Judicial Questionnaire 2022
Candidate Info
Candidate Name: Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud
Position Sought: Washington Supreme Court Justice – Pos. 9
Are you an incumbent for this position? Incumbent
Home Legislative District: 23
Campaign Info
Campaign Manager or Point of Contact: Mary Ann Ottinger
Website https://justicesherylmccloud.org/
Facebook
Twitter
Part I – Candidate Background
1. Please describe your qualifications, education, employment, past community and civic activity, as well as any other relevant experience.
I was elected to the Washington Supreme Court – my first try at any kind of elective office – after winning a contested race in 2012. I was reelected in 2018. My goal in 2012 was to tell the entire state that constitutional and individual rights matter, and that I had spent a career of making sure that they matter. My goal now is to tell the entire state about my court track record on these issues in individual cases, in my court committee and administrative work, and in my community outreach.
Before I ran – I was a lawyer representing people in all parts of the state, first at trial and then on appeal, mainly on criminal justice issues. I had graduated from State University of New York at Buffalo in 1976; I spent five years in the work force, eventually becoming a legal secretary; and then I graduated from University of Southern California Gould School of Law in 1984. From there I was fortunate enough to spend a year clerking for Hon Warren J. Ferguson, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. I then joined a large law firm in California. Within a year, though, I switched to public defense. I got a job at the Seattle-King County Public Defender Association and honed my trial and public speaking skills for several years. In 1989, I hung out my own shingle: I started my own law firm as a solo practitioner. For the next almost 25 years, I took on trial and appellate matters in state and federal court along with pro bono matters for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, ACLU, and other groups. Eventually, I also began teaching part-time as an Adjunct Prof. at Seattle U Law School.
After I became a member of the Court – I focused on decisions in individual cases; court committee work, especially as co-chair of the Gender & Justice Commission; as my court’s liaison to the Council on Public Defense of the Washington State Bar Association; and as a long time member of our court’s Rules Committee. I am also our court’s liaison to the Washington Pattern Instructions Committee, which is responsible for the jury instructions available to trial courts across the state. I speak regularly at legal and community events.
Here is a fairly complete list of the legal and judicial organizations of which I have been a member or leader over the years, from my time on the court working backwards:
2017- Present, Co-Chair, Washington Supreme Court Gender & Justice Commission
2012-Present, WSBA Council on Public Defense, Washington Supreme Court liaison
2015-Present, Washington Supreme Court Rules Committee member
2013-Present, National Association of Women Judges – member, 2013 – present, 2016 – National Annual Conference Co-Chair – “Faces of Justice”
2007-2012 (election to Court), Invited Member and Fellow, American Academy of Appellate Lawyers (AAAL)
2005-2012 Founding Member, Washington Appellate Lawyers Association (WALA)
1997-Present, Pattern Instructions Committee of the Washington Supreme Court (formerly lawyer representative, now serving as my Court’s liaison to this Committee)
1999-2012, Chair, Amicus Committee, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL)
2000-2012, Ninth Circuit Vice Chair, Amicus Committee, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
1999-2001, Trustee, Federal Bar Association of the Western District of Washington
1999-2001, Ninth Circuit Lawyer Representative
1996-97, Chair, State Constitutional Law Committee, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
1996-97, Vice President, Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (WACDL)
1996-97, Strike Force Chair, WACDL
1995-96, U.S. District Court, W.D. Wash., Federal Rules Committee
1995-96, Washington Supreme Court Death Penalty Rules Committee; Chair, Compensation Subcommittee
1994-95, Board of Governors, Washington Appellate Defender Association
1993-95, Board of Governors, WACDL
1994, Secretary, WACDL
1994, NACDL Task Force to Review Nomination of Judge Breyer
1992-93, Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force Advisory Research Group; co-author of Group’s report concerning effect of gender on the appointment of counsel under Criminal Justice Act.
1991-94, Chair, CLE Committee, WACDL
2. What prompted you to run for this office?
I ran for this office in 2012 for the first time because constitutional rights matter – and I had lengthy experience advocating for constitutional and individual rights to bring to this job. I also brought my appreciation for hard work, fair treatment, and an independent judiciary. My decisions, for example my decisions on free speech, open courtrooms, civil rights, education, and access to justice, show that I have made an important contribution to the judiciary. I want to continue doing so for six more years.
