Created: December 11, 2025
For: Moses Lake School District Transparency
Initiative
Think of this as a swimming pool with marked depths. You decide how far you want to go:
đ SHALLOW END - Quick overview (5 minutes)
đââď¸ WADING DEPTH - The McCleary story (15 minutes)
đââď¸ SWIMMING DEPTH - The 2012 Court that decided it (20
minutes)
𤿠DEEP DIVE - Todayâs 2025 Court profiles (45+
minutes)
Stop whenever you want. Each section stands alone.
WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT (9 Justices)
â (ordered billions in spending)
WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE
â (passes education laws)
HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE (19 Members)
â (controls which bills advance)
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (OSPI)
â (implements state policy)
MOSES LAKE SCHOOL DISTRICT
â
YOUR CHILDRENIn 2012, nine judges you probably never heard of ordered the Washington State Legislature to spend an additional $13+ billion on K-12 schools, and the Legislature had no choice but to obey.
When you vote for Supreme Court justices, the ballot says: - NON-PARTISAN - Name - (Maybe) current position - THATâS IT
You donât get: - Their judicial philosophy - Who appointed them (if applicable) - Their previous rulings - Their political affiliations - Their donor connections - Their organizational memberships
Yet these nine judges have more power over your schools than your locally elected school board.
đ STOP HERE if you just wanted the basics.
đ KEEP READING to understand the McCleary decision storyâŚ
Who sued: Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS), plus: - Mathew and Stephanie McCleary (Chimacum School District parents) - Robert and Patty Venema (parents) - Multiple school districts - Washington Education Association (teachers union - major funder)
What they claimed: Washington State violated Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution:
âIt is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.â
The argument: The state wasnât fully funding basic education - they were forcing local school districts to use local property tax levies to cover basic costs that the state constitution required the state to pay.
Judge John Erlick, King County Superior Court:
âState funding is not ample, it is not stable, and it is not dependable.â
Ruling: The state was failing its constitutional duty.
State appealed to Washington Supreme Court.
Case Number: 84362-7
Opinion Written By: Justice Debra Stephens
Vote: NOT unanimous on all points
Main Holding: The state legislature has failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to fully fund K-12 basic education.
Key Requirements Ordered: 1. Define what âbasic educationâ actually means 2. Determine the actual cost of providing it 3. Fully fund it through âregular and dependable tax sourcesâ (not local levies) 4. Complete this by September 1, 2018
The Controversial Part: The Court retained jurisdiction over the case - meaning they would continue to oversee and judge whether the Legislature was making progress.
Who Dissented (Partially): - Chief Justice Barbara Madsen - joined by Justice James Johnson - Issue: They agreed the state wasnât meeting its duty, but dissented on the Court retaining jurisdiction and continuing to oversee the Legislature - Reasoning: This crosses separation of powers - judiciary shouldnât supervise the legislative branch ongoing
Timeline:
2012: Court orders Legislature to show
progress
2013: Legislature adds $1.6 billion but Court says not
enough
January 2014: Court issues stern warning - âshow real
and measurable progressâ
September 2014: Court holds Legislature in
CONTEMPT - first time in Washington history
August 2015: Court begins $100,000/DAY
FINES against the state
2016: Opponents try to unseat three justices in
elections - FAIL
2017: Legislature passes major property tax reform
plan
November 2017: Court says plan doesnât meet September
2018 deadline
2018 Session: Legislature adds another $776 million +
$105 million for fines
June 7, 2018: Court declares victory - LIFTS
CONTEMPT ORDER
Total collected in fines: Over $100 million (placed in education account)
What Changed:
Teacher Salaries: Moved from local levy funding to state funding
Class Size Reductions: Mandated K-3 class size limits
Full-Day Kindergarten: Required statewide
Transportation: State now must fully fund student transportation
Materials/Supplies/Operating Costs (MSOC): State must cover these basic costs
Property Tax Changes:
The Unintended Consequences:
While state spending increased by billions: - Some districts experienced funding SHORTFALLS due to levy caps - Local control reduced - Teacher strikes increased (unions argued McCleary money should mean higher raises) - One-size-fits-all state approach replaced local flexibility
Moses Lake Impact: Property taxes increased, funding formulas changed, less local control over teacher compensation
đ STOP HERE if you understand the McCleary story.
