Washington voters will vote on the candidates running for state Supreme Court Position 4 for the first time in November. There was no primary. The choices are King County Superior Court Judge Sean O’Donnell or Court of Appeals Judge Ian Birk. Judge O’Donnell is trying to keep the race about the work of courts. Judge Birk is trying to turn the race into a loyalty test.
That is not how judicial races are supposed to work in this state. Judges do not get to choose the parties who walk into the courtroom. They have to treat them the same. The ethical rules say so in plain language. Campaigns for the bench “must be conducted differently from campaigns for other offices.” Judicial rules tell judges and judicial candidates they shall not engage in political activity that undercuts independence, integrity, or impartiality.
The charge that started the fight
In late August, Birk sent a fundraising email accusing O’Donnell of a “partisan agenda” that is “out of touch with the values and priorities of our state.” He claimed O’Donnell had joined a slate recommended by the State GOP and was beholden to Republicans. He later demanded that O’Donnell “disavow” that recommendation. Either own the GOP support, Birk said, or ask to be taken off their materials. Anything else, he argued, is trying to have it both ways.
O’Donnell says he never asked the GOP for a recommendation. Early in the year he wrote Birk and asked if they could stick to records and visions for the court. Birk never answered. O’Donnell calls the partisan-agenda charge false. He has been recommended by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Disavowing an unsolicited recommendation from one major party, he says, would itself be picking a side. That is the one thing a judge is not allowed to do.
Sixty-two judges say the attack is false
More than five dozen judges from across Washington signed a letter defending O’Donnell and rebuking Birk. They call Birk’s accusations “serious and false.” They say those claims fail a judicial candidate’s most basic duties: get the facts right and be “scrupulously honest” in campaign statements.
These are sitting judges. Some have known O’Donnell for years. Some consult with him on cases. Some work with him on court policy. None of them, they write, have ever heard him inject partisan politics into a decision or into work for the judicial branch.
They list what O’Donnell actually talks about on the trail. Legal help is too expensive in civil and family cases. Crime victims deserve dignity. Courts need interpreters and secure courthouses. The Supreme Court’s rule-making process can be improved. That is not a secret partisan platform. That is the unglamorous work of keeping the system honest.
Support from both sides of the aisle
O’Donnell’s list of backers is unusually broad for a nonpartisan race. More than 200 judges have endorsed him. So have four former U.S. Attorneys. Two Democratic members of Congress, Marilyn Strickland and Adam Smith, are on the list. So are former Governor Chris Gregoire, Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell, Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown, State Lands Commissioner Dave Upthegrove, several unions, and more than half a dozen Democratic Party organizations.
Birk has the support of seven of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices and a cluster of union and Democratic district groups. He has also raised more money. Latest figures put him above $400,000. O’Donnell is near $340,000. In a state where most high-court races never see five-figure hauls, this one is already an outlier. Money does not decide whether a charge is true. Sixty-two fellow judges saying the charge is false should give voters pause.
A colleague names the problem
Chelan County Superior Court Judge Kristin Ferrera put it bluntly. Partisan politics have no place in Washington judicial elections. Judges here are nonpartisan, and she takes pride in that. Only one candidate in this race is making it about party, she wrote, and it is not O’Donnell. He is the only Supreme Court candidate this cycle with support this wide. When a judge or judicial candidate leans into partisan rhetoric, she said, it should be a red flag.
That is the point rural Washington should not miss.
A court that starts sorting people by tribe stops being a court. Ranchers, loggers, small-town businesses, and crime victims do not need a justice who first asks which team they play for. They need one who reads the record and applies the law.
Judges don’t get to pick sides
O’Donnell keeps returning to the same idea. Judges take the parties as they come. Trust in the judiciary, from every quarter, is exactly what the impartiality rule is meant to protect. Asking a candidate to denounce one party’s voters so he can keep another party’s endorsement is a demand that he pick sides. Politically convenient, maybe. Compatible with the job, no.
He says he will keep talking about the issues that actually land in courtrooms: the cost of civil legal help, the risk that artificial intelligence starts doing a judge’s thinking, the duty to protect civil rights, and public safety. Political attacks, he argues, drag the same poison we see in the other Washington into our own courts. There is already enough distrust. Candidates for the highest court should not add to it.
The choice in November
Reasonable people can prefer one résumé over the other. Birk has a record as an appellate judge. O’Donnell has twenty-five years as a prosecutor and superior court judge and has sat as a temporary justice on the Supreme Court itself. The 62 judges say the public deserves a contest about experience and ideas, not “toxic political blows.”
Eastern Washington already lives with rules written by distant people who do not know a calving season from a committee hearing. The last thing we need is a Supreme Court race that treats an unsolicited party recommendation as original sin and a demand to disavow it as courage.
O’Donnell’s answer is simple. He will not pick a team. He will not pretend the judicial rules are optional when they become inconvenient. Sixty-two of his colleagues say that is the right answer. Voters get the final word in November. They should use it to keep the courtroom a courtroom. For true impartiality, I recommend a vote for Judge O’Donnell.
Nancy Churchill is a writer, educator, and conservative activist in rural eastern Washington state. She chairs the Ferry County Republican Party and advocates for effective citizen influence through Influencing Olympia Effectively. She may be reached at [email protected]. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack and X.
