Judicial Questionnaire – 2026 Revision
Candidate Info
Candidate Name: Judge Sean O'Donnell
Position Sought: Supreme Court, position 4
Are you an incumbent for this position? Non-incumbent
Home Legislative District: 32nd
Campaign Info
Campaign Manager or Point of Contact: Kathy Moffett McDonald, Campaign Manager
List social media sites: https://www.odonnellforjustice.com/; https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=judge%20sean%20p.%20o%27donnell
Part I – Candidate Background
1. Please describe your qualifications, education, employment, past community and civic activity, as well as any other relevant experience.
I have spent my career in public service across all three branches of government. I earned my undergraduate degree from Georgetown University and my law degree from Seattle University School of Law. I began my legal career as a King County prosecutor where for over a decade I handled serious felony cases, including homicide, domestic violence, and human trafficking. I also served as a Special Assistant United States Attorney.
For the past 13 years, I have served as a King County Superior Court Judge, presiding over criminal, civil, family law, and dependency matters. I have held significant court leadership roles, including president of the Superior Court Judges’ Association, Chief Judge of King County’s Unified Family Court, Chief Criminal Judge, King County’s Special Inquiry Judge, and co-chair of the Court’s budget committee. I have also taught as an adjunct professor at Seattle University School of Law.
During my time on the bench, I have worked on numerous, complex and difficult, cases that I am proud of but I want to share just two that I believe demonstrate my values.
First, was the Montesi case, which involved a Second Amendment challenge to Washington’s weapons surrender statute. My ruling upheld the Constitutionality of the statute. I worked closely with King County Council, the Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Enforcement Unit in the King County Prosecutor’s Office, court staff, City Attorneys and other judges to prioritize hearings to confirm that people prohibited from having firearms actually surrendered them. Most counties across Washington stopped holding these hearings – but I kept King County’s court open to them. Our protection order court has helped to remove hundreds if not thousands of guns and kept our communities safer as a result.
Second, was the Bleakney case which dealt with a nurse manager at Providence Hospital. The plaintiff claimed the hospital retaliated against her when she advocated for her direct reports (who were union members) to be paid more by management. I ruled that Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunity Act was not superseded by federal law. This is likely a case of first impression in Washington, meaning other courts have not directly considered this issue. The jury found that the hospital had retaliated against the nurse manager and awarded her millions of dollars in damages.
I have helped lead the branch and legal profession in dealing with Artificial Intelligence in the justice system. I firmly believe that A.I. must never replace human judgment. I think this is an essential commitment for any judicial officer to make and I will make it here.
I also believe that it is imperative that lawyers and judges understand A.I., its inherent biases, and the risks it presents when lawyers rely on it for analysis. Concurrently, there may be potential for A.I. to help the judiciary, such as language access. The branch cannot ignore this technology, but must take prudent steps, in education and with sharing guiding principles on its proper use, to help navigate it
2. What prompted you to run for this office?
With five supreme court justices on the ballot this year, we are at an unprecedented inflection point. I believe my experience on the bench, deep knowledge of court operations, and history of meaningful collaboration will serve the Court well. Our State Supreme Court is strongest when it reflects a diversity of voices and experiences. I believe institutions are strengthened over time through thoughtful continuity, growth, and the inclusion of new perspectives.
The values I will bring to this job are simple ones — compassion, fairness, independence, and honesty. My judicial philosophy is rooted in these values. A faithful interpretation of the law also includes appreciating its effect on people, families, and communities.
My framework for legal decision-making is similarly straightforward: I begin with the Constitution, the laws enacted by the Legislature, and the legal precedent that guides the Court in resolving cases and controversies.
Supreme Court justices’ decisions and their rule-making authority have a profound impact on our state and its residents. They protect our civil liberties. They determine how crime victims are treated. They influence how public safety and public budgets are balanced. And they weigh in on how new reforms, like video jury selection and emerging technologies, shape the delivery of justice.
I believe I can make a difference in all these issues — and in the lives of the citizens of our state.
I am proud of the judicial reforms I have helped lead. Among them:
Firearms and Protection Orders: As Chief Family Law Judge, I oversaw the creation of a protection order court that has resulted in thousands of guns taken off the streets. The Court of Appeals upheld my ruling on the Montesi case (noted above), which affirmed the Constitutionality of Washington’s weapons surrender statute.