đ KEEP READING to learn about the 2012 justices who made the decisionâŚ
When the McCleary decision came down on January 5, 2012, here were the nine justices:
Chief Justice Barbara A. Madsen (partially dissenting on jurisdiction) - First elected: 1992 - Appointed by: N/A (elected) - Status in 2012: Chief Justice - Partial Dissent: Agreed state failed duty, but opposed continued judicial oversight - Chairs: Gender and Justice Commission
Justice Charles W. Johnson - First elected: 1990 (defeated incumbent Chief Justice Keith Callow) - Status: One of longest-serving justices - Concurred with majority
Justice Gerry L. Alexander - Appointed: 1995 by Governor Mike Lowry (D) - Former Chief Justice - Described as âcentristâ - Concurred with majority
Justice Mary E. Fairhurst - Elected: 2002 - Future Chief Justice (2017-2019) - Concurred with majority
Justice Tom Chambers - Appointed: 2007 by Governor Christine Gregoire (D) - Concurred with majority
Justice Susan Owens - Elected: 2000 - Concurred with majority
Justice DEBRA STEPHENS - AUTHOR OF OPINION â - Appointed: 2008 by Governor Christine Gregoire (D) - First woman from Eastern Washington on Supreme Court - Described as âbrilliantâ and âparticularly avid and incisive questionerâ - Wrote the 62-page McCleary opinion - Currently Chief Justice (2025) - Education: Gonzaga Law School
Chief Justice Barbara Madsen (on jurisdiction issue only) - Position: Agreed state failed constitutional duty - Dissent: Opposed court retaining jurisdiction to oversee Legislature - Reasoning: Separation of powers - judiciary shouldnât supervise legislative branch - Quote context: âJudicial restraintâ concerns
Justice James M. Johnson (joined Madsenâs partial dissent) - Most conservative member of court - Retired April 2014 due to health concerns - His Dissent (from later orders):
âThe legislature should not have the courtâs orders held to its head.â
âThe court simply do[es] not have enough information to know whether the legislatureâs outlined progress is adequate.â
âThe workings of a state involve many interconnected parts, and it is unhelpful to view one piece in isolation, when other state matters have evolved.â
Justice Johnsonâs Core Argument: - Legislature has âcomparative advantageâ in identifying policy goals and implementing them - Court is overstepping by evaluating the Legislatureâs benchmarks and reform contents - This violates separation of powers doctrine - Legislature is solely responsible for education funding under constitution
Justice Richard B. Sanders - Lost re-election in 2010 to Charles K. Wiggins - Most conservative justice on court - Had he still been on court in 2012, might have joined Johnsonâs dissent more forcefully
Charles K. Wiggins (replaced Sanders) - Elected: 2010 (defeated Sanders) - More moderate than Sanders - Voted with majority
Campaign Finance Score (CFscore) Analysis: - Calculated based on: judicial campaign contributions, partisan leaning of donors, ideology of appointing governors - Washington Supreme Court Score: -0.91 - Ranking: 5th most liberal state supreme court in America - Scale: Above 0 = conservative, Below 0 = liberal
Context: This study was published in October 2012, nine months AFTER the McCleary decision.
