Supreme Court forum highlights sharp divide over judicial philosophy and court role

At a candidate forum hosted by General Interest TVW, incumbent Justice Stevens and challengers traded sharp differences over how the Washington Supreme Court should approach precedent, policy and institutional oversight.

Justice Stevens, who described joining the court in 2008 and authoring major opinions, emphasized judicial restraint and "constitutional avoidance," saying courts must be "definitive when necessary, not overreaching." He framed part of the court’s role as improving public access to legal services and writing opinions that ordinary people can understand.

Challengers pressed a contrasting view. Todd argued the court has suffered a narrowing of viewpoint that risks "group think" and that the bench should reflect broader perspectives. Kareem Merchant, a former public defender who introduced himself as running for the court, urged strict adherence to the constitution, saying repeatedly, "Follow the constitution," and criticized decisions he said favored larger government and higher spending.

The candidates sparred over how and when the court should correct historical injustices. Justice Stevens said the judiciary must "unpack" doctrines that have demonstrably racist impacts and consider the social consequences of legal rules; Merchant pointed to examples such as separate-but-equal as necessary instances where the court righted wrongs.

The forum also threaded debates over several high-profile rulings and policy moves — from Quinn v. Washington and McCleary (education funding) to recent court rule changes on public-defender caseloads and proposed bail reforms — revealing differences in how narrowly or broadly each candidate would read the court’s institutional powers.

The forum closed with candidates stressing differing emphases: Stevens on experience and institutional stewardship; Todd on offering a different life experience on the bench; and Merchant on transparency and consistent application of legal standards. The candidates are competing for public votes in the upcoming judicial election cycle.