period running May 4 through May 8. The stakes extend well beyond the bench. The Center Square reported that the court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of a 9.9 percent income tax on annual household earnings above $1 million, a levy Washington voters have rejected ten times in the last century, and one the state's high court has struck down on three separate occasions.

Emails uncovered by The Center Square between the state Office of the Attorney General and Democratic lawmakers frame the legislation not as a simple revenue measure but as a deliberate strategy to force the court to reconsider a 1933 ruling that declared income taxes unconstitutional. If the court overturns that precedent, nothing would stop the legislature from expanding the tax to every household in the state.

The governor's fingerprints on the bench

Gov. Bob Ferguson has already shaped the court through appointments. He named Colleen Melody to succeed former Justice Mary Yu, who retired in January. Earlier this month, Ferguson appointed Theodore J. Angelis to fill the vacancy left by Justice Barbara Madsen's retirement. Both appointees now seek full six-year terms, and both carry Ferguson's endorsement.

Melody's ties to the governor's office run deep. She previously served under Ferguson in the Office of the Attorney General. Solicitor General Noah Purcell issued what he called his "strongest possible recommendation" before her appointment. Purcell later appeared in the same emails that discussed how to maneuver the Supreme Court into revisiting its income-tax precedent. He also donated to Melody's campaign, as did other AGO staff.

Melody has raised nearly $154,000 and secured endorsements from Ferguson, Attorney General Nick Brown, every sitting Supreme Court justice, former Gov. Jay Inslee, and several state lawmakers who voted to pass the income tax. The Washington State Republican Party wants Melody to recuse herself from any future high court rulings on the tax, given her professional entanglements with the officials who engineered the legislation.

Retired University of Washington constitutional law professor Hugh Spitzer told The Center Square he sees the connections but downplayed their significance:

"Colleen was a close coworker of Noah's. She ran one of the major offices within the attorney general's office, and [Purcell] runs one of the other major offices."

Spitzer expressed skepticism that the election would change the court's trajectory at all:

"I think that fundamentally the state Supreme Court is going to stay the same. 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."

That assessment may comfort progressives. It should alarm everyone else.

A court that already leans left

A 2020 Ballotpedia study described the Washington Supreme Court as composed of "mild democrats." Professors at Stanford University ranked it the fifth most liberal bench in the nation back in 2012. Its recent record bears that out. The court upheld the state's capital gains tax in 2023, Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens wrote the majority opinion, struck down voter-approved initiatives to cap automobile tab fees at $30, and declared the state's felony drug-possession statute unconstitutional, a ruling that cost taxpayers millions of dollars to resentence defendants in cases stretching back to 1971.

The court's willingness to override popular will on tax policy is not new. In 2013, the justices struck down a voter-approved requirement for a two-thirds legislative supermajority to raise taxes, ruling 6-3 that such a requirement was unconstitutional. That decision meant tax increases could pass with a simple majority. "Should the people and the legislature still wish to require a super majority vote for tax legislation, they must do so through constitutional amendment, not through legislation," the court wrote.

The pattern is clear: when voters try to limit the state's taxing power, this court finds a way around them. The income-tax case would be the biggest test yet of whether the justices will respect a century of popular resistance, or bulldoze it.

Court composition fights are playing out at every level of the judiciary. At the federal level, discussions about potential U.S. Supreme Court vacancies have highlighted how much a single appointment can shift legal doctrine for a generation.

Who's running, and who's paying

The challenger with the most direct relevance to the income-tax fight is Scott Edwards, a Seattle-based attorney who registered to challenge Melody. Edwards was one of the attorneys who challenged Washington's capital gains tax. He litigated against an income tax in Seattle and taught tax law at the University of Washington for nearly 20 years. He has reported just $306 in donations, a fraction of Melody's war chest.

For the seat being vacated by Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, two candidates have drawn the most attention. J. Michael Diaz, a Division 1 Court of Appeals judge who previously served as a federal judge under President Barack Obama, has reported around $108,000 and picked up endorsements from five sitting justices, Attorney General Brown, and former Governors Inslee, Christine Gregoire, and Gary Locke. Diaz has received donations from the law firm K&L Gates, where Ferguson and Angelis both previously worked.

Mason County Superior Court Judge David Stevens offers a different profile. He told The Jason Rantz Show that the high court doesn't "have any diversity of thought" and said he didn't mind being called a "conservative." Stevens has raised about $580. He is one of two candidates endorsed, or "recommended", by the Washington State Republican Party.

The fundraising gap tells its own story about the institutional machinery behind these races.