Traditional View (Johnson/Madsen): - Courts interpret what the constitution requires - Legislature decides HOW to fulfill that requirement - Courts should not supervise legislative compliance ongoing - This is executive/legislative function, not judicial
Majority View (Stephens + 6 others): - Court has âprimary responsibility for interpretingâ the constitution - Without continued jurisdiction, court cannot ensure compliance - Legislature had DECADES to fix this (since 1978 Doran case) and didnât - Retained jurisdiction is necessary to prevent another 30+ years of non-compliance
The Unprecedented Nature: - First contempt order against state in Washington history - First time court imposed daily financial sanctions on Legislature - Longest-running judicial oversight of legislative budgeting in state history
Harvard Law Review Analysis (2015): The Harvard Law Review published analysis noting:
âAggressive judicial intervention may impose complex costs, such as risking damaging the judiciaryâs relationship with the coordinate branches and causing short-term disruption to the education system.â
The analysis noted the Court had âno technical resources to assess particular tradeoffsâ in state budgeting, where education consumed 44% of the stateâs general fund in 2012.
đ STOP HERE if youâve learned enough about the 2012 Court.
đ KEEP READING for complete profiles of TODAYâS 2025 Supreme CourtâŚ
Term: Elected 2014, Re-elected 2016, 2022
Term Expires: December 31, 2028
How She Got There: Appointed January 2014 by Governor
Jay Inslee (D) to fill vacancy
Background: - Historic: First LGBTQ, Asian American, and Latina member of Washington Supreme Court - Born in Chicago to Chinese immigrant mother and Mexican father - Education: Notre Dame Law School - Previous: King County Superior Court judge (2000-2014) - Career: Former prosecutor, public defender
Significance: One of multiple âfirstsâ on this court
Status: Announced retirement September 2024,
leaving December 31, 2025
Replacement: Colleen Melody (appointed by Governor Bob
Ferguson, November 24, 2025)
Term: Elected November 2024
Sworn In: January 13, 2025
Term Expires: January 12, 2031
How He Got There: Elected in contested race, defeated
Dave Larson
Background: - Born in Tacoma to immigrants from Mexico and Japan - 38 years as civil trial and appellate attorney in private practice - Previously clerked for a Washington Supreme Court justice - Committee member: Drafted court rule (adopted 2018) to diminish racial bias in jury selection
Quote from swearing-in: > âYou can speak up for those who donât have a voice. You give hope to those that have lost sight of what hope is. You can give justice to those whoâve been robbed of justice.â
Significance: With Mungiaâs arrival, majority of court is now people of color
Election Results (November 2024): - Mungia: Narrow victory - Defeated: Dave Larson - Primary: Defeated Todd Bloom and David Shelvey
Term: Elected 2020
Term Expires: January 13, 2027
How She Got There: Appointed December 2019 by Governor
Jay Inslee (D) to fill vacancy
Background: - Historic: First Native American justice on Washington Supreme Court - Member: Pueblo of Isleta - Education: UCLA School of Law - Previous: Whatcom County Superior Court judge - Focus: Tribal sovereignty, indigenous rights, criminal justice
Election Results (November 2020): - Defeated Dave Larson in general election
Significance: Brings tribal law and indigenous perspective to court
Term: First elected 1990, Re-elected 1996, 2002,
2008, 2014, 2020
Term Expires: January 13, 2027
How He Got There: Elected 1990 (defeated incumbent
Chief Justice Keith Callow)
Background: - Longest-serving current justice (35 years as of 2025) - First defeated incumbent Chief Justice in 40 years when elected (1990) - Education: University of Washington School of Law - Previous: Pierce County Superior Court judge - Former Chief Justice: multiple terms
Significance: - Was on court for McCleary decision (2012) - voted with majority - Institutional memory spanning multiple decades - Witnessed entire evolution of education funding litigation
Term: First elected 1992, Re-elected 1998, 2004,
2010, 2016, 2022
Term Expires: January 13, 2029
How She Got There: Elected 1992
Background: - Second-longest serving current justice (33 years as of 2025) - Chief Justice: Multiple terms - Education: Seattle University School of Law - Previous: King County Superior Court judge - Chair: Gender and Justice Commission
McCleary Role: - Chief Justice in 2012 when McCleary decided - Partially dissented on continued judicial oversight - Argued court was overstepping separation of powers
