Judicial Questionnaire – 2026 Revision
Candidate Info
Candidate Name: Ian Birk
Position Sought: WA State Supreme Court, Position 4
Are you an incumbent for this position? Non-incumbent
Home Legislative District: 36th
Campaign Info
Campaign Manager or Point of Contact: Erin Schultz
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 currently a Judge at the Washington State Court of Appeals. I have served as a judge in all three divisions of the state Court of Appeals statewide (Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane) and I have authored over 200 appellate opinions.
I have been endorsed for the Supreme Court by a majority of the current Supreme Court, and 32 current and former fellow appellate judges at the Court of Appeals elected from all 39 counties in Washington. I have also been endorsed by King County Democrats, Snohomish County Democrats, Indivisible Tacoma, the Washington State Labor Council, the Aerospace Machinists, the ATU transit union, the Washington Education Association, and Democrats in legislative districts 1, 5, 11, 21, 28, 32, 33, 36, 45, 46, 47, and 48.
Before being appointed to the Court of Appeals, I was a lawyer for 20 years representing primarily individuals and small businesses taking on more powerful interests in court, in insurance denials, workplace discrimination, and consumer protection cases. I handled cases all across Washington, in both state court and federal court.
A consistent thread throughout my career has been a commitment to expanding access to justice. For more than a decade, I volunteered with neighborhood legal clinics in King County, assisting individuals facing urgent legal issues such as housing disputes, consumer debt, and financial insecurity. Many of the people I worked with were navigating the legal system without representation, often at moments of significant personal stress. That work reinforced for me how difficult it can be for people to access justice in practice, even when the law is on their side.
These experiences continue to inform how I approach my work on the bench, particularly my focus on clarity, fairness, and respect for all participants in the legal process.
I received both my Bachelors of Arts and JD from the University of Washington. I am an active member of the Washington State Bar Association and the King County Bar Association. I am also currently a member of the Washington Courts Historical Society. I was educated exclusively in Washington public schools.
2. What prompted you to run for this office?
The first thing that made me run was some very strong support from colleagues at the Court of Appeals. At appellate courts, like my court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court as well, we decide cases in panels of judges. This means we closely examine one another’s work on the cases where we sit together. Some of my colleagues at the Court of Appeals expressed very strongly that because of the quality of my work, I should be putting in for the Supreme Court.
That was a critical starting point, because I already love the work we do at the Court of Appeals. At the appellate level, we decided individual cases that come to us, but we are also obligated to explain why a case comes out the way it does. The explanation we give becomes Washington law going forward–court decisions in this way form the “common law”–for the next cases that come to the court and for all of us who live in this state. Our responsibility is to write careful decisions that are both fair and true to the parties in that case and workable going forward. This requires that we fairly and accurately determine Washington law in each individual case, but also that we think carefully and meaningfully about ensuring that our decision will be fair in that case and will produce fair outcomes in future cases.
As a lawyer for 20 years, my background was in representing individual people, from all walks of American society, who needed the court system to serve as their last backstop against catastrophe, whether because their house had had a fire or been flooded, they had a disability or medical expenses, or had lost or faced losing their job. This is a key experience and key voice I bring to the appellate conference room, when we are deciding cases and writing court decisions that will impact people’s ability to come to court when they need to.
3. What do you believe are the most important qualifications for a judge or justice?
I believe that a judge or justice’s most important qualification is sound judgment grounded in the rule of law. That means the ability to set aside personal views and decide cases based on the constitution, statutes, and controlling precedent, even when the result is difficult or unpopular.
Equally essential is the ability to maintain a sound judicial temperament. To me, this means approaching each case with patience, humility, and the discipline to listen carefully before reaching conclusions. A justice has to be willing to engage respectfully with parties, attorneys, and colleagues, and to recognize the limits of the court’s role in a democratic system.
Integrity and independence are also essential. Integrity means consistency, honesty in reasoning, and transparency about how decisions are reached. Independence means not being swayed by political pressure, public opinion, or special interests when they conflict with the law.
