(The Center Square) – Justice Theo Angelis says his decades in private practice and appellate litigation position him ahead of other candidates for a two-year elected term on the Washington Supreme Court.
Angelis joined the court in April after being appointed by Gov. Bob Ferguson to replace Justice Barbara Madsen, who retired before the end of her elected term. The appointee came from K&L Gates, the firm where he had worked with Ferguson decades before joining the bench without any judicial experience.
The incumbent is running to retain Position 5 against retired Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Sharonda Amamilo and appellate attorney Greg Miller.
Only the two candidates who receive the most votes in August will advance to the November election.
Critics have questioned whether Angelis’ ties and campaign donations to Ferguson and to Sen. Jamie Pedersen, who sponsored the state’s new income tax, which is facing a constitutional challenge, could create an appearance-of-fairness issue if the lawsuit eventually reaches the high court for its final say.
In an interview with The Center Square, Angelis discussed his background, judicial philosophy, recusal questions, his ties and donations to Ferguson and Pedersen, the court’s rulemaking powers, and more.
The following Q&A has been edited for length, clarity and readability.
The Center Square: For voters just starting to pay attention, why are you running, and what do you bring to the court?
Angelis: I’m running because I’ve had a deep passion for the law since I started practicing.
I started my legal career after law school, working for the D.C. Circuit, which hears a lot of complicated appeals involving the government and hot-button issues. I worked for a judge who was appointed by a Republican, and I was always impressed that politics stopped at the courthouse door.
The judges worked hard to get to the right result. Sometimes that meant outcomes that might surprise people based on who appointed them. I carried that with me throughout my legal career.
A big part of my career, even though I was in private practice, involved volunteer work to help different communities, including immigrants, veterans, children and people locked out of the justice system. I thought throughout my career that being on the bench would be a wonderful way to help the administration of justice and really fight for things that are important to me.
I had been considered for federal judgeships in the Western District of Washington. I interviewed at the Trump White House for one of those positions and was also considered during the Biden administration. It did not work out, but when this position opened, I applied and was pleased to be appointed by the governor.
One thing that impressed me was that when Justice Madsen retired, she publicly said she wanted someone with extensive private-practice experience on the bench. I think the governor took that to heart.
The Center Square: How would you describe your judicial philosophy in plain English?
Angelis: There are two primary facets to how I approach every case.
One is that I try to read everything. I’m an all-of-the-above person when it comes to judicial philosophy and interpretation.
Of course, we start with the text, because that is how the law is given to us, whether through a constitutional provision or a statute. Then I consider the history of how the statute or constitutional provision came to be.
If someone says a statute should be interpreted one way, but that interpretation was proposed and rejected during the legislative process or during the framing of the Constitution, that is probably not how we should interpret the statute.
I also consider workability issues. We are not supposed to interpret the Constitution as a suicide pact. We have to consider whether the rules we adopt are workable and what the Legislature was trying to fix.
As a court, we’re not necessarily there to correct errors in legislation, but we are there to ensure that the intent of the Legislature prevails when it is divinable from the text and the history.
The facts are very important. I like to understand the factual context of every case in great detail.
On bias, we are all human beings, and we all have biases. One thing I do is create a document for every case, listing where I had an emotional reaction and what in my past could have led me to be biased one way or another. Then I periodically go back and ask whether it’s improperly influencing me.
The Center Square: You spent more than two decades at K&L Gates and had not served as a judge before joining the bench. Why should voters see that background as sufficient?
Angelis: I have found the transition pretty easy because I spent my career thinking about and working on difficult issues in appellate and constitutional law.
The process justices use to decide cases is not very different from the process a really good appellate lawyer uses to shape an argument in an important case. It comes down to knowing the record and the law, and thinking about questions from the perspective of judges or justices who have to decide them.
I started on the D.C. Circuit, which was very administrative-law heavy. I have handled many administrative law cases in the environmental and government operations contexts, so when we have cases like that, it is very comfortable for me to play a leadership role on those issues.
I have also done a lot of work on police-misconduct questions, both for individuals and municipalities. I have represented officers and government officials, as well as people harmed by them. That gives me an understanding of the questions the court grapples with when considering constitutional rights.
It is true that many Supreme Court justices have come from private practice. I think that has produced some of our most distinguished justices. To the extent there are things I need to learn, it is an opportunity to dig in and learn them while bringing a new perspective to the bench.
The Center Square: The court’s rulemaking power can affect local courts, public safety and taxpayer costs. How do you approach court rules with significant operational consequences for cities and counties?
Angelis: I approach rules the same way as cases: by getting fully up to speed on all of the issues.
For example, the court is considering an important rule regarding bail reform, and there have been more than 900 comments submitted. I am reading them.
In a case, we cannot have ex parte communications. We do not talk to one side or the other without giving the other side a fair opportunity. But when it comes to rulemaking, I want to get as much information as possible.
I have encouraged groups of all types, from contractors to unions to civil rights representatives, to provide information and submit comments. Rules are an important part of what we do.
The administration of justice in Washington is, in some ways, the most important thing the Supreme Court does. It bothers me that people of middle-class and working-class means are often locked out of the justice system. They cannot always get a fair shake if something illegal has been done to them.
That is one important way our rules should be used: to provide genuine access to justice. Sometimes that makes things more or less difficult for people, and we need to take that into account.