Significance: - Direct connection to McCleary decision - Represents continuity from 2012 court to present - Opposed ongoing judicial supervision of Legislature
Described by critics as: âWants to drive the court in a certain directionâ focused on gender equity
Term: Elected 2022
Term Expires: January 13, 2029
How She Got There: Appointed April 2020 by Governor Jay
Inslee (D) to fill vacancy
Background: - Education: Seattle University School of Law - Previous: Washington Court of Appeals, Division I - King County Superior Court judge
Significance: After her appointment in 2020, court was called âarguably the most diverse court, state or federal, in American historyâ
Election Results (November 2022): - Won re-election unopposed (no challengers)
Term: First appointed 2008, Elected 2010, Re-elected
2016, 2022
Term Expires: January 13, 2029
How She Got There: Appointed November 2008 by Governor
Christine Gregoire (D) to fill vacancy
Chief Justice: January 2025 - January 2029 (4-year
term)
Background: - WROTE THE McCLEARY OPINION (2012) - First woman from Eastern Washington on Supreme Court - Education: Gonzaga University School of Law - Previous: Washington Court of Appeals, Division III (Spokane) - Spokane County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Described as: âBrilliantâ and âparticularly avid and incisive questionerâ
Significance: - Author of the most consequential education decision in state history - Now leads the court as Chief Justice - Direct continuity from McCleary to present day
Previous Chief Justice term: 2019-2020 (completed Chief Justice Mary Fairhurstâs term when she retired)
Term: First elected 2012, Re-elected 2018,
2024
Term Expires: January 13, 2031
How He Got There: Appointed February 2012 by Governor
Christine Gregoire (D) to fill vacancy
Background: - Education: UC Berkeley School of Law - Previous: Washington Court of Appeals, Division I - King County Superior Court judge - Former Chief Justice: 2021-2024
Election Results (November 2024): - Won re-election unopposed (no challengers)
Significance: Appointed just one month AFTER McCleary decision came down
Term: First elected 2013, Re-elected 2019,
2024
Term Expires: January 13, 2031
How She Got There: Appointed February 2013 by Governor
Jay Inslee (D) to fill vacancy
Background: - Education: Harvard Law School - Previous: Washington Court of Appeals, Division I - Seattle City Attorneyâs Office - Focus: Government accountability, public records
Election Results (November 2024): - Won re-election unopposed (no challengers)
Appointment: November 24, 2025 by Governor Bob
Ferguson (D)
Takes Office: January 1, 2026
Term Expires: December 31, 2028 (completing Justice
Yuâs term)
Election: Must run in November 2026 to keep seat
Background: - Age: 43 - Current: Chief of Civil Rights Division, Washington Attorney Generalâs Office - Hired by: Bob Ferguson (2015) when he was Attorney General - Education: University of Washington Law School - Previous: U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division - From: Spokane, Washington
Governor Fergusonâs Comments: > âAnyone who has had any interaction with Colleen in a legal setting would all agree that she has a brilliant legal mind.â
Her Comments on Courts: > âState courts are actually the place where most of us who are able to access justice go to seek it. They have never been more important than they are right now.â
âThe rule of law seems more fragile than it has to me at any point during my lifetime.â
Appointed by Democratic Governors: 5 - Mary Yu (Inslee) - Raquel Montoya-Lewis (Inslee) - G. Helen Whitener (Inslee) - Debra L. Stephens (Gregoire) - Steven C. GonzĂĄlez (Gregoire) - Sheryl Gordon McCloud (Inslee) - Colleen Melody (Ferguson) - incoming
Originally Elected (No Appointment): 4 - Charles W. Johnson (1990) - Barbara A. Madsen (1992) - Sal Mungia (2024)
(Note: Stephens, GonzĂĄlez, and Gordon McCloud were appointed initially but then won competitive elections)
Historic Firsts Represented: - First Native American justice (Montoya-Lewis) - First LGBTQ justice (Yu) - First Latina justice (Yu) - First Asian American justice (Yu) - First woman from Eastern Washington (Stephens) - First court with majority people of color (2025) - First court with supermajority women (2013-present)
Current Demographics: - Gender: 6 women, 3 men (67% female) - Race/Ethnicity: Majority people of color - Geographic: Representation from Eastern Washington, tribal communities
Still on Court from 2012 McCleary Decision: 1. Chief Justice Debra L. Stephens - WROTE the opinion 2. Justice Barbara A. Madsen - Partially dissented 3. Justice Charles W. Johnson - Voted with majority
Three of nine current justices were on the court that decided McCleary and enforced it through 2018.
