Campaign Phone Number
2066270706
Biography (max 750 char)
After graduating as Valedictorian from Wenatchee High School, I spent a year as a Rotary Exchange Student to Venezuela, then returned to do my undergraduate studies at Seattle Pacific University, while working full-time at Ken's Market on Queen Anne. I then attended University of Washington School of Law, and shortly after that started working in a small Northgate firm doing Family Law. I have handled all aspects of case work, from intake to settlement, trial and appeal for 30 years. In 2008 I was approved by the judges of Snohomish County Superior Court to serve as a Court Commissioner and ten years ago as an Arbitrator. I've been married for 31 years, have two adult sons, a daughter-in-law and a grandchild, who is my delight.
Endorsements:
Former Justice Richard Sanders
King County Judge Chad Allred (ret.)
Snohomish County Superior Court Commissioner Solomon Kim
Mediator Aaron Shields
Attorney David Goodnight
State Senator Paul Harris
Recommendations:
WA State Republication Party
Snohomish County Republicans
Yakima County Republicans
King County Republicans
I have given talks and hosted forums for business associations and in library spaces to answer questions about family law.
The court should defer to the Legislature on policy issues in order to ensure the clear separation of powers. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and measure all laws against the Constitution. If a law is un-Constitutional, the court does not "fix it," but rules it invalid. The Legislature has the responsibility of passing a new law or amended the first one to ensure that it does not violate the Constitution.
If I knew or had a relationship with a party who appeared before me or was involved in a controversy (such as a former employer), I would recuse myself.
I would consider recusing myself if someone who contributed to my campaign were to appear before me. I would at the very least disclose the potential conflict to allow the parties the opportunity to request recusal. The appearance of a conflict of interest seriously erodes the public's trust in the court system unless Justices take seriously the duty to recuse and actually act on it.
"Updating the law," whether by statute or Constitutional amendment is the job of the Legislature, not the court.
The court has a duty to overturn precedent only in situations where the case in question was wrongfully decided and where it is presently harmful. (There must also be a live controversy and a party with proper standing.)
Precedent should be overturned rarely so that litigants and attorneys have consistency, reliability and predictability in knowing what to expect in similar situations. But as in any human system, errors are made, and the beauty of our judicial system is that there is a mechanism and a path to correct those errors.
Campaign Phone Number
2062011108
Biography (max 750 char)
I earned my law degree at UW School of Law with honors after graduating from Princeton magna cum laude in Economics. I have been representing Washington taxpayers for over 30 years helping individuals and businesses understand and pay the taxes they owe while also helping to ensure that the government applies the law as written, fairly, consistently, and in accordance with the constitution. I have handled more than a dozen Washington Supreme Court cases involving issues of statutory interpretation and constitutional analysis. I have also taught state and local tax at UW School of Law for more than 20 years.
Candidate has not yet responded.
In addition to teaching state and local tax at the University of Washington School of Law for over 20 years I have been involved with the Washington State Bar Association Tax Section
None. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law as written in accordance with the constitution. It is the role of the people and the legislature to establish policy.
I would follow the code of judicial conduct and look at relevant opinions from the commission on judicial conduct.
It is not the court's role to update the law for modern contexts. The legislature or the people update the law. The court's role is to apply the law as written in accordance with the constitution. The standard for overturning prior decisions is a high one that requires both that the decision was wrong and also that the wrong decision is harmful.
Campaign Phone Number
2067452010
Biography (max 750 char)
I serve as the 100th justice of the Washington Supreme Court. Prior to joining the Court, I served as Chief of the Civil Rights Division in the Washington State Attorney General's Office, enforcing federal and state laws that protect civil rights and prohibit discrimination. I co-lead a multi-state lawsuit to protect the availability of abortion medication, as well as challenges to the federal government’s Muslim Travel Ban and efforts to end birthright citizenship and DACA. Prior to that, I served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. I graduated from the UW School of Law. I was born and raised in Spokane and now live in rural Western Washington with my husband and two daughters.
I am honored to be endorsed by all of my colleagues on the Supreme Court, which is meaningful because even though we have different viewpoints and backgrounds, they know I am diligent and work hard to get things right. I am also endorsed by retired justices Madsen, Yu, Bridge, Alexander, and Talmadge, as well as dozens of sitting judges at all levels of Washington courts. I have the support of statewide elected leaders including Governors Ferguson, Inslee, and Gregoire, as well as Attorney General Brown. I am honored to have the support of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, the Washington State Labor Council, many labor unions, the Jamestown S’Klallam and Suquamish Tribes, the King and Snohomish County Democrats, and more. Please find a full list at melodyforjustice.com/endorsements.
For my entire career as a lawyer, I brought cases at every level of our justice system at no cost to the people whose rights I fought to protect. At the Attorney General’s Office, my team became a national model for civil rights enforcement because we took on cases where large companies, powerful interests, and the federal government violated people’s rights.
Outside of work, I represented organizations and individuals pro bono. I represented the King County Bar Foundation and its flagship Minority Law Student Scholarship program. I advised Vashon Youth & Family Services on legal issues related to its programs to serve individuals with limited English proficiency. I took pro bono cases representing low-income tenants, immigrants, veterans, and parents involved in legal disputes.
My Court influences public policy through its appellate decisions, and that is inevitable. But the Court is not--and should not be--a policymaking body. Because many constitutional and statutory disputes involve issues that have broad social, political, and governance implications, decisions on those matters necessarily influence other government actors in their legislative and enforcement capacities. That does not mean that my court should ever substitute its policy judgment for that of the legislature; our legislators were elected by their constituents to debate and set policy, and we must defer to that judgment. At the same time, we should always be thinking about the practical implications of our rulings so that we anticipate and account for their effects on the lives of real people.
Justices must avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of bias, and the Code of Judicial Conduct sets out the circumstances that require recusal. I strictly follow the Code and have recused myself twice in circumstances where my impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of my prior work on the case or closely related matters. At the same time, the duty of a judge is to hear and decide the cases assigned to them and recusal to avoid difficult, controversial, or high-profile cases is improper. Judges cannot walk away from our obligation to serve the public and interpret the law, even if our decisions might be criticized by the public, political figures, or the media. Absent a conflict, we must uphold our oaths to hear and decide the cases on our docket fairly and impartially.
Precedent is very important to the consistency, stability, and predictability of our legal system. The role of my Court is to fairly and impartially interpret the constitution and laws enacted by the people’s representatives. Understanding and applying prior precedents from the court is an essential aspect of that task. At the Supreme Court level, there are few “easy” cases with straightforward answers because such cases are often resolved in the lower courts. Instead, cases that reach my Court usually involve legal questions that have not yet been decided. These are often complex and emergent legal problems. Our job is to apply our laws and precedents while being open to allowing the law to adapt to encompass new legal issues and developments in technology, industry, and society.
