Sharonda Amamilo

As a sitting judge and candidate for judicial office, I am ethically constrained from expressing views that could suggest a commitment on issues that may come before the courts. Questions involving reproductive rights continue to arise in both federal and state litigation. What I can say is that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reflects the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal Constitution and substantive due process doctrine. The majority concluded that the federal Constitution does not expressly confer a right to abortion and that regulation of abortion should largely return to the states and their democratic processes. The dissenting justices interpreted the Constitution differently and raised concerns about privacy and liberty interests. My duty as a judge is to faithfully apply the Constitution, precedent, and governing law to the specific case before the court.

In Washington v. Glucksberg, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the federal Constitution does not establish a fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide under the Due Process Clause. The Court emphasized the nation’s legal history and traditions and held that states may regulate or prohibit the practice so long as there is a rational basis for doing so. At the same time, the decision recognized that states may approach end-of-life issues differently through their own laws and policy choices. Washington voters later adopted the Death with Dignity Act through that democratic process. Any future legal challenge involving end-of-life care would require careful consideration of the specific constitutional provisions, statutes, facts, and controlling precedent presented in the case.

Choose not to answer

Questions involving the beginning and end of life are among the most significant issues courts encounter. Our constitutional system assigns different roles to legislatures, voters, and courts in addressing those questions. My responsibility as a judge is to apply the Constitution, statutes, and controlling precedent fairly and consistently to the facts and legal claims presented in each case.

In Washington State, the primary role in developing abortion regulations rests with the Legislature and, at times, with the voters through the initiative process. Courts do not create policy or draft regulations. The judiciary’s role is to review laws and government actions when a legal challenge is properly brought before the court. That review may involve questions about the Washington Constitution, statutory interpretation, procedural fairness, or whether a law complies with established legal protections and precedent. Judges must decide those matters based on the law, the facts presented, and controlling authority, while respecting the separate roles of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Religious liberty is a fundamental constitutional protection. Courts have long recognized both the free exercise of religion and the need for government neutrality toward religion. The judiciary’s role is not to favor or disfavor any faith or belief system, but to fairly apply the Constitution, statutes, and controlling precedent to the facts of each case while protecting due process and equal access to justice.

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the courts through a number of constitutional frameworks over time, and its application depends heavily on the specific facts and context presented in a case. The United States Supreme Court has recognized both the importance of preventing government establishment or endorsement of religion and the reality that the nation’s history and traditions include religious expression and practices. Questions in this area often involve balancing principles of religious liberty, government neutrality, free expression, and historical practice. The judiciary’s role is to apply the Constitution and controlling precedent to the facts before the court, not to advance personal views about religion or public policy. Judges must carefully evaluate each case within the constitutional framework established by appellate courts.

As a sitting judge and candidate for judicial office, I must avoid comments that could suggest how I might rule in future cases. What I can say is that Masterpiece Cakeshop focused on the Constitution’s requirement that the government remain neutral toward religion. The United States Supreme Court held that state officials may enforce anti-discrimination laws, but they must do so without showing hostility toward a person’s religious beliefs. The Court’s decision centered on fairness in the government’s decision-making process and protections under the First Amendment. A judge’s duty is to apply constitutional protections, anti-discrimination laws, and controlling precedent fairly and impartially to the facts of each case.

I have personal spiritual beliefs and values that I hold deeply and that help guide how I live, serve, and treat others. Those values allow me to show compassion, integrity, humility, service, personal responsibility, and respect for the dignity of every person. My experiences in military service, the law, public service, and raising a large family have strengthened my belief that people of many different faiths, backgrounds, and perspectives deserve respect and equal treatment. As a judge, I value both religious liberty and the responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law fairly and impartially for everyone who comes before the court.

Courts have long recognized that parents have important constitutional interests in directing the upbringing, care, and education of their children. Through my work representing families in child welfare and dependency matters, and later presiding over family law and custody cases, I have seen how deeply personal and complex these issues can be for parents and children alike. In Washington, questions involving education, child welfare, sexual identity, and individual rights may involve federal constitutional protections, the Washington Constitution, and statutory law. These matters require careful attention to the facts, the rights involved, and the governing legal framework, while ensuring that all parties are treated with dignity, fairness, and respect throughout the process.

As a legal matter, gender identity is expressly protected under Washington law, including in employment, housing, public accommodations, and schools. Federal constitutional doctrine is more fact-specific. Equal Protection analysis may require courts to consider whether a law classifies based on sex, transgender status, or another ground, and what level of scrutiny applies. Recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent in United States vs Skrmetti shows that these questions remain contested under the federal Constitution. Any answer must be grounded in the specific law, facts, and controlling precedent presented.

No

No

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

My judicial philosophy is grounded in fidelity to the Constitution, respect for precedent, and impartial application of the law. I believe judges must decide cases based on the facts and governing law, not political pressure or personal preference. In that respect, my approach is consistent with Hamilton’s view that the judiciary exercises judgment, not will, and that judicial independence protects the rule of law.

My approach is grounded in fidelity to the Constitution, respect for precedent, and judicial restraint. Questions involving original public meaning and whether the law evolves through contemporary values are addressed through constitutional interpretation, precedent, legislation, and the appellate process. Precedent promotes stability and consistency, but appellate courts may reexamine prior decisions under appropriate constitutional and legal standards.