Finally, at an appellate court, a judge must be open to hearing different points of view, from the parties but also from the other judges on the panel. This is essential when the decision affects not just one case, but future cases that will come before the courts.
4. What priorities are you seeking to address with your campaign?
Throughout my campaign, I have focused on judicial independence, equal access to justice, fairness and respect for the law, integrity and accountability, a commitment to excellence, and understanding that my decisions have real-world impacts.
5. What is the code of conduct for your campaign?
Attaching a link with the code of conduct for my campaign here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qM26nBhh8GlU13xP3v8-0Zr–PjkY-vh/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=111214652686758270143&rtpof=true&sd=true
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?
During my time as an attorney, I worked with many clients who faced the realities of the barriers that our Justice system fails to address. My primary practice area during my time as an attorney was insurance law. I represented policyholders seeking coverage across all lines of coverage, including coverage for home fires and floods, coverage for disability and life insurance, coverage for medical expenses, and coverage under liability policies where I represented people who were being sued and their insurance company was not defending them. With this type of practice, I represented the entire spectrum of American society. Many of my clients were entirely new to the American legal system. Many faced barriers to being heard in our adversarial system of justice. Our system responds more effectively to some kinds of voices, even though every person is entitled to the same justice. Much of my work as an attorney was to help my clients navigate rules that were often written without the input of many segments of our society.
These barriers are one of the reasons I applied to be a judge in the first place. Our judges need to understand the costs of our system, how they fall on the parties, and how they block access to the courts. We need to keep cost in mind when writing and compiling court rules that, if not carefully implemented, can increase cost in ways that can offset the efficiency the rule sought to promote. Judges also need to understand the economics of the law when applying legislation meant to offset costs, such as when addressing prevailing party fee shifting rules in public interest, consumer protection, and civil rights cases–recognizing that the point of fee shifting is to defray the cost of vindicating rights of public importance. Other strategies include making pro bono opportunities available and more easily pursued by willing lawyers, and finally promoting civil legal aid, such as the recent creation of a right to counsel in eviction cases.
This should all be done with awareness of inequalities in the abilities of people from different walks of society to access lawyers and the justice system. As a lawyer, I commonly observed that persons of color and women were required to put in more or longer effort to achieve fair outcomes.
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?
Although Washington does not rely solely on court fees to run its judicial system, local level courts continue to rely on these fees. This is of concern because courts relying on revenue from fees and fines can lead to both concerns of lack of impartiality and also an underfunded system. Equal access to justice is then at risk, depending on where someone lives and how well-funded their county or municipality is. It can also place a disproportionate burden on people who are already struggling financially, turning interaction with the justice system into long-term debt for some individuals. Ultimately, the third branch of government is a fundamental government service, and ideally would be funded primarily and sufficiently at the state level.
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 restorative justice initiatives throughout Washington courts. In many cases restorative justice can better target root causes of harmful behavior than the traditional criminal law model. When implemented well, restorative justice can make communities safer at lower cost than the traditional approach. At the Supreme Court, the court must support and facilitate restorative justice at the trial level. This means support trial court initiatives, ensuring that the court rules leave flexibility, and supporting restorative justice at the institutional level to ensure funding and legislative support.
4. What ideas can you offer to make our judicial system more open, transparent, and responsive?
The first thing is for judges to always “show their work,” whether during trial court proceedings or in appellate decisions. At the Court of Appeals, every decision I write is reviewed by my Judicial Administrative Assistant, a non-lawyer who reads from a lay perspective. (The title understates the importance of this position to our ability to produce high quality work.) We regularly work to make our decisions as understandable to as many people as we can.
Court rules are especially intimidating to people trying to navigate our system. Our rules are designed with good intentions, but they have ended up being very complex. One problem is just their language. The legal profession notoriously codes simple concepts in unusual language.
One thing that has come up while campaigning is that our practice of assigning cases new case numbers when they go on appeal to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court makes it difficult for the public to track cases as they move through the system.