Position No. 4: Johnson's mandatory retirement

Justice Charles W. Johnson must step down because the state constitution requires retirement at the end of the calendar year in which a justice turns 75. Three candidates are vying for his seat. Division 1 Court of Appeals Judge Ian Birk has served on all three state appellate courts and penned more than 200 legal opinions. He has reported just under $201,000 and collected endorsements from former Justice Yu, four current justices, State Insurance Commissioner Patty Kuderer, King County Executive Girmay Zahilay, former Gov. Inslee, and several Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, who sponsored the state income tax and appeared in the emails plotting to overturn the 1933 ruling.

King County Superior Court Judge Sean O'Donnell brings a different résumé. A longtime former prosecutor, O'Donnell helped put the Green River killer behind bars and once served on the Supreme Court as a pro tem justice. He has reported about $143,000 and won endorsements from Justice Helen Whitener, former Gov. Gregoire, and elected officials across the political spectrum. Former Attorney General Rob McKenna, who filed a lawsuit with the Citizen Action Defense Fund to block implementation of the income tax, gave O'Donnell $500.

Spitzer described both Birk and O'Donnell as moderate, professional judges and said he didn't expect a major shift from either one:

"I don't see any other races where there's likely to be any kind of big change."

Sumner-based attorney David Robert Shelvey rounds out the field for Position No. 4. A former radio jockey with no reported campaign contributions as of April 24, Shelvey wrote online that he chose to run because he would never have known whether he could win if he hadn't tried. He argues on his campaign website that candidates should run as nonpartisan, as intended.

The question of judicial independence and ideological balance on high courts has drawn attention nationwide. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on free speech and religious liberty have underscored how much the composition of a bench matters when fundamental rights collide with government power.

Position No. 5: Ferguson's latest pick faces a challenger

Theodore J. Angelis, Ferguson's most recent appointee, took over just weeks ago and is already seeking a full term. A former partner at K&L Gates, Angelis has reported about $103,000 and received thousands from former coworkers at the firm. His endorsers include Ferguson, Gregoire, Zahilay, five sitting justices, and Pedersen.

Dave Larson, a former Federal Way Municipal Court judge, is running against him. Larson narrowly lost a bid against Justice Sal Mungia in 2024 and has reported around $94,000 in contributions. He is the second candidate "recommended" by the state Republican Party. In prior campaigns, Larson positioned himself as a reformist outsider, arguing that a justice should apply the law as written rather than impose personal agendas. He has also advocated for publicly financed judicial races.

Thurston County Superior Court Judge Sharonda D. Amamilo has also filed for the seat. A veteran and former public defender, Amamilo sits on the state's Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families' Oversight Board. She has reported about $10,600 and is endorsed by Justice Whitener along with judges and attorneys across the western half of the state.

Ballot access and party affiliation in judicial races have become flashpoints elsewhere, too. The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to intervene in an Ohio ballot dispute involving a candidate's party switch, a reminder that courts at every level face questions about political identity and legitimacy.

The chief justice and the road ahead

Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens is seeking another term that would extend her tenure to 2033. She joined the bench in 2008 by gubernatorial appointment, won a full term later that year, beat challenger John Scannell in 2014, and ran unopposed in 2020. She is the only person registered with the Public Disclosure Commission for Position No. 7 so far. Her office confirmed she is seeking reelection. She has raised about $26,500, apparently carryover from 2020, and has no public endorsements listed for this cycle.

Stephens authored the majority opinion upholding the capital gains tax in 2023. If she runs unopposed again, the justice most closely associated with expanding the state's taxing authority will return to the bench without voters having any say in the matter.

The Washington Education Association, which endorsed Stephens in 2014, has identified raising revenue through the income tax as its top priority this year and plans to begin endorsing 2026 candidates in the coming weeks. The teachers' union's involvement signals that organized labor sees these races as a direct path to the revenue it wants, and the precedent it needs.

Meanwhile, the broader landscape of court-driven policy battles continues to expand. At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up major cases testing executive authority on immigration, illustrating how judicial composition shapes policy outcomes far beyond the courtroom.

What's really at stake

The numbers tell the story of a lopsided fight. Candidates aligned with the Democratic establishment and endorsed by the governor who appointed them have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. The two Republican-recommended candidates, Stevens and Larson, have raised a combined total well under $100,000. Scott Edwards, the tax-law expert challenging the governor's handpicked appointee, has $306.

Washington voters have said no to an income tax ten times. The state's highest court has struck it down three times. Yet Democratic lawmakers, working hand-in-glove with the attorney general's office, crafted a tax bill designed to force the court to reverse nearly a century of precedent. The governor then appointed justices with direct ties to the officials who designed that strategy.

If the court upholds the income tax, it won't stop at millionaires. It never does. The 1933 ruling is the only legal barrier between Olympia and the paychecks of every worker in the state. Knock it down, and the legislature needs only a simple majority to reach into any household it chooses.

Washington's taxpayers have made their position clear, over and over again, for a hundred years. The question now is whether anyone on the bench is still listening.