Judicial Questionnaire – 2026 Revision
Candidate Info
Candidate Name: Heather Barker
Position Sought: King County District Court Judge – SE District – Pos. 5
Are you an incumbent for this position? Non-incumbent
Home Legislative District: 5
Campaign Info
Campaign Manager or Point of Contact: Mary Ann Ottinger
List social media sites:
Part I – Candidate Background
1. Please describe your qualifications, education, employment, past community and civic activity, as well as any other relevant experience.
I am a small business owner, attorney, and Judge Pro Tem dedicated to building healthy communities. Since 2016, I’ve owned Northwest Community Law, representing owners in association disputes. Condominiums are often an entry point to ownership. Effective legal representation can protect an owner’s largest financial investment while maintaining important neighbor relationships.
Since 2022, I’ve served as a Judge Pro Tem in King County District Court—covering all calendars in criminal, civil, mental health, and veterans’ courts. My commitment to community building makes serving as a Judge Pro Tem in King County District Court a natural fit—being a community focused court designed to reduce recidivism through rehabilitation and efficiently resolving civil disputes.
Before founding my firm, I practiced law at Condominium Law Group and worked in community association management and residential development. I earned my Juris Doctor from Seattle University School of Law and hold a Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Cultural Anthropology, focused on community structures.
By way of professional community service, I’ve volunteered with Washington First Responder Will Clinic, since 2014, drafting estate planning documents for our first responders. I’ve presided over the YMCA Mock Trials from 2024 – 2026. I served on the King County Bar Association Judicial Candidate Evaluation Committee, co-chairing the committee from 2022-2024, and am a current member of the Mother Attorney Member Association and Washington Women Lawyer organizations. Personally,
I volunteered with ISC Gunners & LFCIA as a soccer team manager from 2022-2024 and was co-president of the Children’s Garden Pre-School from 2019-2021.
2. What prompted you to run for this office?
The Southeast District of King County District Court serves the community I call home. I was raised in Kent and now raise my family in Renton.
I care deeply about the fair administration of the law, and also about my community. An office in King County District Court, a court of limited jurisdiction, allows me to connect the two. Through my nearly four years serving the KCDC as a Judge Pro Tem—presiding over both civil and criminal calendars, including first-appearance felony hearings, as well as Veterans and Mental Health Courts—I have seen that fair and thoughtful administration of justice strengthens communities—not only for those who participate in the legal system, but for the community as a whole.
3. What do you believe are the most important qualifications for a judge or justice?
Judicial temperament is the most important qualification. KCDC serves many civil pro se litigants and criminal defendants who are often navigating significant life challenges, including indigence, homelessness, substance use disorders, and mental health issues. Circumstances that may seem routine in other courts—such as service of process, requesting a continuance, or simply appearing for a hearing—can be substantial barriers for parties in this court.
KCDC judges must consistently remember and embrace the court’s dual role: as a civil court, to provide efficient and accessible relief, and as a criminal court, to promote accountability and restoration, while keeping our community safe. Achieving these goals requires patience, thoughtfulness, and compassionate understanding.
Substantial KCDC Judge Pro Tem experience is a second important qualification. A judge’s first day in office should not be his or her first time on the bench. KCDC excels in mentoring pro tem judges and preparing them to serve across all calendars. When I began my KCDC pro tem service nearly four years ago, I covered only civil calendars. Through mentorship and experience, I now cover every KCDC calendar, have built strong working relationships throughout the court, and am confident I can step into this role fully prepared and effective from day one.
4. What priorities are you seeking to address with your campaign?
My three top priorities as a judge on King County District Court will be, to:
Work hard. King County District Court is a hard-working court with heavy caseloads. Nearly 30% of our judges will retire this year. The Court deserves a judge who can hit the ground running, cover all calendars without additional training, bring established relationships within the Court, and step in wherever needed from day one.
Champion pre- and post-conviction rehabilitative services that address substance use disorders, mental health conditions, and homelessness, which are often root causes of misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases in King County District Court.
Serve as a resource to the Court regarding emerging AI developments and their implications for our justice system, from ethical considerations to evidentiary issues such as authenticity and compliance with the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause if a report generated by AI is deemed to constitute a declarant statement.
5. What is the code of conduct for your campaign?
Washington’s Code of Judicial Conduct: https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=ga&set=CJC
Part II – Access to Justice
1. If elected, how will you work to improve access to justice, particularly for communities and constituencies that do not understand the American legal system?
Access to justice remains a significant barrier for working-class litigants. Cost, time, and complexity often prevent meaningful participation. Filing fees, fines, transportation, and lost wages can be prohibitive. Hearings during standard work hours may jeopardize employment. Complex procedures and limited legal guidance can result in missed deadlines or default judgments.
When courts do not account for these realities, inequities deepen. A fair justice system must remain attentive to these barriers and ensure that legal processes are accessible, understandable, and workable for the communities we serve—especially, in a court of limited jurisdiction like KCDC, which is community focused.
2. Is Washington relying too much on court fees to cover the cost of operating our judicial system? How do you believe our courts should be funded?
Yes. Washington relies too heavily on court fees to fund the operation of our judicial system. Courts are one of our most important government functions and should be funded the same way we fund public safety, education, and infrastructure.
A “pay to play” justice system is inherently inequitable. When operational costs are shifted onto litigants through filing fees, fines, and other assessments, the burden falls most heavily on those already facing financial hardship.
While courts do have the authority to waive nonmandatory legal financial obligations and, in some cases, shift certain costs, such as probation service fees and electronic home monitoring, to the prosecuting governmental entity for indigent defendants to ensure that legal sanctions for noncompliance are not the result of financial status, we can do more.
