(The Center Square) – Washingtonians are being asked whether two recently appointed justices should remain on the Supreme Court as a lawsuit challenging a new state income tax looms over the election.
Critics of the tax argue that Justices Colleen Melody and Theo Angelis’ ties to Gov. Bob Ferguson, Sen. Jamie Pedersen, the Washington Attorney General’s Office and K&L Gates raise appearance-of-fairness concerns in a case over the new 9.9% “millionaires” tax, which Ferguson signed into law and Pedersen sponsored.
Neither incumbent, both of whom only joined the court this year after never having served as a judge, would commit to recusing themselves in a future income tax ruling when asked by The Center Square.
“If anything, that case is months or years away,” Melody told The Center Square, adding that the tax could appear on a future ballot. “I’m not going to prejudge any recusal request because that would be inappropriate. The whole point is that we wait for the cases on the facts and the law as they come.”
While neither justice recused themselves in a ruling denying Let’s Go Washington’s attempt to force a referendum on the income tax, LGW is collecting signatures required to place the issue on the ballot.
Angelis and Melody say recusal depends on the specific case and have left the door open to decide later.
“Maybe that’s probably the best answer; it’s like all things, I’d like to see what someone raises and the authority they cite, and then I would make the decision,” Angelis told The Center Square, arguing that his ties to Ferguson and Pedersen don’t automatically justify a recusal over a future income tax case.
Angelis is competing against retired Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Sharonda Amamilo and appellate attorney Greg Miller in the primary this August.
Melody is up against Laura Christensen Colberg, a family law attorney and Snohomish County Superior Court pro tem court commissioner, and Seattle-based tax attorney Scott Edwards on the August ballot.
Only the two candidates who receive the most votes for their position advance to the general election.
What judicial ethics rules say
Washington Supreme Court races are nonpartisan under state law, meaning candidates are prohibited from engaging in political and campaign activity that could conflict with the judiciary’s independence.
The Washington Code of Judicial Conduct bars Supreme Court candidates from issuing statements that could reasonably impact the outcome or fairness of a pending case or matter likely to reach the bench.
The new income tax is one example that candidates must navigate carefully throughout the election, as a lawsuit seeking to block its implementation argues that the tax is unconstitutional under a 1933 ruling.
The CJC also bars judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions, meaning their campaign staffers must handle fundraising, giving individuals with a wide network a leg up in the race.
Another rule says justices must recuse themselves if their impartiality may reasonably be questioned, including public statements that could commit them to a particular ruling, litigating as an attorney in the case, and government work in which they participated personally and substantially in the matter.
Justices have a duty not to recuse themselves to avoid controversial issues, so it’s a balancing act for some. A party in a case can request recusal, but the decision is typically left to the justice’s discretion.
Several candidates running against Angelis and Melody said those rules limit what they can say about the income tax, while still allowing them to discuss recusal issues, judicial philosophy and public trust.
Position 5: Angelis’ campaign donations, K&L Gates ties draw scrutiny
Angelis joined the court in April following a 25-year career as an attorney at K&L Gates and prior work for other firms dating back to 1997. Ferguson and Pedersen worked with Angelis at K&L Gates decades before the governor signed the Senate majority leader’s 9.9% tax on annual income above $1 million.
“I don’t think people should be concerned at all,” Angelis told The Center Square. “When you work in the Legislature, for example, you spend a lot of time with different colleagues, that’s a little different.”
“I worked on one case involving a question of the First Amendment with Gov. Ferguson,” Angelis said, “and with respect to Senator Pederson, he actually was a mentor to me … but we never did any work together, or not very much work together, because he was a corporate lawyer …and I was a litigator.”
Ferguson announced Angelis’s appointment to replace retired Justice Barbara Madsen on March 9, the same day that House Democrats passed Pedersen’s tax and sent it back to the Senate for a final vote.
State law allows the governor to replace justices who decide to retire before the end of their six-year term with an appointee of their choosing. Incumbents often have an advantage in judicial races, and some candidates say the process allows the governor and outgoing justices to hand-pick a successor who will rule favorably for them.
“It didn’t take long for me at that time, working with Theo on those cases, to realize what a brilliant legal mind he has,” Ferguson said in March. “That was obvious to anybody who worked with them.”
Ferguson and Pedersen have both endorsed Angelis for Position 5 on the Washington Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Angelis has donated money to Ferguson’s campaigns dating back to 2006, for elections in 2009, 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 and contributed $2,000 to Ferguson’s 2028 reelection bid last June.
Angelis also donated money to Pedersen’s 2010, 2012 and 2014 Senate campaigns, along with $150 to his 2026 reelection bid last October. The justice acknowledged the donations when asked, arguing that it wouldn’t prevent him from “ruling against whatever interest they are seemingly aligned with.”
“I try to go to church as often as I can, I try to live my faith, but I parked that at the courthouse door,” Angelis said, explaining his process for identifying any biases that could influence his decision making.
Angelis says he has a list of every case in which he had an “emotional reaction” and considers what in his past could have led him to be biased, but noted that he waits to do that until the court gets a case.
