Campaign Phone Number
3608762588
Biography (max 750 char)
Todd Bloom is an attorney, CPA, CFA, CFP, and retired U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander with more than 25 years of legal, financial, and public service experience. He earned degrees from Tulane University, the University of Washington, and the U.S. Naval War College. For nearly 20 years, he served as a FINRA arbitrator, deciding complex financial disputes involving multimillion-dollar claims. During his military service, he held leadership roles involving investigations and disciplinary proceedings. Todd serves on the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors and is admitted to practice in Washington, Louisiana, the U.S. Tax Court, and federal district courts in Washington and Louisiana.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Todd has served in as an elected member of the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors. First elected to the Board in 2023, he was re-elected to a second term extending through 2029.
The judiciary's role is not to make policy but to interpret and apply the law. Policymaking is the responsibility of the Legislature and the executive branch. Courts must decide the cases before them by applying the Constitution, statutes, and precedent. While judicial decisions may affect public policy, those effects result from faithfully applying the law, not from pursuing policy preferences.
A judge should recuse whenever the law or the Code of Judicial Conduct requires it,such as when there is a personal bias, a financial interest, a close personal relationship with a party or attorney, or any circumstance that would cause a reasonable person to question the judge's impartiality. Recusal protects public confidence in the judiciary and should never be taken lightly.
At the same time, judges have a duty to hear the cases assigned to them when no valid basis for recusal exists. Public opinion, media attention, or political pressure should not influence that decision. Whether the pressure is to step aside or to remain on a case, the only proper guide is the law and the ethical rules governing judicial conduct. Judicial independence is critical.
Stare decisis promotes stability, predictability, and equal application of the law, so courts should not depart from precedent simply because judges disagree with an earlier decision or public opinion has changed. However, precedent is not absolute. When a prior decision is clearly inconsistent with the Constitution or has proven unworkable, a court may need to reconsider it. Any such decision should be based on established legal principles.
Campaign Phone Number
2068251111
Biography (max 750 char)
My name is Karim Merchant. My wife and I just celebrated 17 years of marriage, and we have two amazing boys, ages 6 and 11. I've spent my career representing real people facing real-life struggles. My unique upbringing, coupled with 18 years on the front lines of our justice system, makes me the right candidate at the right time to save our great state. Born in Cleveland to working-class immigrant parents — my dad from Pakistan, my mom a refugee who fled Idi Amin's Uganda at 15 — I've lived in Washington since second grade. This is my home. My kids will grow up here; my parents will grow old here. If honored by the People to serve on the Supreme Court, I will restore constitutional order and bring unprecedented transparency to the Court.
I have received no endorsements to date.
I've volunteered with the YMCA Mock Trial Tournament and worked to bring civics and constitutional government to the public — through a school outreach program and social media.
Most public policy must come from the legislative or executive branch — that's where accountability to the people lives. The judiciary's role is to interpret law independent of outcome, not to make policy from the bench.
That said, courts do have broad discretion over procedural rules, and that discretion is itself a form of policymaking — one the judiciary can't pretend away. Whenever that authority is exercised, due process demands the same thing it demands everywhere else: notice and a genuine opportunity to be heard.
Right now, there are no public forums for rule changes before they take effect. That's a transparency gap, and it's one I'd close. If the Court is going to shape procedure, the people affected by it deserve a seat at the table before the rule is final — not after.
Conflicts of interest are a serious concern — not only for the proper administration of justice, but for the appearance of fairness itself. Whenever a judicial officer has a connection to either party, that connection demands a detailed, individualized analysis of whether either principle is compromised. Blanket rules don't work here; every relationship is different, and every case deserves its own scrutiny. But when that analysis comes down to a coin flip — when it's genuinely close — I'll always err on the side of recusal. The public's confidence in a fair process is worth more than any single case, and I'd rather step aside than leave any doubt about it.
Receiving "notice" of the conduct deemed unlawful is the most fundamental aspect of Due Process. It's the reason the legislature writes out the laws they pass, instead of verbally declaring laws. Precedent is no different. The established case law gives the public notice of the law, and when a court overturns that precedent and creates new law, then all those who acted under the overturned law are substantially prejudiced. However, the need arises for laws to be overturned. If laws are just morally wrong, like Separate but Equal, it's the court's responsibility to step in and right a wrong. Other times precedent must be overturned because it was based on outdated information, or the wrong legal standard was applied. Ultimately, any case must be harmful and incorrect to be overturned.
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
2063825552
Biography (max 750 char)
Honorable Debra L. Stephens has served on the Washington State Supreme Court since 2008, starting her second term as Chief Justice in 2025. A history-making Spokane native, she previously practiced law—appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court—and taught at Gonzaga University School of Law. A leader in judicial administration and global training, she has received numerous honors, including "Judge of the Year" and a 2023 Rodel Judicial Fellowship. Personally, she and her husband have a growing family, and she enjoys outdoor activities like tennis and spending time in Hells Canyon.
I am honored to have earned the endorsement of The Seattle Times Editorial Board, reflecting my experience and leadership on the bench. I am also endorsed by various civic organizations, including the National Women's Political Caucus of WA, the Washington Education Association, the WA State Labor Council, and Pro-Choice Washington. Details are available at justicestephens.com. These endorsements reflect confidence in my track record of serving all Washingtonians and promoting equal access to justice. I have consistently earned top "Exceptionally Well Qualified" ratings from nonpartisan bar associations. Beyond ratings, my peers twice elected me Chief Justice, demonstrating their trust. My promise remains to uphold the rule of law and ensure fair, impartial justice for every Washingtonian.
I work statewide to deliver equitable justice, co-chairing the Washington Board for Judicial Administration and supporting various Supreme Court commissions. My volunteer work includes youth programs like the YMCA Youth and Government Advisory Board to improve legal system access.
Dedicated to continuing education, I help lead the Washington Civic Learning Council and national judicial programs focused on complex environmental and scientific issues. Internationally, I co-chair the Judicial Independence Committee for the International Association of Women Judges and have trained jurists globally on the rule of law.
Shaping policy is the job of the legislature and the voters through the initiative process, not the courts. The judiciary’s authority is carefully limited, our role is to interpret the law and then decide whether a statute or executive action complies with the state and federal constitutions, and then resolve specific legal disputes brought before us. We also develop the common law through individual cases.
Under the Washington Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge must recuse themselves from any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. This would include circumstances where a judge has a personal bias concerning a party or lawyer, a personal financial interest in the outcome, some kind of prior or personal involvement in the matter before taking the bench, or a close family relationship with someone involved in the litigation. However, recusal is not a matter of personal comfort; justices also have a sworn "duty to sit." Unnecessary recusals can create strategic maneuvering by litigants and unfairly burden colleagues, so every recusal decision must strictly align with the ethical rules and established legal standards rather than a desire to avoid controversy.
Stare decisis is the cornerstone of our legal system, providing the predictability and fairness essential for the rule of law. While essential, it is not an inflexible command; it must be applied with integrity. We have a duty to ensure the law remains a living instrument rather than a relic. When a precedent is revealed to be deeply flawed, or when changing technology or social evolution erodes the factual premises of a prior decision, we must have the intellectual courage to reconsider. Our task is to apply constitutional principles with fidelity to their purpose, ensuring justice is effective and evenhanded, while always respecting the legislature’s primary role in policy.
