(The Center Square) – With more than four decades of legal experience, retired Federal Way Municipal Court Judge Dave Larson says he’s the person most positioned to join the Washington Supreme Court.
Larson, who narrowly lost a Supreme Court race in 2024 after prior attempts in 2020, 2016 and 2000, is running for Position 5 against Justice Theo Angelis, whom Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed earlier this year to replace retired Justice Barbara Madsen after he previously worked with Angelis at K&L Gates.
Angelis and Larson are running against Thurston County Superior Court Judge Sharonda Amamilo and Greg Miller, an appellate attorney at the Seattle-based law firm Carney Badley Spellman. The crowded August primary comes as a lawsuit challenging the state’s new income tax moves through the courts.
Only the two candidates who receive the most votes in August will advance to the November election.
In a recent interview with The Center Square, Larson explained his judicial philosophy, experience as a trial-court attorney and judge, Angelis’ ties to Ferguson, the court’s rulemaking power, public defender caseload standards, the Blake decision and concerns about whether the judiciary has become partisan.
The following Q&A has been edited for length, clarity and readability.
The Center Square: You have spent decades as a lawyer and judge, and you have run for the Supreme Court before. Why this race, and why now?
Larson: It’s a pivotal time.
One of the things I say in my voter guide video is that we’re so interested in getting our way that we’ve lost our way. The judiciary is a very important part of society because it’s the third branch of government. We’re supposed to be the lighthouse in the storm, not a ship lost at sea.
What I would add to the Supreme Court is stability and confidence that, at least from my perspective, decisions will be coming from the right place for the right reasons.
When I retired at the end of 2025, the thing that was left unfinished was getting the Supreme Court to understand the implications of its decisions and the impact those decisions have on trial courts, lawyers, communities and the people we see in court.
I think that perspective is missing from the Supreme Court.
The Center Square: For voters paying attention because of the income-tax issue, how would you describe your judicial philosophy in plain English, without prejudging a future case?
Larson: Judges and justices are not allowed to talk about cases that will be decided in the future, for obvious reasons. Otherwise, they can demonstrate bias without ever hearing the arguments.
The judiciary is supposed to be the lighthouse in the storm. It is supposed to be that constant, and it is supposed to solve problems in society and keep society moving forward.
Back in our state constitution, judges in towns and communities were referred to as justices of the peace because that is exactly what we do. We keep the peace. That is our role.
We haven’t done a very good job of that. In many cases, we make things worse by the way we conduct our courts. It seems like we are more in love with our rules and systems than we are with delivering the type of justice people need in their communities.
The Center Square: Your campaign emphasizes that you have worn the black robe for 18 years. Angelis joined the bench without any experience as a judge, though several justices have also joined without that experience. Why should voters treat that as important?
Larson: At the Supreme Court level, you are judging the calls of trial judges.
Without ever being a trial judge, how do you know what goes through the mind of a trial judge? From being a trial lawyer for 23 years, handling significant litigation in state and federal court, and then going to the bench, there is a substantial difference.
It’s like describing to somebody what it’s like to be a parent. Until you are a parent, you really don’t know.
Right now, there are only two trial judges left on the court. Some justices have never been trial lawyers or trial judges. In my case, I also ran a court for 16 years.
A lot of people do not know that the Supreme Court creates the court rules, not just decisions. The rules that dictate how courts operate, how evidence is handled and how cases are prepared are decided by the Supreme Court.
If you do not have the perspective of a trial judge, and in my case, someone who ran a court, those decisions can be way off.
The frustration among many judges is that Supreme Court decisions and rules are not connected to the reality of what is happening on the ground. That is why trial judge experience is essential.
The Center Square: You mentioned the Supreme Court’s rulemaking power. What current court rule do you think has the biggest impact on taxpayers, public safety or justice?
Larson: One of the reasons I decided to come out of retirement and run was what the court has been considering regarding arrest warrants and bail.
Typically, if someone does not show up to court in a criminal case, and the court finds proper notice, a judge can issue a warrant and determine bail based on factors such as how many times the person has failed to appear.
What the Supreme Court is proposing would make it almost impossible to issue a warrant if someone does not show up in court, and would restrict judges to $200 bail in many misdemeanor cases.
That would cripple our court system.
It would affect the credibility of the criminal courts and people’s desire to show up. If word gets out that there is no consequence for not showing up, people just do not show up. That impacts public safety because they are never in front of the judge to be held accountable.
In my own court, my motto was that I run a repair shop, not a junkyard. My job was to make lives better.
The bench was concerned about underserved people getting arrest warrants, but there are other ways to address that. Courts have already developed ways to deal with people who, in good faith, forgot a court date, were in jail, were in treatment or had another legitimate reason they could not make it.
The Center Square: The Supreme Court also adopted new public defense caseload standards. You have raised concerns about those. What is your issue with the standards?
Larson: It is treating symptoms and not recognizing the underlying issue. It will aggravate the problem.
I have written a paper on creating a sustainable public defense system because Eastern Washington is particularly affected by a shortage of public defenders. If you restrict how many cases they can handle, that aggravates the shortage, which means you have to hire more public defenders. That comes out of local county and city budgets.
