Mike Diaz
Non-Partisan | Washington
Candidate Profile
Activist
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Mike Diaz
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2026
Election
Primary
Race
Justice of the Supreme Court, Seat 3
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
ENDORSEMENTS
LIBERAL (9)
King County Democrats
Washington Education Association WEA PAC
48th District Democrats
36th District Democrats
30th District Democrats
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (3)
Bob Ferguson (2012)
Jay Inslee (2012)
Washington United for Marriage (2012)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
Judge Diaz authored the opinion in State v. O’Brien (2025), where the court considered whether O’Brien could be retried after his first trial ended in a mistrial and whether there was enough evidence to convict him of residential burglary and other crimes. The court affirmed his convictions and rulings from the trial court.
Judge Diaz authored the opinion in Cornelius v. Washington State University (2025), where the court considered whether WSU was legally responsible for fraternity hazing that seriously injured a student.
Judge Diaz authored the opinion in In re Detention of D.O. (2025), where the court considered whether a man with schizophrenia and a prior brain injury could be kept in inpatient treatment for 90 more days and whether Washington’s involuntary commitment process was constitutional.
Judge Diaz authored the opinion in In re A.N.D.M. (2023), where the court considered whether Washington courts properly refused to make Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) findings for a child from Honduras and whether the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard. The Court of Appeals reversed both rulings.
The Court of Appeals held that Washington courts do have authority to issue SIJS findings. It also held the juvenile court abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard, relying on speculation, and adding requirements not found in federal law about abuse, abandonment, and the child’s best interests.
Judge Diaz authored the opinion in David v. Freedom Vans, LLC (2023), where the Washington Court of Appeals considered whether an employer violated RCW 49.62.070 by prohibiting employees from working for competing businesses while they were still employed by the company. The court held the policy was lawful because the statute still allows employers to enforce employee duties of loyalty and policies related to those duties. Two former employees argued the agreement unlawfully prevented them from taking side jobs involving van repairs and vehicle conversion work. The court disagreed, reasoning that working for a competitor could still help a competing business even if the employee had different job duties there.
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Did not answer
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Did not answer
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Did not answer
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Did not answer
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
Did not answer
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
Did not answer
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
Did not answer
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
Did not answer
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Did not answer
What is the proper role of a judge?
Did not answer
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
Did not answer
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Did not answer
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
The burden of proof in a criminal case is generally that the state must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Some say the reason the burden of proof is so high is because we greatly value ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly imprisoned. Please comment on this topic.
Did not answer
When reviewing wrongful conviction claims, what role, if any, should judges play in determining remedies?
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
Did not answer
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
Did not answer
