Campaign Phone Number
3608519783
Biography (max 750 char)
Judge Sharonda D. Amamilo’s life reflects service, perseverance, and faith in fair, accountable institutions. Raised in rural North Carolina, she worked, raised a family, and attended college at night, earning a bachelor’s degree, MBA, and law degree. She served nearly 30 years in the U.S. Army and Army Reserve, retiring as a Chief Warrant Officer Four. An attorney since 2003, she brings 23 years of legal experience as a lawyer, public defender, judicial officer, and judge. Elected to Thurston County Superior Court in 2020, she became the first person of color elected as a judge in the county. Her approach is grounded in judicial independence, equal justice, clear reasoning, civic education, and respect for every person before the court.
I am honored to have earned Exceptionally Well Qualified ratings from the Joint Asian Judicial Evaluation Committee, QLaw Association of Washington, Washington State Veterans Bar Association, Loren Miller Bar Association, and Pierce County Minority Bar Association. I have also been endorsed by the Washington State Labor Council, Washington Education Association PAC, La Voz Hispanic Newspaper, FairVote Washington, the National Women’s Political Caucus of Washington, and Democratic organizations across the state. I am grateful for each expression of confidence. These endorsements do not affect how I decide cases. My duty is to serve every Washingtonian fairly, independently, and according to law.
Outside my assigned work, I have served Washington’s legal community through volunteer leadership, mentoring, education, and statewide collaboration. I have mentored lawyers and emerging leaders through the Washington Leadership Institute, participated in bar and judicial education programs, and contributed to committees addressing sentencing, jail standards, alternatives to incarceration, family treatment courts, court technology, and access to justice. I also serve as Washington’s Hague Convention liaison judge and on the Department of Children, Youth, and Families Oversight Board. These roles have strengthened my understanding of how courts, lawyers, agencies, and communities can work together while respecting their separate responsibilities.
The court’s role is not to make policy choices assigned to the legislative and executive branches. Courts decide cases by applying the constitution, statutes, precedent, and legal standards to the record before them. Those decisions can affect how public policy operates, especially when a law is unclear or challenged, but the judge’s task remains legal, not political. A court should identify the controlling rule, respect the separation of powers, explain its reasoning, and provide guidance for future cases. When the constitution limits government action, courts must enforce those limits independently, even when the result is unpopular. Judicial restraint means exercising authority fully, but only where the law permits.
I would recuse when required by the Code of Judicial Conduct, including when my impartiality might reasonably be questioned, when I have personal bias or knowledge of disputed facts, a financial or personal interest, prior involvement in the matter, or a close relationship covered by the rules. I would make appropriate disclosures on the record and apply the same standards consistently. Public criticism or political pressure would never determine whether I remain on a case. I would neither stay to satisfy supporters nor step aside to avoid controversy. The question is whether the law requires disqualification and whether a reasonable person, knowing the relevant facts, could question my impartiality. Judicial independence requires both courage and humility.
Stare decisis promotes stability, predictability, and equal treatment. I would not discard precedent simply because I might have decided the original case differently. I would begin with controlling decisions, their reasoning, and the reliance interests built around them. Under Washington law, precedent may be reconsidered upon a clear showing that a rule is incorrect and harmful, or in the relatively rare circumstance that its legal underpinnings have changed or disappeared. Any departure must be carefully reasoned and no broader than necessary. Courts must apply enduring principles to modern facts, while respecting that most policy changes belong to the people and their elected representatives.
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.
Campaign Phone Number
2062072903
Biography (max 750 char)
Brings 41 years of unmatched experience; 18 as a judge and 23 as a trial lawyer. Truly nonpartisan in his approach; worked with both political parties in the legislature and recognized nationally for criminal justice reforms. Served on multiple judicial committees, given the DMCJA Presidents Award twice, taught new judges for 10 years, recognized for domestic violence prevention and protecting judicial independence, named “Hero” of Federal Way Schools twice, given the Nevins award by the Washington Judge’s Foundation for his role in civics education, founded the Aktion Club for adults with disabilities, escorts veterans on Honor Flights, everyday hero by Kiwanis, best city leader by local citizens, and given the Key to the City in 2025.
I am running a politically neutral campaign based on the values that judges are sworn to uphold. I have sought support from Democrats and Republicans, business and labor, defense attorneys and prosecutors, as well as law enforcement. I am even supported by lesser known political parties like the Cascade Party and the Forward Party. The Cascade Party was started by former Nirvana bass player Krist Novoselic and the Forward Party was started by Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and former Republican New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. Both parties were started as answers to the political divide in our country. Andrew Yang says, “Dave Larson is exactly the kind of candidate the Forward Party was created to support.” Rated exceptionally well-qualified by multiple bars.
