‘It’s actually collusion’: WA Supreme Court candidate David Stevens takes aim at fellow judges

Washington Supreme Court candidate Judge David Stevens highlighted a lack of transparency about how judges shield one another from electoral challenges and keep voters in the dark about their judicial philosophies.

Joining “The John Curley Show” on KIRO Newsradio, Stevens argued that judicial campaigns too often emphasize résumés and endorsements rather than how candidates interpret the law.

“I think it’s actually collusion on the part of judges,” Stevens said.

Stevens contended that voters deserve more information about the people seeking positions on the bench, particularly when those judges will decide questions affecting voter-approved initiatives and constitutional rights.

“They don’t want to have to say what they believe, because then if the public knew what was going on, there would be changes in our court system,” he said.

Stevens argues judges should follow the words of the Constitution

KIRO host John Curley opened the interview by endorsing Stevens’ approach to interpreting the law, arguing that the state Supreme Court can either uphold voters’ voices or distort them.

Asked whether he considers being described as an originalist a compliment, Stevens responded directly.

“I take it as a compliment. I don’t think my opponents do,” Stevens said.

Stevens described the competing approach as one that allows judges to prioritize practical outcomes over constitutional language. He argued that trying to determine what works best for contemporary society gives judges too much discretion.

“And you know that sounds really good, but the problem is, that leads to letting judges do whatever they think is best,” he said.

Stevens returned to that distinction throughout the interview, maintaining that a judge’s preferred outcome should not determine a ruling.

“See, that’s the problem — when you take these pragmatic approaches, you do what you think is right, not what the Constitution demands,” Stevens said.

A dispute over racial bias and jury selection

Curley raised the Washington Supreme Court’s June 2020 letter addressing racism in the legal system. He characterized the letter as an indication that justices would consider race when deciding cases.

Stevens recalled initially viewing it as symbolic.

“I thought it was mostly performative, that they were just virtue signaling, so I didn’t make much of it until they started changing the court rules, and so they changed the court rules in jury selection,” Stevens said.

He criticized General Rule 37, arguing that its restrictions can prevent attorneys from removing prospective jurors who express bias against police or the justice system.

The rule’s timing and scope differ from that account. According to the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) April 9, 2018, announcement, the court adopted General Rule 37 on April 5, 2018 — more than two years before the letter discussed in the interview. The rule expanded protections against racial discrimination in jury selection to include implicit and unconscious bias, according to the ACLU.

General Rule 37 governs peremptory challenges, a method of excluding prospective jurors, according to the Washington Courts website. It identifies distrust of law enforcement or a belief that officers engage in racial profiling as presumptively invalid reasons for such a challenge because of their historical association with discrimination. It also requires judges to reject a challenge when an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor.

Stevens maintained that the court’s approach risks using racial distinctions to address racial discrimination.

From prosecutor to public defender

Stevens also discussed his work as chief public defender for the Colville Tribe, a job he recalled accepting after initially applying to become its chief prosecutor.

At the time, he was working as a prosecutor in Kosovo. Stevens explained that tribal officials wanted someone with his extensive jury-trial experience, even though most of his career had been spent prosecuting cases.

The role change reinforced his belief that defense attorneys are essential to a fair justice system.

“When I was a prosecutor, I never denigrated the public defenders I went up against because they held me to their burden,” Stevens said. “They made sure that the system was working; it was working fairly.”

Stevens recounted challenging the tribe’s sentencing practices, arguing that it imposed longer sentences without meeting federal law requirements. According to his account, the appeal led to early releases for several clients, and his contract was not renewed.

Curley pressed him on whether he was proud of helping people who had committed serious offenses leave custody early.

Stevens responded that protecting the system’s integrity sometimes means accepting an outcome a prosecutor would not want.

“You got to look at the overall system,” Stevens said. “You got to make sure that the system is working because once we start violating rights to get convictions or to sentence people, then we don’t have the rule of law anymore.”

Why Stevens decided to challenge the judicial establishment

Asked what prompted him to run for office, Stevens pointed to his experience as a senior felony prosecutor in Mason County.

He described disagreements with a judge appointed by then-Gov. Jay Inslee over bail decisions, including cases in which he believed defendants posed serious risks. Those accounts were Stevens’ descriptions during the interview, not independently established case findings.

Stevens recalled community leaders asking him to challenge the judge. He worried that judicial endorsements and campaign funding would favor the incumbent — and that losing would mean continuing to appear in her courtroom.

Despite those concerns, Stevens won by 15 percentage points. He then criticized the governor for appointing the judge to another court after her defeat.

Stevens presented that experience as a reason to bring more substantive debate to judicial elections.

“Somebody needs to get out there, and they actually need to tell people what’s going on,” he said.

He also argued that the state Supreme Court’s treatment of voter-approved measures belongs at the center of the campaign, describing it as “the place for initiatives to go and die.”

Curley closed the interview with another endorsement of Stevens’ candidacy.

“All right, Judge David Stevens, let’s get you on the court,” Curley said.

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