The real issue is not just how many cases somebody is handling. It is the lack of unified training.
Of course, they are going to quit or get burned out if they are asked to do a lot with very little.
There are all kinds of other issues to focus on besides how many cases a public defender handles. They created the problem and then walked away without offering solutions. That should not be acceptable.
The Center Square: Does a lack of judicial experience lead to more unfunded mandates or decisions like Blake, which struck down the state’s strict liability drug possession law?
Larson: Blake was motivated by ideology. I will say that flat out.
As I recall, Justice Stephens called out the majority in her partial dissent because they came up with arguments that the lawyers didn’t make to overturn drug laws that had been upheld before.
The issue was strict liability. I personally do not like the idea of strict liability. That means if you possess something, it does not matter whether you knew it or not, you are guilty.
But that is an example of how a judge is supposed to work. I may not personally like strict liability, but it is not my role to decide that. That is for the Legislature.
You can make a comment in the case and say, “This does not seem fair. We are going to uphold it, but the Legislature should consider getting rid of strict liability.” But you do not legislate from the bench.
What the court did in Blake threw the state into a spiral. We are still recovering.
The Center Square: Angelis was appointed by Gov. Ferguson, previously worked at K&L Gates with Ferguson and Sen. Jamie Pedersen, and Angelis has donated to both of their campaigns. Pedersen sponsored the new income tax, Ferguson signed it, and both have endorsed Angelis. Should voters view those facts as a recusal concern, an appearance-of-fairness concern or just political context?
Larson: It’s a direct assault on judicial independence to appoint campaign contributors. Theo Angelis is a decent guy, not trying to attack him, but he’s already given to Ferguson for the 2028 election.
You are going to have a justice sitting on the bench hearing an income-tax case where he has donated to Sen. Pedersen and Gov. Ferguson.
That is troubling to somebody who cares deeply about judicial independence.
The judiciary is supposed to be a backstop, not an open gate. If the governor, the Legislature, the attorney general or anyone else steps out of line, the court’s job is to make sure they do not. If they are in bounds, then they are good to go, but if something is wrong, the Supreme Court has to be that backstop.
It also has to appear to be that backstop.
The Center Square: You have argued for mandatory recusal in some situations. Under the current rules, is it up to Angelis to decide whether to recuse?
Larson: Under the current rules, the opposing lawyer must first object. Then the judge or justice has discretion to say, “No, I am OK. I can still hear the case.”
The question is, should he? My position is that because so many cases involving the government come before the court, people who have donated politically to partisan candidates should not be appointed to judicial positions.
People have every right to donate to political campaigns. But when you are asked to be part of the third branch of government, which is supposed to be separate, you should not be sitting on the bench if you have given campaign contributions to people who regularly have cases before the court or who have adopted laws that come before the court.
I don’t think that’s appropriate.
The Center Square: Is your concern limited to Angelis and Ferguson, or is this a broader concern about gubernatorial appointments?
Larson: This is not just an attack on Gov. Ferguson. It is an attack on the current state of the law.
In Washington, it is not like the federal system, where the Senate has to confirm judicial appointments. The only confirmation is a contested election, and many judges never face one.
If an appointee does not get an opponent, and in some counties, they do not even appear on the ballot, the public cannot scrutinize that person.
Imagine if legislators developed a pattern of resigning before the end of their term and letting the governor appoint their replacement. What would people think if most of the Legislature had been appointed by the governor?
The same analysis should apply to the judiciary because it is the third branch of government.
If we are not going to change the constitution to require Senate confirmation or some confirmation process, there has to be a safety valve that prevents the governor from appointing people close to the governor to these positions, because they become the incumbent.
That has a lot of power.
The Center Square: In voter guide statements, several candidates have talked about removing political influence from the judiciary. In your view, does Washington already have a partisan judiciary?
Larson: Six of the nine current justices were appointed by somebody from one political party.
The question I ask people is this: If you had a case before the Supreme Court, would you feel confident you are going to get a decision based on the law and the Constitution, or would you think some political or personal agenda is going to dictate the outcome?
That answers the question for most people.
It is not because I dislike the justices. I like every one of them. They are good people. But they have particular outlooks on life that satisfy certain political beliefs better than others.
Getting politics out of the judiciary is not just a punchline. Everybody thinks the judiciary at the federal level is political, and the state level is political, and they are both right.
The Center Square: With your race headed into a contested August primary, what should voters be asking themselves?
Larson: In my race, they should ask who has the most experience in the most areas.
I have 41 years of experience, including 18 years as a judge. I ran a court for 16 years, worked with the Legislature for 17 years, taught new judges for 10 years, had my own law firm, worked at a big firm, served as in-house counsel, worked as a civil trial lawyer and served as a criminal trial judge.
None of the other candidates can come close to that.
What the court needs right now is somebody who wants to turn the mirror on the judiciary and ask, “Can we do better?”
If voters want more of the same, they can have that. But if they want somebody who will be a voice for significant and not-so-significant changes, then I am that person.