“In a 200-lawyer office of a 2,000-lawyer firm, the fact that I worked at the same firm with someone … usually would not be considered enough to require recusal; it’s not usually the kind of situation that would lead someone to reasonably question my impartiality,” Angelis said in an interview last week.
Still, Angelis said he takes recusal requests “very seriously” and has already stepped aside in one case involving K&L Gates, whose attorneys have donated thousands of dollars to Angelis’ judicial campaign.
Angelis has also worked with former state Attorney General Rob McKenna, who is involved in a lawsuit likely to reach the bench challenging the new income tax. The justice said that if any party questions his relationship with Ferguson, Pedersen or McKenna, he would wait to see if they request his recusal.
Position 5 challengers differ on recusal concerns
Larson, who has campaigned for a spot on the Supreme Court in the past and narrowly lost his last bid in 2024, told The Center Square that Ferguson should’ve never appointed one of his campaign donors.
“It’s a direct assault on judicial independence to appoint campaign contributors,” Larson said. “Angelis is a decent guy, not trying to attack him, but he’s already given to Ferguson for the 2028 election.”
He suggested that Angelis “should have never been appointed,” and criticized the incumbent’s lack of judicial experience before joining the bench just months ago. Larson said he is in favor of mandatory recusals when a justice has donated to public officials tied to a lawsuit or issues before the high court.
“In the case of Theo Angelis, his pocketbook has expressed a bias for particular groups of people, and only from one political party that has significant litigation that’s coming up before the court,” he said.
Miller, who decided to run after evaluating the candidates and concluding that none came with his level of appellate experience, says voters should draw their own conclusions about campaign donations. He has also donated to Ferguson’s campaigns in the past and argued that the timing matters in this case.
Had Angelis donated to Ferguson’s campaign at the same time or after seeking Madsen’s vacancy, the donations to Ferguson and Pedersen’s campaigns in the past wouldn’t have looked as good, Miller said.
The appellate attorney committed to stepping aside in any case in which he was involved, and said he would also consider doing so if a case involved his employer, Carney Badley Spellman. However, Miller stopped short of saying donations are grounds for recusal, arguing that anyone could make that claim.
“I don’t particularly want to have everything out there known, but that’s how [politics] is,” he told The Center Square. “If there’s a confluence of facts like that, you let people draw their own conclusions.”
Amamilo told The Center Square that she is more concerned with electing justices who could represent every Washingtonian than with who has endorsed Angelis or to which campaigns Angelis has donated.
She said voters should judge candidates based on their “body of work,” and argued that early partisan endorsements can silo candidates in a crowded race. Amamilo said the more connected a candidate is, the more backing their campaign might appear to have as a “stamp of approval” from a given party.
“Dollars do matter. They do – I’m not naive to that, but I do believe that it’s most important that the voters make an informed decision,” she said, when asked about Angelis’ endorsements and donations.
Position 1: Melody’s background becomes campaign issue
Melody joined the high court in January after leading the Attorney General’s Office Civil Rights Division since Ferguson had created it as attorney general in 2015. The governor said they worked “extremely closely” and that he “had a front row seat to her immense legal skills” in a statement announcing her appointment last fall.
Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell gave his “strongest possible recommendation” to Melody to replace retired Justice Mary Yu. Notably, Melody donated to Purcell when he was a 2020 attorney general candidate, contributed to Ferguson’s 2024 gubernatorial campaign and to sitting Attorney General Nick Brown’s race that year.
Purcell and Brown have also both donated to Melody’s 2026 campaign, highlighting their relationships.
“I can say without reservation that Colleen is a brilliant lawyer, a great colleague, an extraordinarily hard worker, a true public servant, and a skilled consensus builder. I am confident that she will make profound contributions to the law, the Court and the community,” Purcell said in his recommendation.
Should a challenge to the income tax, which is moving through a superior court, eventually reach the Supreme Court, the attorney general’s office is expected to defend the state’s position on the controversial tax legislation.
Records uncovered by The Center Square show emails between Pedersen and staff from the attorney general’s office in September, in which the Senate majority leader asked for suggestions to “force” the Supreme Court to reconsider nearly 100 years of precedent holding that income is property and barring progressive income taxes.
Those suing to block the income tax say that if the high court overturns the 1933 ruling, it could result in state Democrats imposing income taxes on everyday Washingtonians who earn less than $1 million.
Pedersen shared a draft of his income tax bill via email, to which Purcell responded that the legislation could be subject to a referendum without an emergency clause, which Senate Democrats then added.
When asked about her time at the attorney general’s office and ties to Ferguson, Melody told The Center Square that he was responsible for authorizing the Civil Rights Division’s lawsuits. She said Ferguson was above her in the chain of command, not as her day-to-day supervisor, but noted that they met every couple of weeks.
“It’s interesting that the criticism is specific to the tax,” Melody said. “That issue wasn’t in the public discussion at the time that I was appointed; it came later, and I’ve never worked on tax matters.”
