9/8/26 by Cindy Alia
School has begun, fall is showing signs of its approach and we are all ready to focus and prepare for the upcoming November Elections.
At CAPR we have watched events closely and recognize the most important votes we must be sure to cast are those for the Washington Supreme Court.
With an unprecedented chance for a majority turn over for the position of Supreme Court Justices, we have an opportunity to make a huge difference in how we are governed.
But, You say, the Supreme Court does not legislate and govern us as citizens of the state, they have the duty to decide and opine on cases accepted for opinion. That is true and traditional, but lets take a walk back through the past several years of controversial decisions and see if that traditon has held or has the court become a pseudo arm of the legislature.
1. Blake (2021, 5–4) — Court voided the old felony drug-possession law because it punished people who didn’t even know they had drugs. Massive cleanup of old convictions followed.
2. Capital-gains tax / Quinn (2023, 7–2) — Court said the 7% tax on big stock/bond profits is an “excise,” not an income tax, so it survives the old ban on income taxes.
3. Gregory (2018, unanimous) — Court ended the death penalty, saying it was applied in a racially biased and arbitrary way.
4. Martinez-Cuevas (2020, 5–4) — Court struck the farm-labor overtime exemption; dairy/ag workers got time-and-a-half.
5. Hirst (2016, 6–3) — Majority (Wiggins) held counties cannot rubber-stamp new rural wells just because Ecology hadn’t closed the basin; they must prove no harm to streams or senior rights. Dissent (Stephens) said the Legislature meant small wells to stay exempt. Rural building slowed until the 2018 legislative so called “Hirst fix.” Ask, what was being fixed? A court decision.
We have a once in a lifetime chance at creating a court that is balanced and constitutionally based rather than a reflection of the current political circumstances. We have for years lived under the rule of appointed justices!
Now is the time to step up and make sure you get your ballot filled and placed in a local ballot box in the hope our votes will count and make the kind of change in the judiciary all citizens need in a functioning society. A balanced court is not a political arm, but rather and arm of the constitution and your right to live in a constitutionally based society!
To this end, the CAPR PAC endorses and advises our choice for these highly qualified proven constitutionalists Supreme Court candidates linked below. Consider voting for and supporting these good men!
Five seats are on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The candidates who most clearly campaign on text, original meaning, and judicial restraint are these three, click the links to their websites to learn more and support these candidates!
Scott Edwards — Position 1 (vs. Justice Colleen Melody)
Tax and constitutional lawyer. Repeated line: interpret statutes and the constitution as written, do not reason backward from a preferred policy. Cites John Marshall / judicial review as the court’s job to strike only what the constitution forbids. Backed by groups that want a less policy-driven court.
David Stevens — Position 3 (vs. Judge Jaime Hawk)
Mason County Superior Court judge. Says the court is a constitutional court, not a policy body; the Washington Constitution should be read by text and original meaning, not “evolving societal standards.” Cites Scalia/Alito as influences. Public policy, he says, belongs to voters and the Legislature.
Dave Larson — Position 5 (vs. Justice Theo Angelis)
Former Federal Way municipal judge; ran a close statewide race in 2024. Frames himself as a textualist: apply the law as written, keep the judiciary out of social-policy fights, restore “balance.” Has criticized the court’s capital-gains ruling as departing from the constitution’s tax structure.
September 9, 2026