‘I don’t know that there’s a credible argument for the other side’: WA Supreme Court candidate Edwards challenges income tax

Washington Supreme Court candidate Scott Edwards argued that the state constitution treats income as property and that judges should not reinterpret that language to advance a preferred tax policy.

Joining “The John Curley Show” on KIRO Newsradio, Edwards criticized the court’s approach to tax cases and its recent decision overturning Washington’s natural gas initiative. He framed his campaign as an effort to restore judicial independence and public confidence.

When KIRO host John Curley asked how he would argue against treating income as property, Edwards rejected the premise.

“I don’t know that there’s a credible argument for the other side on that,” Edwards said.

Edwards is challenging Justice Colleen Melody for Supreme Court Position 1. Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed Melody last year after she worked in the Attorney General’s Office, according to The Seattle Times.

Edwards argues judges should interpret law, not make policy

Curley opened with a baseball analogy, comparing judicial impartiality to an umpire calling balls and strikes without favoring a player.

He questioned whether Melody’s previous work for Ferguson could create concerns about her independence in a future challenge to the state’s income tax. Those concerns were Curley’s argument, not an established finding of a conflict of interest.

Edwards maintained that a justice’s responsibility is to apply the Constitution and the law rather than advance the governor’s agenda.

“The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law as it’s written in accordance with the Constitution, without regard to the judge’s policy views, not to act as an extra legislative body to make sure that the governor’s policy gets upheld,” Edwards said.

Asked how he would restore trust in the court, Edwards pointed to that same distinction between interpreting law and pursuing policy.

“That is interpreting the law as it’s written without regard to the justices’ political views,” he said.

Natural gas ruling becomes a campaign issue

Edwards identified the court’s decision overturning the voter-approved natural gas initiative as an example of what he considers judicial overreach.

He explained that the majority found the initiative violated the state constitution’s single-subject requirement. Edwards disagreed with that conclusion, arguing that repealing a statute and prohibiting regulations with the same effect could fall under one subject.

He also emphasized the dissent’s discussion of the people’s constitutional power to enact laws through initiatives.

Edwards has pointed to both the natural gas decision and the court’s ruling upholding Washington’s capital gains tax as examples of judges allowing policy preferences to shape their legal analysis, The Seattle Times reported. 

Curley asked whether frustration over the natural gas ruling could motivate voters to pay closer attention to judicial elections.

“Well, that’s certainly been my campaign’s experience so far. The natural gas initiative decision seems to have really captured people’s attention and caused people to realize how important the Supreme Court is, the effect they have on Washingtonians’ everyday lives,” Edwards said.

The constitutional question over income

Turning to the income tax, Edwards explained that the central question begins with the Constitution’s definition of property and its requirement that property of the same class be taxed uniformly.

He argued that income falls within that definition and endorsed the reasoning of the court’s 1933 decision in Culliton v. Chase.

Edwards maintained that changing the constitutional framework is possible, but that doing so should happen through an amendment rather than a judicial reinterpretation.

“It’s certainly possible to amend the Constitution to change the definition of property or to remove that restriction altogether,” Edwards said.

His opponent has taken a less definitive public position on the question. According to The Seattle Times, Melody described Washington’s tax system as complex, citing cases distinguishing property taxes from excise taxes, while Edwards unequivocally characterized income as property.

Edwards criticizes capital gains tax reasoning

Edwards also challenged the court’s reasoning in upholding Washington’s capital gains tax.

He argued that the decision’s opening discussion of fairness in Washington’s tax structure signaled a policy-driven approach rather than an analysis focused on the legal question.

In Edwards’ view, whether a judge supports a more progressive tax system should not determine whether a particular tax complies with the Constitution.

“Whether you agree or disagree with the policy enacted by either the people or the legislature, you need to follow the law, call it as it is, as written in accordance with the Constitution,” Edwards said.

Curley closed by endorsing Edwards’ emphasis on constitutional limits and thanking him for running.

Watch the full discussion in the video above.

Listen to “The John Curley Show” weekdays from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. on KIRO Newsradio 97.3 FM.

Follow @https://twitter.com/jcurleyshow