(The Center Square) – Thurston County Superior Court Judge Sharonda Amamilo is competing against three candidates this August for a seat on the Washington Supreme Court as litigation over the state’s new income tax works its way to the justices, and five of the bench’s nine seats appear on the ballot.
Amamilo is running for Position 5 against Justice Theo Angelis, whom Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed this year. She is also up against retired Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson and appellate attorney Greg Miller. Angelis and Miller have both donated to Ferguson’s campaigns over the years.
Only the two candidates who receive the most votes in August will advance to the November election.
In an interview with The Center Square, Amamilo explained her judicial philosophy, the importance of precedent, the Blake decision, proposed court rules around bail and warrants, public defense caseload standards, endorsements, Angelis’ appointment and how voters should assess candidates this August.
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 believe you bring to this race?
Amamilo: My work has been centered around systems and service to the nation, the state and the community. I came to Washington through the military after serving on active duty, including a deployment to Saudi Arabia in support of Operation Desert Storm. That experience taught me that when you sacrifice or show up to serve, you are doing something outside of yourself.
My path to law school came from trying to advocate for my own children in public schools. I felt I did not have enough information to protect and advocate for them when the stakes got higher, so I went to law school at night.
Once I got there, I realized I could help many other people beyond my own family. I later represented people in child welfare, family law, juvenile justice and public defense, and I saw where the gaps were in the justice system and where people felt the most pressure when they had to engage with it.
I have also served on statewide bodies, including the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the Department of Children, Youth and Families Oversight Board and a jail standards task force. I have worked on anti-trafficking issues and spent years looking at how decisions affect children, families, veterans, people in custody and local court systems.
That is what I bring to the Supreme Court: a systems view of how decisions affect people on the ground, informed by military service, education, labor, public defense, child welfare, juvenile justice and now six years as a Superior Court judge.
The Center Square: Some voters are paying attention because of the state’s new income tax and the possibility of constitutional tax litigation. How would you describe your judicial philosophy without saying how you would rule on any future case?
Amamilo: My judicial philosophy starts with the facts.
I am in trial every week. By the time a case is ready for trial, I don’t know what the body of evidence is going to be at the end of that trial, so it’s very important to establish a clear, clean, issue-focused fact pattern that becomes the body of evidence and the record that goes up to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
The next part is making sure the issues match what is available under the law. People like to argue a lot of different things, but not everything is available under the law as it currently stands.
Then, when you establish this fact pattern and these issues, you consider what rules and remedies are available. You have to draw a clear nexus between those things.
Words matter. Some statutes say “shall.” Some say “must.” Some say there is discretion. Some identify specific exceptions. You have to pay attention to the language and the rules of statutory interpretation.
Ultimately, my judicial philosophy is pragmatic. Some have described it as Hamiltonian because I like clarity. I like clarity a lot.
The Center Square: In Quinn, the court upheld Washington’s capital gains tax as an excise tax, while the dissent said it was an income tax. What should voters know about how you would approach precedent, constitutional text and separation of powers if a related case reaches the court?
Amamilo: Precedent is very important. That is where we look to find consistency in the law. That is how we trust the law and protect the rule of law.
We should not stray from the precedent that has helped create stability, allowing people to know what to expect and plan for their future. It should take a very high bar to address precedent.
People are concerned that addressing precedent creates a slippery slope, and that is a valid point. Every time a precedent is raised, it creates anxiety. But there is a framework for addressing precedent if the fact pattern is brought to the court.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have a developed fact pattern right now regarding how the millionaire’s tax will be promoted or challenged. There has to be a record developed at the trial-court level.
If it comes before the Supreme Court, the court will look at whether what is being asked to change has been harmful, whether it has had unintended consequences, or whether it was outright wrong.
That is a very high bar. I take that very seriously.
In constitutional text, words matter. We talk about what the founders intended, but we could not have gone from the horse and buggy to the electric car if we said the founders only thought in terms of horse and buggies. They were thinking in terms of transportation.
On the separation of powers, the people have power. The Legislature has power. The executive branch has power. The courts have power. But all of those branches are bounded. Wherever you stand, you need to know the limits of your role.
The Center Square: You brought up the Blake decision and its effect on local courts. What should voters understand about how Supreme Court rulings affect trial courts and local governments?
Amamilo: When the Blake decision was decided, and resentencing had to happen, that was monumental and impactful, from city courts to district courts to superior courts.
In Thurston County, our judges came together with other stakeholders – the clerk’s office, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial services, corrections and the sheriff’s office – because some people had to be brought back from prisons and jails.
The Supreme Court made a decision, and we had an obligation to effectuate that. It was not easy, but it was work that needed to be done.