Past member of ten DMCJA committees. Taught new judges from 2010 to 2020. 2018 DMCJA President’s Award for protecting judicial independence. My work helped inspire creation of the Council on Independent Courts. Domestic violence prevention work recognized by the Gender & Justice Commission. Worked with both political parties in Olympia for reform and funding. Member of the Civic Learning Council, 2014 recipient of the Judge William Nevins Award, and named “Hero” of Federal Way Schools in 2018 and 2022 for work in civics education. Taught Street Law at a local high school from 2009 to 2025 and frequently appeared in classrooms at all grade levels. Founder of the former South King County YMCA District High School Mock Trial Competition. Given the DMCJA President’s Award again in 2026.
The Supreme Court should play virtually no role in shaping public policy because to do so cheats the democratic political process that is actually intended to shape public policy through laws adopted by the legislature. The democratic process is designed to hear all interested voices and to achieve consensus. On the other hand, courts only hear from the litigants involved in the case and then decide who wins and who loses with little room for compromise. Public policy issues resolved through the political process are better accepted by the public at large, while judicial edicts tend to be continually resisted by the losing parties. With that said, the Supreme Court has a duty to involve itself in setting public policy when it affects the administration of justice.
This question is quite broad. I would recuse myself when required to do so under the Code of Judicial Conduct or if I am disqualified from hearing the case by statute or court rule. Judges should not recuse themselves unless required because it would lead to judges finding ways not to hear cases so that they can avoid political pressure or public ridicule. Rule 2.7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct actually requires us to hear all cases assigned to us. As to pressure, Rule 2.4(A) provides that a “judge shall not be swayed by public clamor, or fear of criticism.” Rule 2.4(B) also provides that a “judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.”
Following precedent is essential to societal stability and the predictability needed for people making decisions about their conduct. There is existing case law established by our State Supreme Court that dictates the rules to be followed when decisions about the continued viability of a past ruling are being made. Those rules avoid the introduction of the personal or political views of the Justices in their decisions. Justices need to follow that case law with great care and respect.
Biography (max 750 char)
Greg Miller has spent forty years as a Washington appellate lawyer, arguing cases for people from every walk of life: an injured housecleaner, a Vietnam veteran, underpaid sheriff's deputies, and rural counties and city hospitals alike. He has briefed more than 145 appeals and argued over 85, in every Washington appellate court, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. For more than twenty years he served on the King County Bar's Judicial Evaluation Committee, including a term as chair. A Harvard graduate and member of the Washington bar since 1984, he helps lead the appellate group at Carney Badley Spellman. He and his wife Sandy live in Seattle, where they raised three children and now spoil four grandkids.
I hold an AV Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest peer-review mark a lawyer can earn for legal ability and ethics. It comes from the judges and lawyers who have worked alongside and across from me for over forty years of Washington appellate practice.
On organizational endorsements, the campaign is still gathering them this cycle.
For more than twenty years I have served on the King County Bar Association's Judicial Evaluation Committee, including a term as chair from 1998 to 2000, when I helped reconstitute the committee. It is volunteer work. The committee reviews the records of sitting trial judges and gets that information to voters so they can decide whether a judge should keep the job. It is unglamorous and it matters. Few lawyers stay with it for two decades. I did because I believes voters deserve a straight read on the people who run their courtrooms.
A court's job is to decide the case in front of it, not to set policy. Policy belongs to the legislature and the people who elect it. When a court reads a statute or the constitution it shapes how the law works in practice, and that is real power, so it has to be used with restraint. The honest approach is to apply the law as written, explain the reasoning plainly, and leave the policy choices to the branches built for them. I have spent forty years writing briefs that ask courts to do exactly that: follow the text, respect precedent, and decide narrowly.
A judge steps aside when a reasonable person might doubt the judge could be fair: a financial stake in the outcome, a close tie to a party or lawyer, prior involvement in the same matter, or anything that creates real bias or its appearance. On close calls, I would put the facts on the record and let the parties be heard before deciding.
Pressure from the public, the press, or political figures is not a reason to recuse and not a reason to rule one way or another. The oath runs to the law, not to whoever is loudest. I spent twenty years helping evaluate judges. I knows the difference between a real conflict and an excuse, and I would hold that line.
Precedent is the default, and for good reason. People order their lives around settled law, and a court that changes its mind every few years is one no one can rely on. So the bar for overturning precedent should be high.
High is not impossible. In Beard v. Everett Clinic, I urged the court to follow precedent and uphold the verdict, and it did, 9 to 0. In Keene v. Edie, I challenged a 107-year-old rule that made innocent spouses pay for another's wrong, and the court overturned it so abuse victims could still be made whole. The test is whether the old rule has become unworkable or unjust, not whether a judge would have written it differently.