Justice Thurgood Marshall is widely respected for his commitment to equal justice under law, constitutional protections, and recognition that court decisions affect real people and communities in meaningful ways. To the extent comparisons are appropriate, there are aspects of my publicly known work and experience that reflect similar values, particularly the importance of fairness, dignity, access to justice, and careful attention to how legal systems impact ordinary people. My career has included military service, public defense leadership, child welfare and dependency work, family law, criminal law, administrative review, and service as a trial judge handling thousands of cases involving people from many different backgrounds and life circumstances. Those experiences have reinforced my belief that courts must remain independent, respectful, disciplined, and accessible to all who come before them. At the same time, judicial ethics require caution in comparing oneself too closely to any individual justice or signaling agreement with particular outcomes in cases that may relate to issues that could later come before the courts. My approach is grounded in fidelity to the Constitution, respect for precedent, careful review of the record, and impartial application of the law to the specific facts and legal issues presented in each case. If there is a meaningful point of alignment with Justice Marshall, it is likely in the understanding that the Constitution and the justice system must work not only as legal principles on paper, but also as protections that people can rely upon in their daily lives.

As a sitting judge and candidate for judicial office, I must avoid comments that could suggest a commitment regarding issues that may come before the courts. What I can say is that Obergefell v. Hodges reflects the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Court concluded that marriage is a fundamental liberty interest and that equal protection principles apply to same-sex couples. Other jurists and legal scholars have interpreted the constitutional text and history differently. Any future legal issue involving these constitutional protections would require careful analysis of the facts, governing law, and controlling precedent presented in the specific case.

A. When constitutional or statutory language is plain and controlling precedent is clear, courts should apply the law as written to the facts established in the record. Predictability and consistent application of the law are essential to public confidence in the judiciary and to the separation of powers. B. When text is ambiguous or does not directly resolve the issue presented, courts use established principles of interpretation and guidance from precedent. Depending on the issue, that analysis may include constitutional structure, statutory context, historical understanding, legislative intent, prior appellate decisions, and recognized canons of construction. The judicial task remains disciplined and grounded in the rule of law rather than personal policy preferences.

Judicial restraint generally means courts should decide only the issues necessary to resolve the case before them, apply the law within constitutional limits, and respect the separate roles of the legislative and executive branches. Judicial activism is a term often used when critics believe a court has gone beyond interpreting and applying the law and has instead substituted judicial judgment for policymaking. Those labels can mean different things to different people and are often influenced by whether someone agrees with the outcome of a case. My approach is grounded in careful review of the record, fidelity to the Constitution, respect for precedent, and disciplined application of the law to the facts presented. In my own work, judicial restraint has sometimes meant applying statutory or constitutional limits in emotionally difficult family, criminal, or dependency matters where the law or factual record did not support broader relief, even when the circumstances were compelling.

A judge’s role is to provide a fair and neutral process for resolving disputes and protecting constitutional rights. Courts must apply the law fairly, ensure due process, and issue decisions based on the facts, the record, and controlling law. My years on the trial bench have reinforced that judges must be prepared, independent, respectful, and committed to treating every person with dignity.

No—law and precedent.

Precedent promotes stability, consistency, and public confidence in the courts. At the same time, appellate courts may reexamine prior decisions under appropriate constitutional and legal standards. Any decision to revisit an earlier ruling requires careful legal analysis, attention to constitutional text and history, reliance interests, and the practical impact of changing the law. Judges must approach those questions with discipline and restraint.

The requirement that the State prove a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is one of the most important protections in our constitutional system. It reflects the seriousness of criminal prosecution and the lasting impact a conviction can have on a person’s liberty, family, employment, and future. That high burden of proof helps guard against wrongful convictions and reinforces the principle that every person is presumed innocent unless the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. At the same time, the justice system must also protect public safety, the rights of victims, and confidence in the fairness of the courts. My experience in criminal law, both as a defense attorney and as a judge, has reinforced the importance of careful fact-finding, due process, and faithful application of constitutional protections for all parties involved.

In Washington, judges play an important role in reviewing wrongful conviction claims through the procedures authorized by law. Depending on the case, review may occur through direct appeal, CrR 7.8 motions, personal restraint petitions under RAP 16.4, or post-conviction DNA procedures under chapter 10.73 RCW. The court’s responsibility is to evaluate the record, constitutional claims, newly discovered evidence, credibility issues, and whether legal error affected the fairness or reliability of the conviction. If relief is warranted under governing law and precedent, courts may order remedies authorized by law, including a new trial, resentencing, dismissal, or other corrective action. These matters require careful review grounded in due process, constitutional protections, and the integrity of the judicial system.

My understanding is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, as recognized in Heller and Bruen. Article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution also protects the right to bear arms in defense of self or the state. At the same time, federal and Washington law recognize that firearm rights may be subject to lawful restrictions consistent with constitutional standards and public safety protections.

Under the United States and Washington Constitutions, no branch of government was meant to have unchecked power. Our system uses separation of powers and checks and balances. The legislature makes laws, the executive carries them out, and the courts interpret and apply the law in cases before them. This structure helps protect constitutional rights and prevents too much power from being held by any one branch.