Had someone like me been on the court, I would have been able to provide information about how that decision would be received once it reached the trial court. We knew we needed to phase it in. We needed to prioritize people who should be released from custody immediately, then address fee and cost refunds, then address people whose time in custody needed to be modified or reduced.
The decision did not include directions for trial courts on how to do it. Funding is a separate issue, but the impact on courts and how to prioritize implementation is something within the Supreme Court’s wheelhouse.
The Center Square: Would you have aligned with the majority or dissent in Blake?
Amamilo: I likely would have aligned with the majority.
When someone is facing a loss of liberty, should you not be required to have an intentional element of breaking the law?
The issue was whether the state had to prove knowledge as part of the offense. If the state does not have to prove that critical element, and the full weight of the law can come down on someone, that is significant.
I have seen people lose jobs, lose housing and lose foundational stability while they are going through court. That perspective matters when you are talking about the loss of liberty.
The Center Square: Public defense caseload standards are an example of Supreme Court rulemaking with major local budget implications. Given your public defense background, has the court paired those standards with enough attention to funding, recruitment and county capacity?
Amamilo: From a policy perspective, the Supreme Court likely was not considering the funding implications, primarily because local funders and policymakers have their own priorities and information. That is a separation-of-powers question involving executive and legislative decisions.
But there is support for looking at whether we should have a statewide system, so costs don’t fall unevenly on counties with very limited tax bases. Think about rural counties that are land-rich but have low property values. The funding required for them creates tension between what is necessary for their community and the need to meet the new public defender caseload standards.
I was at the Thurston County Public Defender’s Office during the economic crisis in 2009, when we had to make tremendous cuts countywide. Commissioners had to make decisions that affected the public defender’s office, and we were very concerned about the impact on our clients.
I was part of caseload standard reductions in parent representation and youth representation, and it made a difference in the ability to represent clients with rigor and readiness. That is tied to the right to have access to competent counsel once someone is eligible for appointed counsel at public expense.
It is going to be a balancing act. Maybe we need a different funding model, but that would be a legislative or executive branch decision.
The Center Square: Justice Angelis has faced questions because Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed him, Ferguson signed the income tax, and Sen. Jamie Pedersen sponsored it and endorsed Angelis. Angelis has also donated to both of their campaigns. Should voters weigh appointment, endorsement and donor relationships when evaluating judicial independence?
Amamilo: I think voters should look at the body of work.
Clearly, the more well-connected you are, the more backing your campaign appears to have as a stamp of approval. Dollars do matter. I am not naive to that.
But in this role, I believe it is more important that people look at the body of work a candidate brings to the court to inform the court’s decisions.
I have been working broadly across the legal system and the areas the Supreme Court engages with to have an impact on all Washingtonians. I have served as an appellate body for state agency matters that come through Thurston County Superior Court. I have been a trial judge. I have worked in public defense, child welfare, juvenile justice and other systems that affect people every day.
Voters can decide whether a single issue is most important or whether they want someone with a background likely to touch them, their neighbor, their barber, their grocer or the farmer down the road.
The Center Square: Some voters may see your endorsements from groups that supported the income tax and question whether that should influence their vote. How do you respond?
Amamilo: I think early partisan endorsements can silo a race and suppress dialogue.
When the Washington State Republican Party came out early in support of Judge Larson, I thought it sent a message to other conservative groups before they had a chance to get to know the candidates.
I have reached out to groups across the spectrum. The Spokane County Republicans, for example, were accommodating when I asked to attend a general meeting and introduce myself after I was unable to attend the party’s candidate forum.
I wish more conservative groups would be open to that. Regardless of where we diverge ideologically, that is not the role I am seeking. I am seeking a Supreme Court role where any ideology I may have must stop at the door.
We can say impartiality and diversity of thought, but the bottom line is that we all have experiences. We have to be able to filter out the parts of our experiences that do not belong in the decision-making process. I am very adept at doing that.
The Center Square: What message do you want to leave with voters heading into the August primary?
Amamilo: Other than the body of work, I want voters to think about what they care about from all perspectives of their lives.
My favorite word is “sonder.” It means I am acutely aware that every person I encounter, every person who walks into the courtroom, and every person sitting across the table in a multidisciplinary work group has a complex life and a complex history that I know little about.
I want voters to think about what is important to them and what the court should be doing in all aspects that might affect their lives.
If they look at my background, I submit that they will see a body of work that is highly capable of helping the Supreme Court render decisions that give people clarity – whether it is a child custody issue, driver’s license issue, property dispute, business license issue or employment discrimination case.