The Washington state Supreme Court race between Chief Justice Debra Stephens and challenger Todd Bloom offers voters two very different views of the high court’s independence from the machinery of state politics.
Stephens, 61, who has been on the bench since 2008, believes the court is shielded from political pressure by rules and protocols that constrain how the nine justices make their rulings.
Bloom, 63, a Tacoma tax attorney who has run for elected office several times, believes that the number of justices, including Stephens, appointed to the court by Democratic governors raises questions about its independence.
Stephens is the favorite in the race based on the results of the August primary, which she won handily with 54% of the vote, compared with Bloom’s 27%. But their contrasting perspectives underscore a broader political debate in Washington that has put the high court at the center of this year’s election, legal experts say.
With five of nine state Supreme Court seats in play, the election could recast the makeup of the court for years to come. As important, the new court could figure decisively in some of this year’s biggest political controversies — including two issues on the November ballot.
Washington’s new “millionaires tax” is almost certain to come before the state Supreme Court if voters reject Initiative 645, which aims to overturn it. And if voters approve Initiative 638, which would ban transgender girls from girls K-12 school sports, that issue could also end up at the high court.
For advocates and voters focused on those measures, “the Supreme Court is going to be the battleground,” said Douglas Ross, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law.
Although Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, Stephens has been endorsed by prominent Democrats, including Gov. Bob Ferguson and state legislative leaders.
Bloom has the state Republican Party’s endorsement and has run as a Republican in two prior campaigns for Congress.
Different pathways to the law
Stephens was born and raised in Spokane. After graduating from Gonzaga University School of Law, in 1993, she worked as a law clerk for U.S. District Judge Frederick Van Sickle before moving into private practice.
In 2007, Stephens was appointed as a state appeals court judge by then-Gov. Christine Gregoire, and was elected to that seat that same year. In 2008, Gregoire, a Democrat, appointed Stephens to the high court.
In 2025, Stephens became chief justice, a four-year leadership position determined by a vote of the justices. She also served in that role in 2020-21.
As chief justice, Stephens presides over public court hearings and co-chairs the state Board for Judicial Administration, which sets policy for all state courts.
Stephens highlighted the court’s efforts during her tenure to combat institutional racism in the legal system. That includes changing rules for jury selection to reduce implicit bias in 2018 and signing a 2020 letter with the eight other justices calling on the judicial community to do more to combat racism.
These efforts acknowledge state courts’ role “in entrenching some of the systemic racism in our culture,” Stephens said. “We committed to being part of the work to dismantle that.”
Bloom grew up in the Midwest. He earned a law degree and a Master of Business Administration from Tulane University, and a degree specializing in tax law from the University of Washington School of Law. He also has a degree in national security and strategic studies from the U.S. Naval War College.
He has served in the Navy Reserve, including active duty following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., and is now a lawyer in private practice. Bloom is a certified public accountant and financial planner and a member of the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors.
Bloom has run for office several times, including unsuccessful U.S. House bids in 2016 and 2022, and an unsuccessful state Supreme Court run in 2024, when he finished third in the primary.
He said his time in the military and as an attorney speak to individual initiative and work ethic.
“I came up through the ranks (and) worked my tail off to get where I am in life,” said Bloom.
He said he was motivated to make a second run for state Supreme Court after seeing how his professional background “resonated with voters” during his 2024 campaign.
When it comes to campaign cash, this year’s race has been lopsided.
Stephens has spent nearly $108,000. There have been about $106,000 in independent expenditures on her behalf — mostly by Beware the Attack on Our Courts, a Seattle-based political action committee run by Blue Wave Partners, a Democratic and progressive affiliated political consultant.
Bloom’s campaign spending — around $12,000 so far — has been dwarfed by the nearly $82,000 in independent expenditures against him by Beware the Attack on Our Courts.
Judicial independence
Stephens rejected claims by some conservatives that the state Supreme Court has leaned increasingly to the left.
She noted that seats on the court are nonpartisan positions and that, regardless of a justice’s personal philosophy, the court’s collective tenure, coupled with long established rules and protocols for interpreting the law and constitutional questions, provide “insulation from political pressure.”
The greater threat to judicial independence, Stephens argued, is the lack of adequate resources for the state’s court system, which risks compromising “the ability of judges to just focus on doing their job and deciding the case in front of them.”
If voters feel justices are too partisan and should be replaced, Stephens said, “they have that opportunity” during elections.
Bloom said he isn’t as confident in the high court’s neutrality given that six current justices began on the court after getting appointed by Democratic governors. Appointments happen when a justice leaves a court seat before their term ends, creating a vacancy.
Bloom also pointed to recently disclosed emails from a senior official at the state attorney general’s office saying that the state Supreme Court was as “favorable a venue as we’re likely to get” for a legal challenge to I-645, the voter initiative seeking to repeal the “millionaires tax.”
“To me, that just screams ‘not independent,’” Bloom said. “To the extent that anybody perceives the court as a ‘favorable venue,’ whether it's the governor's office, the Legislature, the city of Seattle, whoever — I think that is somewhat problematic.”
Overturning precedent
The candidates also differ somewhat on the court’s treatment of earlier decisions or precedents.
That question is especially relevant for those who have sued to overturn the new tax on high earners. They argue that the 9.9% levy on household income above $1 million a year violates a 1933 state Supreme Court decision, known as Culliton v. Chase.
Stephens declined to comment on Culliton, because of that ongoing litigation. But as a broad characterization, she argued that the court’s approach to precedent is inherently cautious and follows a carefully prescribed set of tests.
To overturn a precedent, Stephens said, “it’s not enough to show the decision is legally wrong — maybe it misinterpreted something. It's also important to show that it's been harmful.”
Stephens said the court also considers whether the underpinnings of a past decision “have eroded” — for example, if it relied on federal law that has since changed.
“It's a careful analysis,” Stephens said.
Bloom said he would respect the many procedures that guide the court’s approach to precedent.
But he also questioned the way the Stephens court handled Culliton in another important tax case — Quinn vs. State, in 2023 — which upheld Washington’s capital gains tax.
In that case, Bloom said, the court affirmed the new tax without making a tough call on the Culliton precedent.
“Quinn showed us the template where (Stephens) was able to basically sidestep” Culliton, Bloom said. But Bloom thinks if the new income tax survives the election, the court will have no choice but to revisit the 1933 decision.
“Does it apply? And if so, how, and to what extent? And then what do we do?” Bloom said of the Culliton ruling.
Seattle University School of Law professor Andrew Siegel, an expert in constitutional law and a longtime observer of the Washington Supreme Court, said the race should serve as a gauge of voters’ views of the high court.
“Whether you generally think that this court has been admirable and been doing a good job,” he said, “or whether you think that it needs to take a radically different approach.”
© 2026 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