In King County District Court, which emphasizes rehabilitation and community-based responses, this issue is particularly important. If we are serious about reducing recidivism and promoting stability, the state should invest directly in treatment infrastructure and supportive services, which would be supported through supported through public funding, as oppose to the ability of litigants to pay.
3. Would you, if elected, bring restorative justice as a goal to your court room? If yes, describe how that could look.
King County District Court should continue strengthening its rehabilitative focus in criminal matters. Many participants face substance use disorders, mental health challenges, and housing instability. Navigating court requirements while managing these realities can destabilize employment and family life, increasing the risk of repeat involvement.
KCDC is uniquely positioned to respond because it has legislative authority to order treatment and restorative interventions rather than defaulting to mandatory jail sentences common in felony courts. Timely access to treatment, mental health services, and community support is critical. When there is a gap between a person’s readiness for change and available services, rehabilitation falters and recidivism rises.
Investing in coordinated services and early intervention promotes accountability while helping individuals achieve stability, which strengthens the community as a whole.
4. What ideas can you offer to make our judicial system more open, transparent, and responsive?
Washington courts have made meaningful progress in accessibility and transparency in recent years, including the expansion of remote appearances and the use of online portals for accessing court filings.
Another important step toward greater openness would be improving public access to audio and transcripts of hearings. In King County District Court, hearing recordings are currently available upon request and payment, and are typically provided on a CD. While this technically provides access, it is not particularly user friendly and can create practical barriers for litigants, journalists, and members of the public.
The Court could enhance transparency by securely linking audio recordings directly to the electronic case file, allowing authorized access through the existing online portal. Easier access to hearing records would promote accountability, improve public understanding of court proceedings, and allow litigants to more accurately review what occurred in their cases. It would also support appellate review and reduce disputes about what was said in court.
Transparency strengthens trust. When court proceedings are more readily accessible and understandable, the public can better see that decisions are grounded in law, fairness, and due process.
5. What are your thoughts on how our courts could permanently incorporate virtual options for court hearings?
King County District Court embraced virtual hearings during the COVID pandemic and continues to use remote appearances for many calendars. Over the past several years, the Court has gained valuable insight into when virtual participation is appropriate. It is not suitable for every proceeding, such as warrant quash or sentence compliance hearings where a defendant may be remanded. However, it is particularly well suited for matters like protection order hearings, where a petitioner may feel unsafe sharing a courtroom with the respondent.
Currently, judges log into Zoom for each calendar, but a party must get approval before appearing virtually. So, virtual attendance is judge dependent rather than presumed.
To permanently incorporate virtual access, the Court could adopt a local rule that presumes virtual appearances for designated hearings absent a finding of good cause to require in-person attendance. Such a rule could be modeled after CRRLJ 3.4, which allows a defendant to waive personal appearance for certain hearings when counsel can proceed on their behalf. Like that rule, a presumption of limited virtual access would reduce procedural, financial, and logistical barriers while preserving judicial discretion where necessary.
6. Justice delayed is justice denied, what are your thoughts on how to catch up on the current backlog of cases awaiting trail? Additionally what changes to the current court system would you implement to ensure speedy justice?
In King County District Court, small claims cases currently face a significant trial backlog. The causes are both internal and external, but the most substantial delays are due to cases stuck in pre-trial status because of the complexity of service of process.
The Court responded thoughtfully to the COVID-related backlog by hiring a commissioner dedicated to addressing delayed small claims matters. Today, however, many cases stall in the pretrial phase because service cannot be accomplished. Attorneys are not permitted to appear in small claims court unless specifically authorized, which preserves a level playing ground and reduces costs for all parties; however, it leaves plaintiffs without needed support to navigate a complicated service system.
King County District Court has attempted to assist by filming educational videos and making them available through the King County Law Library. However, the issue persists.
One practical reform would be legislative authorization of limited electronic service in small claims cases. This would ease the burden on pro se litigants while still safeguarding defendants’ due process rights. We have already seen similar service methods authorized and be effective in protection order matters, where petitioners are also frequently self-represented.
King County District Court small claims service plays a critical role in ensuring meaningful access to justice, particularly for individuals who would otherwise be priced out of civil litigation. Addressing the complicated service issues would provide more speedy justice to our community members with disputes under $10,000.
7. What judicial reforms do you support to achieve greater equity and inclusion for BIPOC individuals in our communities?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reminded us of our responsibility to expand the promise of equality in our US Constitution Preamble to the marginalized groups of society that were originally left out of it, when she urged us to “play your part in helping to achieve a more perfect union.” Our courts must do nothing less.
BIPOC individuals remain overrepresented as defendants in the criminal legal system and underrepresented by way of employment. No single rule or practice can fully undo decades of policies intertwined with historic discrimination and structural inequality. But our courts have both the authority and the obligation to address disparities within it.
Courts must lead the way with a wholistic judicial reform that achieves greater equality and inclusion for our BIPOC individuals in our community.
To address overrepresentation in the courtroom, I support meaningful bail and pretrial reform that prioritized release for low-risk defendants. I support eliminating unnecessary financial barriers and considering ability to pay before imposing financial conditions. I support rehabilitation and therapeutic court expansion that provides services when individuals are ready to accept help for underlying issues, such as substance use disorders and mental health issues. Finally, I support strengthening language access and improving plain language court materials, and always being cognizant of other access to justice barriers.
To address underrepresentation in court employments, we as the court must embrace diversity as the richness of our differences. Here, I support developing inclusion strategies—not just the act of inclusion but by having people feel included—to both retain the diversity we already have within our legal profession and encourage underrepresented groups to join our legal profession.
By typing my name below, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Printed Name: Heather Barker
Date: 03/03/2026