Judges can push back. As a small example, there is a well-settled rule on appeal that when a trial judge has made “findings of fact,” they will be accepted as true if they are not specifically challenged. The case law says they are treated as “verities.” I have never heard the word “verities” in any other situation in my life, so my opinions all just say they are accepted as true. This is a small example of a way in which we can just explain what we are doing instead of hiding it behind legal jargon.
Civic education is important too. Sometimes the courts are misunderstood. For example, appellate courts discuss cases in private before issuing a public ruling. Although that seems to be secretive, it is designed to serve the goal of transparency, because it ensures that the court’s ruling in the written decision is equally available to everyone.
Supporting ease-of-use rules, simplified procedures for certain cases (for instance King County’s informal trial program for certain dissolution cases), and interpreter services are all essential to improving access.
5. What are your thoughts on how our courts could permanently incorporate virtual options for court hearings?
Virtual court hearings should remain part of Washington’s court system, but not as a universal replacement for in-person proceedings. The pandemic showed that remote hearings can increase access in meaningful ways, reducing travel burdens, helping people who cannot miss work or secure childcare, and allowing faster handling of matters.
That said, virtual proceedings are not equally appropriate for every type of case. Hearings involving witness credibility, contested facts, or serious criminal charges often benefit from in-person presence, where judges can better assess demeanor and parties can fully participate with counsel. There are also equity concerns: not everyone and not every area of the state has equally reliable internet access, private space, or the technology needed to participate effectively.
What is important, however, is to recognize that virtual options often allow people to participate in the justice system at much less cost. The Supreme Court should support flexibility at the trial level, and encourage virtual options when they can reduce burdens and adequately serve the needs of the matter.
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?
On the criminal side, scaling up overburdened public defenders would allow cases to be processed more efficiently and ready for trial sooner. One challenge is simply the availability of digital evidence, which can add a significant amount to trial preparation time. Notably, this is true for both public defense and for county prosecutors.
On the civil side, the issues are a little different. The most difficult issue is the risk of a case that is ready to be tried not getting to trial because there is not an available judge. This adds a lot of expense when trials get reset and witnesses need to be rescheduled.
For both of the above, there is a balance between the most efficient use of public resources, and a flexible system that can reliably schedule counsel and a judge together to try a case that is ready. The Supreme Court must play a collaborative role with the legislature in overall court funding needs.
In a growing economy, we will inevitably need to also scale up our court resources (judge, prosecution, defense) to meet demand. At the same time, diversion solutions focus on building a more efficient system: expanding alternative dispute resolution and restorative justice options, simplifying court processes where possible, and modernizing rules that slow cases unnecessarily.
Finally, one thing we can do is simply issue timely decisions. This requires an appellate judge to always stay on top of their writing assignments. I have been timely with my opinions at the Court of Appeals.
7. What judicial reforms do you support to achieve greater equity and inclusion for BIPOC individuals in our communities?
Achieving greater equity and inclusion in the justice system starts with recognizing that disparities are often built into the structure and process of the justice system, not just individual outcomes resulting in inequitable application of the law. Reform has to focus on reducing those structural barriers while maintaining fairness and due process for everyone.
Educating judges is key. There is a long history of legalized inequality in the United States. It is vital that judges understand this and be willing to listen fairly in cases when that legacy may bear on the case.
We also can improve jury participation. A recent pilot project in Pierce County increased juror pay from the current standard (from decades ago) of $10 per day to $100 per day. That significantly helped more people participate who otherwise could not because of loss of time at work or because of child care.
We can also bring more populations into jury service. Washington courts have adopted General Rule 37, which limits the ability to excuse jurors from service based on race or ethnicity. That rule works well, but it only limits who is going out of the jury pool, and doesn’t address who is able to serve in the first place. Both expanding who is asked to serve on juries and fairly covering the economic burden of doing so would make our juries and therefore our justice more reflective of the views of the community our system serves.
Helping our justice system become one that does not discriminate in outcome and treatment against historically marginalized persons is one of our most important priorities. It requires judges who are committed to eliminating bias in the work of the courts.
By typing my name below, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Printed Name: Ian S. Birk
Date: 05/23/2026