Melody didn’t say whether she would recuse from an income tax case, noting she wouldn’t prejudge a request before it reaches the court, though she said that she’s recused herself twice over other cases.
She argued that the governor is the head of state, so he is connected to numerous people within the legal profession; that the attorney general’s office is a “repeat player” in litigation; and that judicial rules address this directly.
Melody said the CJC requires recusal when a justice previously worked as an attorney on a matter or “personally and substantially” participated in a way that might cause the justice’s impartiality to reasonably be questioned.
“Retired Justice Phil Talmadge, who is one of the lawyers working on that case, as I understand it, has endorsed me,” Melody told The Center Square. “So, I don’t know if that means, you know, on this view that I have to recuse myself. You know, this argument just doesn’t have a beginning or an end to it.”
The incumbent said she’s “proud” that Ferguson and Brown think she is a “good lawyer,” but that she hasn’t always agreed with either of them on her rulings since joining the court in January. Melody said that she doesn’t think endorsements are “tantamount” to pressuring a justice to rule a particular way.
Position 1 challengers question appointment optics
Colberg, who argues that she has more experience than either of her opponents, said that if she were Melody and had worked with Ferguson, then she wouldn’t be comfortable ruling on an income tax case.
She said constitutional authority allows partisan governors to appoint justices in a way that essentially “stacks the court,” given that judicial incumbents typically don’t face much competition on the ballot.
“I question a governor who would think these appointees are great picks if he has worked closely with them and knows that there is at least the appearance of a conflict,” Colberg told The Center Square.
“There are any number of qualified judges and attorneys in Washington state that he has not worked closely with that he could have chosen that didn’t have that close personal connection,” Colberg said.
Colberg said voters should ask themselves whom they trust and which candidates align with their own values as they weigh their choices ahead of a crowded August primary and this year’s general election.
“There is an incumbent who’s been on the bench for five months,” Colberg told The Center Square. “I want to give the voters of Washington a choice. We don’t know what went into the governor’s analysis.”
Edwards, who fought against the state’s capital gains tax, which the Supreme Court held as an excise tax instead of an income tax, says the current appointment process undermines judicial independence.
He said a trend has emerged in which justices retire before the end of their elected term, allowing the governor to appoint their successors. Colberg also noted that six of the nine justices currently serving on the state’s Supreme Court initially joined the bench after being appointed by Democratic governors.
Edwards said that’s one of the reasons he chose to run against Melody for Position 1, arguing that the appointment process for replacing retired justices undermines the people’s right to vote for their own.
“You know, when the governor makes an appointment to the Supreme Court of a person who, for most of their career, has been the governor’s top policy executor when the governor was the attorney general, I think it calls into question the notion of independence,” Edwards told The Center Square.
He cited a Ballotpedia analysis that ranked the Washington Supreme Court as one of the most liberal nationwide, arguing that the justices haven’t “shied away from injecting their own policy preferences.”
Other studies make similar claims, but the incumbent justice suggested the methodology is flawed.
Melody claimed that the study misunderstood the court’s role, which she said is “to give effect to the Legislature’s intent.” She said that as lawmakers become more progressive, decisions upholding those laws may appear to do so as well, but argued that this doesn’t mean justices were acting ideologically.
Where Edwards strayed from Colberg was the question of whether Melody should recuse herself in a future income tax case. He said the debate is “premature” and should be handled on a case-by-case basis, noting that voters should also question his experience challenging the state’s capital gains tax.
“I think the arguments for with respect to either of us in that regard are premature and would need to be dealt with if and when that’s something that comes before the court,” Edwards said in an interview.
Governor defers to ethics rules
Ferguson’s office did not directly answer whether the governor believes either appointee should recuse themselves from an income tax case, considering their professional, political and campaign donor ties.
The Center Square asked Ferguson’s office whether Angelis or Melody should recuse if an income-tax case reaches the court, and whether voters should be confident that either can fairly hear a challenge.
Brionna Aho, Ferguson’s spokesperson, responded that the governor did not ask either appointee how they would rule on issues that could come before the court, saying it would be inappropriate to do so.
“When a justice resigns mid-term, it’s the governor’s duty and obligation to appoint a new justice until the people can vote on who should hold the seat,” Aho wrote in an email.
“It would not be appropriate for the Governor to ask a future justice, in connection with making an appointment, how they would rule on an issue that could come before the court – and he had no such discussions with either appointee.”
Aho wrote in her email that the Supreme Court is bound by CJC rules that explain when justices must recuse themselves from a case, and that both appointees “have committed to following those rules.”
The Center Square then clarified that it wasn’t asking whether Ferguson asked Angelis or Melody how they would rule, but whether the governor believes their relationships raise appearance-of-fairness or public-confidence concerns if either appointee rules on a lawsuit against the income tax in the future.
“Appreciate the clarification, the response stands,” Aho wrote.
The Center Square followed up again, asking for a yes-or-no answer on whether Ferguson believes either justice should recuse from a future income tax case, given their ties to him, Pedersen, the AGO and K&L Gates. Aho did not respond to the question before publication after an extended deadline.