Judicial Restraint and the November Ballot
The limits imposed by the Constitution extend to judges. This principle should be central to Washington's Supreme Court election. Free speech and due process require more than campaign rhetoric; voters must examine how candidates have treated these rights while exercising public authority.
The Real Olympic Herald does not make endorsements in partisan political races. We encourage readers to utilize available tools to examine records and conduct their own research to make informed decisions.
Washington’s judicial elections are nonpartisan. For the five Supreme Court races on the November 3 ballot, the following candidates are recommended:
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 currently 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.
These biographies serve as a starting point. The more difficult question concerns a candidate's understanding of the limitations 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. These provisions impose obligations on the courts. A judge’s confidence in an outcome cannot substitute for the process mandated by the Constitution.
When a court restricts speech, closes a proceeding or withholds a court record, there must be a legal justification. It must also be clear whether the judge addressed the constitutional objection. This scrutiny is particularly important when the individual asserting a right is criticizing the government or the court itself.
A newly released Washington Supreme Court tool provides a means to conduct this examination. It covers both candidates in every one of these five races, including those not recommended here.
Backgrounds and campaign statements can be compared alongside campaign-finance records, election returns and selected judicial decisions.
Campaign statements represent the candidate's account, while judicial opinions provide reasoning that can be examined. Writing an opinion, joining it, dissenting and presiding over a trial are distinct functions. The tool identifies these differences and links users to the decisions.
Campaign money also warrants examination. 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.
Users can also compare certified August primary returns with statewide totals or results from other counties.
Users should also be aware of the collection's limitations. It does not contain every court decision, and an empty search does not constitute 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.