Laura Christensen Colberg

Because this decision conferred upon each state the right to establish their own laws concerning abortion, and because this issue ultimately could be part of a case that comes before the Washington State Supreme Court, I must decline to offer an opinion that could give the impression that I am anything but impartial and able to fully consider and decide a case that comes before the court during my term of service.

Because this issue ultimately could be part of a case that comes before the Washington State Supreme Court, I must decline to offer an opinion that could give the impression that I am anything but impartial and able to fully consider and decide a case that comes before the court during my term of service.

Strongly Agree

I personally believe that human life begins at conception; however, as a judicial officer, I must apply the law as it exists to any case before me, even if I personally prefer a different outcome. Washington State law allows for abortion; until that changes, I must follow the law. As a Justice with a background in family law, I will bring real-life/real-crisis perspective to decision-making.

See above response.

The US Constitution and the Washington State Constitution guarantee to all citizens "absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship," and the job of the judiciary is to ensure and uphold these words. Any laws or actions by the state contrary to this stated intent must be scrutinized and overturned or invalidated to come in line with this Constitutional protection.

I see the intent of the Constitution to ensure freedom of conscience in personal beliefs (religion)--creating no situation where a person should be compelled to believe or act on a belief they do not share, nor prohibited from beliefs and actions in line with those convictions. We are about freedom "of" religion, not freedom "from" religion. This likewise does not mean we can nor should "re-write history" to remove from the record the deeply held convictions of Christian men like John Adams or George Washington, or the masses of colonists who immigrated to this new nation in search of religious liberty. While not every signer of the Declaration of Independence nor drafter of the US Constitution believed identically the same, there was a least a unified understanding and belief in "Nature's God"/the "Creator" who endowed humankind with the rights we seek to protect.

Because this issue has arisen and could arise again in the State of Washington, I must decline to offer an answer that would create the appearance that I am predisposed toward one outcome or the other should a case on similar facts come before me. See prior responses on the right to act within one's own convictions.

I am a Christian and a follower of Jesus Christ. This means my human shortcomings are covered by grace, which compels me to extend grace and mercy to follow human beings, to forgive because I am forgiven. I strive to live in such a way that people can "see Jesus" in me--my words and actions should be kind, humble and gentle. In areas of disagreement, I seek to listen, find whatever common ground may exist, and respectfully articulate where I see things differently. Civility should not be a casualty of dialogue or debate. Hard work and diligence are values I appreciate in others and try to bring to the table to the best of my ability. At the same time, I recognize the value of life balance, boundaries and healthy relationships.

Practicing family law, I have seen families in all states of brokenness and my heart aches for the children caught up in environments that give them rather poor prospects in light of their need for security, stability and safety so that they can make the best life choices for themselves. There are complicated patterns of mental health, substance abuse and criminal activity that remove the level playing field from children in their formative years. I believe the primary responsibility of raising children should be on the shoulders of parents, while recognizing that some parents' ability to parent their children is compromised and that harm to children in the parent-child relationship results in damage that is long-lasting. Where dangerous factors do not exist or threaten the well-being of children, parents are their best bet for attaining adulthood with the skills they need to thrive. "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs ... without authority of law." (1:7)

In Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), the US Supreme Court has decided that gender identity fits within the term of "sex" as a basis for which employment discrimination is not allowed under Title VII.

No.

No.

2016 General Election 2018 General Election 2020 General Election 2022 General Election 2024 General Election

I choose not to answer the partisan primary portions because this is a nonpartisan office and to indicate otherwise defeats the intent of a nonpartisan judiciary.

Start with ‘No.’ Whatever the request, the answer is “No”—until a legal basis for the request is given. Then review all facts, weigh credibility and make findings. Apply the law as written, not what I want it to say. Where the Constitution is implicated, a plain reading should suffice. In cases of ambiguity, consult precedential case law; where appropriate, consider overruling or reversing, mindful of the need for consistency and predictability for future litigants—never lightly.

Words typically mean the same thing but societal nuances over time need to be recognized. Coming to the same set of words and reaching interpretations that differ drastically takes some effort and creativity. Where laws need to change to keep up with changes in societal values, the laws themselves (including the words in the Constitution) should change, using the available procedures to do so. The meanings of words should be consistent and it is not up to the judiciary to implement changes.

I don't have a Supreme Court Justice in mind. I prefer to bring my own diligence, intellect and careful thought to the role of Supreme Court Justice rather than follow another's point of view or methodology.

This is the current law/holding by the US Supreme Court. Any decision-making I do as Washington State Supreme Court Justice will not affect this outcome.

Start with the words. If they mean what they say, apply them in the clearest manner possible. If there is room for interpretation and if there is case law precedent on point, give that decision appropriate weight. If the facts and circumstances presented are distinguishable, and if there is a defensible basis to overrule a prior case decision, either because of human error (and all human systems are prone to error), or because that is what justice requires, a Justice cannot be unwilling to make a difficult call because it goes against legal precedent, nor do so lightly.

The separation of powers gives judges no authority to be "activist." Interpreting the laws is a role distinct from making policy--that is reserved to the legislative branch of the government. A judicial officer applies the law to the facts or interprets their validity against the Constitution. These are sometimes discretionary (as to outcome, sentencing and the like) and sometimes cut-and-dried based on the plain meaning of the law. To the extent that a decision does not sit well with the public, and if that "sends a message" to the lawmakers to change the law, that is a natural and anticipated way for decision-makers to serve the public. Drafting a judicial decision that contradicts the laws as written is never appropriate.

A judge's role is to resolve disputes between parties. This involves hearing both sides of the dispute, weighing the facts, considering arguments, and applying the law to the facts. Where a judge is given discretion in the outcome, he or she is to reach a result that is fair to all. A Justice on the Washington State Supreme Court also serves in an administrative capacity, overseeing the court system for the state and handling matters related to attorney discipline within the Bar.

Not that I can think of.

The beauty of our system is that errors can be corrected, and any human system is prone to human error from time to time. Each Justice should arrive at the correct result wherever that leads and justify their rationale in a way that the public can understand, especially if a change from prior precedent is the result.

One of the sacrifices of any system of law and order may be to allow some guilty persons to go free rather than imprison or punish the innocent. We have chosen as a society to err on this side of perfection. Absent the supernatural knowledge required to "get it right" every time, this is an approach I prefer over the alternative.

My expectation is that once a conviction is overturned, that ends the role of the judge presented with that question. If the defendant has remedies available to pursue, he or she is the one who should make those choices, and the judges who hear those claims will be in the best position to address them. These are different questions.

The right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." Or under Washington's Constitution, "shall not be impaired." In family law practice, firearms are routinely ordered to be surrendered when there is a credible threat to the safety of a victim, for a limited time period (in cases of domestic violence, for example). Beyond contexts when illegal harm is likely or threatened, citizens' second amendment rights remain intact.

Neither. The checks and balances put into place were intended to avoid this result.