Campaign Phone Number
3603892427
Biography (max 750 char)
At a time when the rule of law is under assault, I am proud that President Obama nominated me to the federal bench in recognition of my long record fighting for civil rights; a nomination Mitch McConnell refused to even bring to a vote. I was born in Peru and raised in South Seattle. As a federal civil rights lawyer, I founded the Seattle U.S. Attorney’s Office Civil Rights Unit and led efforts to reform Seattle’s Police Department. Governor Inslee twice appointed me to the bench: first to the Superior Court, where I presided over 45 trials, and again to the Court of Appeals, where I have authored over 200 opinions, including those protecting Washington’s workers, holding corporations accountable, and keeping the public safe.
My commitment to equal justice under the law has earned me the endorsement of leading voices and the largest unions across Washington:
-three former Governors (Inslee, Gregoire, and Locke);
-Attorney General Nick Brown;
-the Washington Education Association; Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO; Washington Federation of State Employees;
-nine Supreme Court Justices, including a majority of the current court, and over one hundred other judges;
-15 Democratic County Organizations including King, Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, Thurston, Yakima, and Skagit, as well as 25 Dem Legislative District (and counting!)
-Planned Parent Alliance Advocates;
-WA Conservation Action; and
-The Stranger.
Four bar associations rate me Exceptionally Well Qualified, including Washington Women Lawyers.
In addition to my public service at the Justice Department, I served the legal community in various ways. As an attorney, I volunteered at the King County Bar Association Spanish Legal Services Clinic. I later took a leadership role there, serving as chair of the Clinic's advisory committee, chair then of the entire Neighborhood Legal Clinic program, and finally as a member of the Pro Bono Services Committee.
As a Judge, I am the co-chairperson of the Washington Supreme Court’s Interpreter and Language Access Commission, which ensures court access for non-English speakers, and Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Until recently, as a lawyer and judge, I was on faculty at the DOJ’s National Advocacy Center, the Washington State Judicial Institute, and the Washington State Judicial College.
We have three co-equal branches of government, which are given extraordinary powers but limited and checked by the other branches, and ultimately by the people who are sovereign. The legislature passes laws and the executive (governor and AG) enforces the law. The courts interpret the laws and may, for example, decide whether a given law has exceeded the state constitution. I believe in this separation of powers and have been sworn, for over eight years, to honor it. Thus, policy considerations untethered to any legal relevancy or principle are beyond a court’s powers.
But fair and efficient administration of justice is well within court's bailiwick. EG: I educate judges on how to maintain the integrity of our state court system in the face of immigration enforcement action in courtrooms.
I am on the Commission on Judicial Conduct, which ensures ethical behavior among our judges. I understand my ethical obligations on recusal. Generally, you must or should recuse from a matter when your impartiality may reasonably be questioned. It requires a judge to step outside of themselves, be honest with themselves, and do what is best for the ends of justice. We ask this of jurors in our courthouses every day. Thus, we should not feel pressure from anyone, least of all political figures, to do otherwise when there can be no reasonable questioning of our independence.
Following precedent is foundational to the rule of law. Precedent brings stability to the law. Lawyers and litigants rely on it. But stability does not mean calcification. As society changes, the law must change as well, normally through the legislative process, but also in court decision-making.
Judicial philosophy is a fancy term for those principles of basic justice that generally guide your decision, including on departing from precedent. Over I believe in a school of American pragmatism, which views legal interpretation as an activity that is pragmatic, undogmatic, and adaptive.
Constitutionally, we depart from precedent when it is “wrong and harmful.” What those words mean is a complex question, but one I am familiar with because I teach Washington Constitutional Law at Seattle U.
Biography (max 750 char)
For 20+ years, Judge Hawk has fought for everyday Washingtonians. She will protect our rights and freedoms. The first ACLU of WA attorney to become a judge in Washington, Judge Hawk has more experience as counsel of record in WA Supreme Court appellate briefings than any other candidate. At the ACLU, she defended voting rights and made the justice system fairer. As a public defender, she led trials and appeals against the federal government — defending people arrested by ICE and prosecuted by DOJ. Now a proven Superior Court judge, she brings experience presiding over hundreds of civil, criminal, and family law cases, as well as appeals from lower courts. She follows the law and has never had a trial overturned for legal error.
Over 110 current and former trial & appellate judges and Supreme Court justices, including Justices Yu (ret.) and Whitener. Dozens of statewide and legislative officials, including Gov. Ferguson.
Judge Hawk is solely endorsed by Rep. Pramila Jayapal. Endorsed by groups representing women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and seniors.
Recommended by Tacoma and Whidbey Indivisible chapters. The most labor endorsements, including State Labor Council and regional labor councils, AFT teachers, ATU, and SEIU health care & gov’t workers.
Judge Hawk will protect our rights and the rule of law. Endorsed by dozens of legislative district and county Democratic organizations; designated a “Democracy Champion” by FairVote WA. Endorsed by the FUSE Progressive Voters Guide and The Urbanist.
I have spent two decades in unpaid service to the legal community and was included in the Pro Bono Honor Roll for this service. I have served on the WA Supreme Court’s Minority & Justice Commission, the Race & Criminal Justice Task Force, and the Access to Justice Board’s Court Rules Committee.
I volunteered for a civil rights clinic and to find lawyers for immigrant children. I have chaired committees for the ABA, Federal Bar Association, and WA Women Lawyers. The WSBA elected me to represent our state’s lawyers to the ABA House of Delegates, and Sen. Murray and Cantwell appointed me to their federal judge selection committee.
I co-chaired a Volunteer Lawyer Program and served as a legal observer at Guantanamo Bay. I co-chair the Courts & Community Committee of King Co Superior Court.
The judiciary’s role is not to make policy, but to interpret and apply the law fairly and impartially. In our constitutional system, policy decisions are made by the people and their elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches. Courts ensure that those laws and policies comply with the Constitution and are applied consistently and fairly to everyone.
Judges must decide cases based on the facts, the law, and the Constitution, rather than allowing personal views or policy preferences to influence decision-making. While court decisions may have policy implications, a judge’s responsibility is to uphold the rule of law, protect individual rights, and maintain an independent judiciary that serves as a check and balance within our system of government.
I treat recusal and conflicts of interest as a core part of maintaining trust in the court.
In practice, I look early and carefully for anything that could reasonably raise a question about my ability to be impartial, financial interests, prior involvement in a matter, close personal or professional relationships, or anything else that could create even the appearance of bias.
If there’s a real conflict, I recuse myself. If it is a closer call, I disclose it on the record so the parties can weigh in. I also lean toward transparency when in doubt, because the goal is not just
being fair, it is making sure everyone in the courtroom can see that the process is fair. The Court must maintain independence at all times from political pressure.
Precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis are foundational to the stability and legitimacy of the law. They promote predictability, equal treatment of similarly situated parties, and public confidence.
At the same time, stare decisis is not absolute. It may be appropriate to reconsider precedent in limited circumstances, such as when a prior decision is clearly unworkable in practice, when its legal reasoning is inconsistent with intervening higher authority or statutory changes, or when it is demonstrably inconsistent with constitutional principles. Courts also sometimes revisit precedent when its foundations have been significantly eroded by subsequent legal developments..
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