The Center Square: Where do you stand on the proposed rule involving bail and warrants, or is that something you cannot get into as a candidate?
Angelis: The Code of Judicial Conduct requires us not to announce a position or be seen as taking a position publicly or privately on any issue that is before or could come before our court. That issue is before our court, so I will be careful.
But I will say this: our justice system has to work for individuals.
We need to make sure we create rules that do not penalize people of modest means. We need to give people a real opportunity to demonstrate that they are not a flight risk and will appear for their hearings.
We also need to be smart about how we notify people. Technology has moved on in a lot of ways. I would rather see us send a text message reminding someone to come to court than issue a warrant for their arrest.
Those are not perfectly symmetrical, but we need practical reforms that make life better for individuals and do not penalize people or put them in a difficult situation, especially if they have limited means and are not genuinely a risk of harming the community or fleeing the jurisdiction.
The Center Square: Judge Larson said appointing people who have contributed to officials involved in legislation that could come before the court is a “direct assault on judicial independence.” How do you respond?
Angelis: I take the canons and judicial ethics rules very seriously. They are very important for faith in the judiciary.
I have made donations over time to people I have met and respect. That will not prevent me from ruling against whatever interest they are seemingly aligned with in any way. All of that falls away.
Judge Larson and I were at a recent panel where we were asked about our faith. My faith is very important to me. I try to go to church as often as I can and live my faith, but I park that at the courthouse door.
I use a lot of different tools to keep bias out of my decision-making. I do not think the people we may have donated to or associated with before coming to the bench, or those supporting us now, make a difference. You are not really being a judicial officer if that weighs on your decision-making.
I am proud to be supported by a broad cross-section of Washingtonians, including people from the business, labor and progressive communities, as well as those seen as more on the political right or left. A lot of that comes from relationships with people I have worked with over time and respected.
None of that influences how I approach a case, which is by intensely digging into the facts and law.
The Center Square: You, Gov. Ferguson, and Sen. Pedersen all worked at K&L Gates at one point, and Pedersen sponsored the income tax, which Ferguson signed. What should voters make of those relationships?
Angelis: I do not think people should be concerned.
I worked on one case involving a First Amendment question with Gov. Ferguson when he was at the firm. It involved whether people could refer to their opponents in the voters’ pamphlet. We represented the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. It was not a partisan issue; it was about good government, free speech rights and how those operate.
With Sen. Pedersen, he was a mentor to me. We clerked for the same Republican-appointed judge in Washington, D.C., five years apart. He helped me acclimate to a law firm early in my career.
But we didn’t do much work together because he was a corporate lawyer, and I was a litigator.
When you are a lawyer working for a client, the client’s interest comes first. Politics never came into our work. It was about who the client was and how we could best advocate for them.
I understand why people ask about that connection. I do not judge people for asking about it, but for me, it falls away and has nothing to do with how I consider cases.
The Center Square: Would you recuse yourself from an income tax case because of those relationships, or are they at least a factor you would consider?
Angelis: If someone asks me to consider whether I should recuse myself, I always take that very seriously. I’d like to see what someone raises and the authority they cite, and then I would make the decision at that point.
Generally speaking, the fact that I worked in a 200-lawyer office of a 2,000-lawyer firm with someone, or even worked on a case with that person, usually would not be enough to require recusal. It is not usually the kind of situation that would lead someone to reasonably question my impartiality.
The prototypical example is having a financial interest. If K&L Gates were a party, or if it appeared as counsel because I was recently employed there, that is exactly the kind of situation in which I would recuse myself. I recently recused myself from a case involving K&L Gates because of just that.
But just because someone is associated with an issue and I practiced with that person years ago, I do not know whether any justices could hear cases under that standard. It is a medium-sized legal community in the Northwest, and we have all met each other in one form or another over the years.
I also worked closely with former Attorney General Rob McKenna on his youth internet safety task force. I would not have to recuse myself just because I worked with him on that task force.
Voters expect us not to be afraid to rule one way or the other.
I do not care whose ox is gored by the decision I come up with. I am going to look carefully at the papers, spend a lot of time with the founding documents of our state constitution and try to understand the history.
We had a recent case involving the income tax and the referendum power. One thing I did was go back to 1915, when the amendment in question was created, and read every case the Supreme Court had written on it. It was important to me to follow our precedent.
The Center Square: In Quinn, the court upheld Washington’s capital gains tax as an excise tax. Where would you have stood had you been on the bench at the time?
Angelis: I hate to be seen as not answering a question directly, but the judicial rules say we should focus on the way the case was decided. That is precedent now, and that is the case I follow.
My understanding is that if another taxation case comes to us, people will cite that case, and I will be curious to see how they cite it.
One never knows. Lots of things can happen. When a case comes to us, I will consider Quinn in that context and apply it faithfully. That is our job as justices.
As to whether I would have aligned with the majority or the dissent, I think that is overstepping. Especially if there is a request in a future case to modify the reasoning, change the reasoning or consider it, I think that is probably on the line. I want to be very careful not to go over the line.
The Center Square: What message do you want to leave voters with ahead of the August primary?
Angelis: If you are looking for someone who is truly dedicated to improving access to justice, who will work extremely hard for your interests, and who has a broad and diverse set of legal experience that is a perfect fit for what our court does, then I would be grateful for your support.