Public Safety Leadership: I have brought attention to the issue of public defender case load standards, advocated for more respect for crime victims' treatment by the judiciary, and have spoken out when elected leaders miss the mark on juvenile justice. I have cautioned that proposed court rules impacting community safety need more public awareness, engagement, and discussion. And I have pushed to improve pre-trial release decisions in criminal cases, including obtaining legislative funding for a text reminder program to reduce the number of warrants issued for pre-trial failures to appear, to save tax dollars and create a more humane approach to criminal justice.
Courts of the Future: I helped pioneer all-remote video jury selection during the pandemic, and because of the benefits to jurors and the overall court system, I advocated for a permanent rule after the pandemic. Today, I serve on both the State Bar Association’s and the Supreme Court’s AI. Task Forces, exploring ethical and practical applications of AI to improve access to justice and AI’s implications on the legal profession.
Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure that all parties are treated with dignity and respect. These are among the reasons I am ready to bring my experience, judgment, and independence to the State’s highest court.
3. What do you believe are the most important qualifications for a judge or justice?
The qualities most important for a justice are impartiality, fairness, a commitment to the rule of law, and a deep appreciation that peoples’ lives are impacted by the decisions they make. A justice should also be disciplined in their writing, humble enough to know that their colleagues’ may have much better answers than they do, and a willingness to collaborate so that the decisions the court reaches are practical and understandable to lawyers and the public
4. What priorities are you seeking to address with your campaign?
First and foremost, I want to make Washington safer and more just for all, and protect the rights of everyone who calls this State home. My goals are simple:
Upholding our State Constitution which guarantees our civil rights, individual freedoms, and our fundamental democratic rights.
Putting the needs of victims at the center of our justice system and ensuring everyone has access to justice regardless of economic status, gender, race, disability, or language.
Embracing the strongest standards of transparency, ethical conduct, and independence in our judiciary.
Keeping all Washingtonians safe and free from violence, harassment, or discrimination.
5. What is the code of conduct for your campaign?
Campaign Code of Conduct | O'Donnell for Justice (see our website)
Our Values: The O’Donnell for Justice campaign is grounded in fairness, integrity, respect, and commitment to the rule of law. Every interaction should reflect the professionalism expected of a Washington State Supreme Court Justice.
Code of Conduct
All staff, volunteers, and supporters represent this campaign. Conduct—both internal and public—reflects directly on Judge O’Donnell.
I. Respectful Conduct & Anti-Harassment Policy: Harassment will not be tolerated, including offensive comments, unwelcome physical contact, stalking, disruption, or unwanted attention.
II. Reporting & Accountability: Concerns should be reported to the Campaign Manager or a senior team member. Reports will be handled promptly and confidentially.
III. Resolution Process: Possible outcomes include no action, coaching, removal from activities, or removal from the campaign.
IV. Documentation: Concerns may be documented to ensure consistency and accountability. Records will be kept confidential.
V. Commitment: We are building a campaign that reflects the dignity of the court Judge O’Donnell seeks to serve.
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?
Some of the work of which I am most proud has involved advocating for more funding for interpreters, with a particular focus on rural courts (whose budgets are often limited). Without language access, access to justice is at risk. I will continue to champion language access and would use the elevated role of a Supreme Court Justice to expand this message.
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?
Washington is a non-unified Court system for its trial courts. Funding flows from the jurisdiction in which the particular court sits. How a jurisdiction funds its courts depends on the political leadership in that jurisdiction.
I believe that there are some basic features of court operations that should either be fully funded by the State or covered through something like a block or grant supplemental (e.g., interpreter funding). But, not all courts and jurisdictions are carbon copies of each other. A large county, like King, has many different needs than a rural jurisdiction, like Columbia or Asotin counties. The size of the courthouse, the number of people, the number of cases – these can all shape how courts are structured. I do not support eliminating entirely local funding (at least not now, when the State has not shown great interest in funding essential needs, like courthouse security).
Washington is better than some jurisdictions when it comes to court fees, and in fact has reduced many court fees within the last decade. I have led the Superior Court Judges’ Association in its support of reducing legal financial obligations (LFOs) for people convicted of crimes. I still support this (excluding victim restitution) and would support further investigation of reducing financial costs to indigent defendants.
