Opinion: Supreme Court Position 7 – Will they guard the dam, or let the tax flood through?

Four candidates compete for the seat that will likely decide the fate of Washington's new state income tax. — Four candidates compete for the seat that will likely decide the fate of Washington’s new state income tax. Photo courtesy Nancy Churchill

🎧 WA Supreme Court Race That Could Kill the Income Tax

Nancy Churchill takes a look at the race for State Supreme Court Position 7

Nancy Churchill
Dangerous Rhetoric

The race for Supreme Court Position 7 carries heavy weight for every family, ranch, and small business in Washington. For this position, four candidates will appear on the August 4 primary ballot. The top two advance to November. The winner will almost certainly face the constitutional challenge to the new state income tax. That case could decide whether progressive politicians finally break through the 1933 Culliton barrier that has blocked a state income tax for nearly a century.

The stakes could not be higher

Nancy Churchill

Think of our state Constitution as a sturdy dam built to hold back the flood of unlimited taxation. For generations it protected family farms, cattle operations, and working people from a direct grab at their earnings. Now that dam faces its greatest test. The capital gains tax ruling already showed the court’s willingness to re-label taxes to get around the rules. The income tax referendum petition was turned away in May. The winner in Position 7 will sit on the court when the full challenge arrives.

This race is not about party labels. It is about whether judges will faithfully apply the Constitution as written or continue finding ways to let Olympia expand its reach.

Chief Justice Debra Stephens: A record of judicial activism

Chief Justice Debra Stephens has sat on the court since 2008. Appointed by Governor Christine Gregoire, she is the longest-serving justice on the ballot and the most powerful judicial figure in the state. She now seeks a fourth full term running through 2033.

Her record tells the story. She joined the 7-2 majority that upheld the capital gains tax by rebranding it an “excise” tax to dodge the Constitution’s income tax ban. Analysts saw it as a green light for bigger grabs ahead. She also signed the May 4 order blocking Let’s Go Washington’s push to let voters decide on the income tax. The Washington Education Association—which made passing an income tax its top priority—has backed her before.

Appointed by and aligned with Democratic governors her entire career, Stephens draws heavy support from the usual suspects: Indivisibles Tacoma, King County Democrats, the WEA, the State Labor Council, Governor Bob Ferguson, and other progressive leaders. Critics see a justice all too comfortable expanding government power over family finances and rural livelihoods.

The challengers bring fresh perspectives

Three attorneys challenge the incumbent. Each brings different experience and a clear emphasis on applying the law as written rather than reshaping it. None carries the big institutional backing or large campaign war chest of the sitting chief justice.

Todd Bloom: Veteran, arbitrator, and constitutional sonservative

Todd Bloom is an attorney, CPA, financial planner, and retired Navy Lieutenant Commander. He holds advanced degrees in law, taxation, and military strategy. For nearly twenty years he served as a FINRA arbitrator deciding complex financial disputes. He also sits on the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors.

Bloom stresses that judges must faithfully apply the law as written and deliver fair, impartial hearings. His military service and arbitration work gave him direct experience enforcing standards and weighing evidence. He and his wife live in Tacoma with two adult children and grandchildren.

Importantly, the Washington State Republican Party has recommended him for this position.

Karim Merchant: A public defender who fought government overreach

Karim Merchant spent fifteen years as a King County public defender before opening his own practice. He was born to working-class immigrant parents and raised in Washington since 1987. Merchant states he has never represented corporations or the government. His focus has been protecting ordinary people from unlawful government intrusion.

He argues the judiciary must remain independent and impartial. Judges, he says, must interpret and apply the law so citizens receive the government the Constitution actually guarantees. He runs without big endorsements or a large campaign fund. His message centers on equal justice and constitutional boundaries.

David Shelvey: The Sumner family lawyer who says no to new taxes

David Shelvey practices in Sumner. He handles administrative, civil, family, estate, and tax matters. A veteran, he volunteers in his community and provides pro bono help to seniors, veterans, and low-income residents. He ran for the Supreme Court in 2024.

Shelvey states plainly that he opposes a state income tax and will not be soft on criminals. He promises practical solutions to ease court backlogs. He also shares that he lives with a mild form of Parkinson’s and has learned to judge no one by appearance or condition. He promises to “approach every decision with respect, fairness, and impartiality—guided by sound judgment and common sense.”

Why rural Washington should care

Eastern Washington families already feel the pressure of rising costs, wolf management failures that hurt cattle producers, and layers of regulation that make it harder to pass the ranch or business to the next generation. A state income tax would add another direct hit to earnings. The justice who takes this seat will help decide whether that tax survives constitutional scrutiny.

The choice is clear in philosophy. One candidate has a long record of decisions that eased the path for new taxes and blocked voter pushback. The three challengers each bring real-world experience outside the judicial bubble and explicit or strong emphasis on limiting government power and honoring the Constitution’s limits.

Time to vote and take back the court

August 4 is not far away. This is a nonpartisan race, but the stakes are deeply partisan in outcome. Low-information voting in judicial races has let activist tendencies grow. That changes only when voters do the work. I challenge you to watch my interview series with judicial candidates published on the Influencing Olympia Rumble channel.

Share the information about these races with your neighbors. Ask the simple question: Do we want judges who find ways around the Constitution or judges who apply it as written? When your ballot arrives, vote early, and make sure everyone you know votes. Small actions still grow into big protection for the freedoms we hold dear.

Washington was built by people who refused to let distant power run over local life and family responsibility. That spirit still lives in our rural counties and small towns. The dam does not have to break. Not if we stand guard at the ballot box this August.

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 DangerousRhetoric@pm.me. The opinions expressed in Dangerous Rhetoric are her own. Dangerous Rhetoric is available on Substack and X.