What voters see on ballot:
â DEBRA L. STEPHENS
Supreme Court Justice, Position 7
â [Challenger Name]
[Occupation]What voters DONâT see: - Appointed by Governor Christine Gregoire (Democrat) - Wrote McCleary opinion ordering $13 billion in new spending - Progressive voting record - Chairs Gender and Justice Commission - Campaign donor information - Organizational affiliations - Judicial philosophy
Recent Election Results Pattern: - 2024: All three races - two incumbents unopposed, Mungia won narrow contest - 2022: All three incumbents - ALL unopposed - 2020: Mixed - some contests, but incumbents won
Since 2010: Only ONE incumbent has lost re-election (Richard Sanders, 2010)
Reality: Washington Supreme Court races are effectively: - Dominated by incumbents - Rarely competitive - Low information for voters - High re-election rates
When you vote for Supreme Court justices, you typically donât know:
All you get is: - Name - Current title - âNON-PARTISANâ
Yet these are the nine people who: - Ordered $13+ billion in new education spending - Held the Legislature in contempt - Fined the state $100,000/day - Changed property tax structure statewide - Reduced local levy authority - Mandated teacher salary changes
When you vote for: - Education Committee members â You get to research their campaign finance, voting records, bills sponsored, organizational affiliations, public statements
When you vote for: - Supreme Court justices â You get their name and âNON-PARTISANâ
Yet the Supreme Court has arguably MORE power over your schools than the Education Committee.
We spent dozens of hours researching: - Rep. Shaun Scottâs Marxist affiliation and $11,000 PDC violations - Rep. Matt Marshallâs Three Percenter militia leadership - Every Education Committee memberâs donors, votes, backgrounds
But when it comes time to vote for the nine people who can: - Order billions in new spending - Change the entire funding structure - Hold elected officials in contempt - Impose daily fines on government
We get almost zero information.
Official Sources: - Washington Courts website: www.courts.wa.gov - Ballotpedia: Washington Supreme Court pages - Washington Secretary of State: Election results
Court Decisions: - McCleary v. State (2012): Case No. 84362-7 - All subsequent McCleary orders (2012-2018) - Full opinion available at courts.wa.gov
Analysis: - Harvard Law Review: âMcCleary v. Stateâ (2015) - Washington Policy Center: McCleary analysis - Stanford Study: State Supreme Court Ideology (2012)
News Coverage: - Seattle Times: Supreme Court coverage - Washington State Standard: Court news - NPR: McCleary coverage
This document was created to give Moses Lake voters information they normally NEVER receive about the people who have enormous power over their schools.
The Washington Supreme Court: - Operates in ânon-partisanâ elections - Rarely faces competitive races - Incumbent re-election rate near 100% - Voters receive minimal information - Yet holds vast power over education, taxes, and government
The same transparency and equal scrutiny we applied to the Education Committee should apply to Supreme Court justices.
The question: Should voters have access to the same depth of information about Supreme Court candidates that we now have about Education Committee members?
Your decision: How deep did you dive? Did you stop at the shallow end or swim to the deep end?
END OF DOCUMENT
Document Status: Complete multi-depth guide
Next Steps: User determines placement on Moses Lake
transparency website
Suggested Location: Separate section with clear warning
about depth/complexity