On the civil side of things, there are mechanisms for litigants to ask that their filing fees be waived, once they prove they cannot afford them. This process could use more attention and streamlining.
3. Would you, if elected, bring restorative justice as a goal to your court room? If yes, describe how that could look.
Yes. I support alternatives to criminal prosecution, such as drug courts, mental health courts, diversion programs, etc that are evidence-based and reduce recidivism. Restorative justice not only protects people’s rights but it is often more effective at keeping our communities safe. At the same time, victims are asked to relive their trauma and undergo significant burdens in the pursuit of justice. We have to ensure that victims and their needs are at the heart of our court system. Our courts should start by asking what victims want and need to feel safe, and from there we can find the right balance between compassion, empathy, and safety.
4. What ideas can you offer to make our judicial system more open, transparent, and responsive?
I believe transparent and accessible courts are foundational to our democracy. As a judge, I seek to make my court more open, transparent, and responsive by regularly meeting with community and student groups, engaging transparently with the press, and actively seeking out opportunities to share the mission and work of our court. Furthermore, a key priority of mine as a justice would be improving access to justice for all Washingtonians. That means expanding interpreters programs, embracing technology to lower the barriers in our courts and more. It also means regularly engaging with and supporting community-based organizations that help people access justice.
Furthermore, I believe the Supreme Court needs to carefully examine how it passes court rules. These rules are important and have significant impact on operations, public safety, city and county budgets, access to court records and more. Our Court, when passing rules, sits in what it describes as a “quasi-legislative” capacity. The rules it passes carry the full weight of law. Currently, only justices sit on the Rules Committee.
Rules Committee meetings should be live streamed on TVW. Who contacts a justice about a rule should be documented, just like legislators must disclose who has lobbied them about a law. While proposed rules are currently made public for comment, when the Court passes a rule it rarely if ever issues a memorandum explaining its reasons for adopting the rule.
A better model for rule making is the California Judicial Council which includes not only justices but other judicial officers at the appeals and trial court levels, as well as respected attorneys, and members of the legislature. If I am elected, I plan to focus on improving this aspect of court governance.
5. What are your thoughts on how our courts could permanently incorporate virtual options for court hearings?
I am proud to have helped draft the rule that instituted virtual jury selection, hearings and witness testimony in King county and in courts throughout Washington. This is the future and the Courts need to embrace this technology. I tried the very first all remote jury trial in the nation and since then have had dozens of juries selected over Zoom. It works. And, anecdotally at least, I believe it increases the diversity of our jury pools. The software is not quite ideal for courtroom settings, and there is room for interface improvements, but I believe it is only a matter of time before more courts in Washington adopt it. This is immensely convenient for jurors. They can spend 90 minutes in jury selection instead of two days and they avoid all of the health risks associated with being in a room of 200 strangers.
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?
The speedy trial rule, in criminal cases, needs to be reassessed. The average time for resolution of a homicide case in King County is too long (it can take two to three years). This is unacceptable for crime victims’ families and unacceptable to the accused. This is a multi-layered issue, involving the number of lawyers who can defend and prosecute these cases, the type of evidence that is present today in criminal cases, and the time it actually takes to prepare. Courts can hold lawyers to schedules, within reason. But one thing the Supreme Court should do is to bring justice system partners together and evaluate the unrealistic current speedy trial timelines (60 days to trial for an in custody defendant and 90 days for an out of custody defendant). It is unpopular in legal circles to suggest this but it is a fallacy that these time limits are realistic.
7. What judicial reforms do you support to achieve greater equity and inclusion for BIPOC individuals in our communities?
Our courts must work hard to mitigate systemic bias, simplify legal processes, diversify the legal profession and bench, and ensure BIPOC communities have a voice during reform efforts. That starts by requiring bias training for court staff and judicial officers, expanding legal aid funding, ensuring translators are available for people who don’t speak English, and analyzing new digital tools that help reduce inequalities. One example of this for which I advocated was the use of texting reminders for defendants required to appear in court. Something so simple should reduce the number of warrants that issue for people failing to appear in court. This has the potential to reduce what can be high risk interactions between police and people who have warrants and more importantly, can help reduce unnecessary incarceration when people await trial.
By typing my name below, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Printed Name: Judge Sean P. O'Donnell
Date: 04/01/2026
