The Do's and Don'ts of Running for Judge in Washington

Did you know there are things I can legally say as a candidate for the Washington Supreme Court — and things I absolutely cannot? I can explain my judicial philosophy, but I cannot tell you how I would rule in a future abortion case. I can discuss the Constitution, but I cannot promise how I will vote on a future case. I cannot even ask you for money — though my campaign committee can.

If that sounds confusing, don't worry. You're not alone. The rules governing judicial elections are some of the strangest rules in American politics. They exist because our system is trying to accomplish two things at the same time: we want judges to be accountable to the People, but we also want judges to remain impartial. Here are the do's and don'ts of running for judge in Washington State — and why those two goals don't always fit together.

Talk About Your Judicial Philosophy

The first thing judicial candidates can do is talk about judicial philosophy. This surprises a lot of people. Many voters assume judges aren't allowed to discuss constitutional law. That's not true. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has said voters have a right to hear how judicial candidates think. Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002). Are they textualists? Originalists? Living constitutionalists? Do they believe courts should exercise restraint, or should courts actively shape public policy? These are legitimate subjects for public discussion, and they matter. Because if you're electing someone to interpret a Constitution, shouldn't you know how they approach constitutional interpretation? The Supreme Court thought so too.

Don't Promise Results

But there is a line, and it's a big one. You can discuss philosophy. You cannot promise outcomes. I can explain how I think judges should approach constitutional questions. I cannot tell you how I would decide a future case. Why? Because judges decide actual cases, not hypothetical ones. And every case comes with facts, evidence, arguments, and law that deserve independent consideration. The moment a candidate promises a result, they've stopped being a judge and started being a politician. Washington's judicial ethics rules draw that line very carefully. You can explain how you think. You cannot pre-decide.

Build a Campaign

The second thing judicial candidates can do is build a campaign. We can have websites, yard signs, mailers, social media, volunteers, and endorsements. In fact, we can receive endorsements from individuals, organizations, labor groups, bar associations, newspapers, and community leaders. People often assume judicial candidates aren't allowed to campaign. We are. We're just subject to different rules than everyone else.

Don't Personally Ask for Money

This one surprises people. I can run for office, but I cannot personally ask you for campaign contributions. My campaign committee can. I cannot. Now think about that. Why would the law allow me to run for office but prohibit me from asking for support? The answer is simple: because judges eventually hear cases involving real people, and the law wants to avoid any appearance that money buys influence. Whether that concern is perfectly solved by the rule is a debate for another day. But that's the rule. The committee asks. The candidate doesn't.

Educate the Public

This is my favorite one. Judicial candidates can educate the public. That's one of the reasons I write these articles. The Constitution belongs to the People. The courts belong to the People. And government works best when the People understand how it operates. That means we can talk about constitutional history, Supreme Court cases, judicial philosophy, the separation of powers, individual rights, and the role of courts in a democratic society. I think that's a good thing — because an informed voter is a better voter.

Don't Endorse Political Candidates

Here's another surprise. Judicial candidates cannot publicly endorse candidates running for non-judicial office. Not Governor. Not Congress. Not State Legislature. Not County Executive. The theory is that judges must remain politically independent. Whether you agree with that rule or not, that's the line Washington has chosen. Judges are expected to stay out of partisan politics — even when they're participating in an election themselves. And that leads us to the biggest idea in this entire discussion.

The Big Tension

Every judicial campaign lives inside a constitutional tension. On one hand, we elect judges, and elections require speech, debate, discussion, and transparency. Voters deserve information. On the other hand, we expect judges to remain impartial, independent, and fair. Those values sometimes pull in opposite directions. The more political a campaign becomes, the harder it can be to preserve public confidence in judicial neutrality. But the less candidates are allowed to say, the harder it becomes for voters to make informed choices. That's the balancing act. And Washington's judicial ethics rules are an attempt to navigate that tension — not perfectly, not permanently, but thoughtfully.

At the end of the day, the rules are actually pretty simple. Do talk about ideas; don't promise outcomes. Do campaign vigorously; don't personally ask for money. Do educate the public, and always remain independent.

Never forget that the State of Washington belongs to the People.