Scott Edwards Challenges State Supreme Court Tax Rulings
The Washington Supreme Court candidate argues judicial interpretations of state tax law depart from the constitution.
Updated on Oct. 26, 2026 in Law
Live Poll
Should supreme court justices strictly interpret existing law regardless of the policy impact of their rulings?
Washington Supreme Court candidate Scott Edwards is challenging the bench's interpretation of state income tax law. He argues that the court should adhere strictly to written law rather than advancing political policy views.
Why it matters
The dispute centers on whether income should be classified as property, which would require uniform taxation under the state constitution. Edwards maintains that changes to these definitions belong in the hands of voters through constitutional amendments.
The 1933 Culliton v. Chase case established that income is defined as property in Washington, a principle at the heart of current legal debates. The state constitution mandates that property within the same class must be taxed uniformly.
The players
Scott Edwards
He is a candidate for Washington Supreme Court Position 1 who advocates for judicial restraint.
Colleen Melody
She is the incumbent Washington Supreme Court Justice currently holding Position 1.
Bob Ferguson
He is the Governor of Washington who appointed Colleen Melody to the state supreme court.
The details
Scott Edwards is running for Washington Supreme Court Position 1, currently held by Justice Colleen Melody. He contends that the court has bypassed established legal definitions, specifically noting rulings regarding the state's capital gains tax and a voter-approved natural gas initiative.
Timeline
1933 marks the year the court decided Culliton v. Chase.
2025 was the year Gov. Bob Ferguson appointed Colleen Melody to the court.
Political Context
Opponents of Edwards may argue that the court's recent interpretations reflect a necessary evolution of legal standards in a modern economy. They point to the court's role in upholding the state's capital gains tax as a shift that adapts to current revenue needs.
This race will determine the judicial philosophy governing the state's tax structures, potentially impacting future tax policy and regulation. Voters in Washington are effectively weighing whether they prefer judicial reinterpretation or legislative constitutional changes.
The takeaway
The disagreement highlights a fundamental debate over the scope of judicial power in interpreting state constitutional law. Implementing changes through voter-approved amendments remains a distinct alternative to relying on court rulings for tax policy.
Further reading
For more information on the legal environment in the state, visit the Washington Law section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by My Northwest.
Live Poll
Should supreme court justices strictly interpret existing law regardless of the policy impact of their rulings?