3. What do you believe are the most important qualifications for a judge or justice?
A judge must of course have legal experience, research skills, writing skills, a dedication to justice and to constant learning, and a willingness to engage with people from many different backgrounds.
In my experience, though, the most important characteristics for a judge are: (1) willingness to really listen respectfully, not just to positions with which you might disagree, but to litigants and lawyers who are putting their trust in you for a matter that is critically important to them, and to those who offer views on the context and history in which each case arises; and (2) a strong work ethic. None of us know everything; it takes research, analysis, and conversation with peers, assistants, or counsel on the case, to really get to the heart of a matter.
4. What priorities are you seeking to address with your campaign?
Your question causes me to reflect on the Code of Judicial Conduct which asserts that judges must take on responsibility for improving the justice system as part of our duty to uphold the administration of justice. There are many problems facing the judicial system, from insufficient funding for the courts to difficulty (in terms of cost, distance, lack of child care, etc.) for people to access the courts. But I would say that the two critical problems are the inequities we see based on poverty and based on race.
My court’s decisions in individual cases reflect respect for controlling caselaw, but also willingness to do our duty to overturn old case law when it is “incorrect and harmful.” We have therefore issued decisions limiting imposition of legal financial obligations on those who cannot afford to pay; we have applied bars on cruel punishment to sentencing for children; we have upheld the protections of the Washington Law Against Discrimination; and we have overruled clearly harmful decisions denigrating Native Americans, their tribes, and their rights.
On the administrative side, my court’s work through the Gender & Justice Commission (of which I am co-chair) and the Minority Justice Commission shows pro-active steps to change court culture, education, and rules, to combat past practices that have failed to adequately address race discrimination and poverty/inability to access justice sufficiently. Our work through other committees – such as the Rules Committee, of which I am a longtime member – focuses on improving and simplifying court work while also combatting discrimination (such as jury selection).
My hope is that I can shift my focus more towards ensuring equality in the criminal justice system, in particular, in my next term.
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?
Barriers to full participation in our legal system include lack of funds, lack of childcare, lack of time, lack of expertise, and language barriers. My court is working on several of these problems through our commissions, through our requests to the legislature, and through our educational and public outreach work.
To address the language barriers, our court has an Interpreter Commission. It recently requested legislative funding for major changes to enable interpreters to work meaningfully with lawyers and clients; the legislative session is still in progress.
Based on work by our Gender & Justice Commission and the Minority Justice Commission, we have obtained legislative funding for pilot programs in the area of expanding and democratizing jury service, reviewing child care barriers, and maintaining our initially-experimental self-help centers piloted at two superior courts.
Doing outreach to communities that have been historically excluded from leadership in the justice system has also been important to bringing members of those communities into law schools and eventually into the judiciary. I will continue my support for those programs.
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. The courts should have stable and dependable funding from the state’s general fund.
3. Would you, if elected, bring restorative justice as a goal to your court room? * If yes, describe how that could look.
I am running for the Supreme Court; this question is probably more appropriate for the trial courts. But I definitely support the move, during the period in which I have been practicing, towards more rehabilitative justice through programs like Drug Court, Veteran’s Court, and even Kitsap County’s newest experiment with Girl’s Court.
4. What ideas can you offer to make our judicial system more open, transparent, and responsive?
Judges can make positive contributions on this topic through both activity in individual cases, and outreach to the greater community. In individual cases, judges must give respectful treatment to minority and women professionals and lay people (from lawyers to witnesses and jurors), and must be aware of customs, rules, and precedents that tend to favor groups that have traditionally had more access and opportunities over groups that have been excluded. In individual cases, judges must also consider historical legal doctrines and determine whether they reflect racism or other power imbalances. The work that judges do outside of individual cases is also critical. This includes reviewing historical barriers to entry into the profession and addressing them (for example, through outreach to the community and working with law students and student groups), paying attention to existing court practices to see whether they are excluding people (for example, from jury service and from admission to the bar), and working with minority and women's bar associations.
I note, though, that we are doing a pretty good job of keeping our courts open and transparent: our appellate arguments are regularly covered, in real time, by tvw.org and are available on TV and on line; we travel once per term (excluding pandemics) to a state location (such as a law school, a high school auditorium, a college, or a tribal venue) so that people can view the court’s proceedings in person and ask questions afterwards; and our appellate decisions are explained in opinions that give the basis for each judge’s or justice’s reasoning.
5. What are your thoughts on how our courts could permanently incorporate the growing virtual options after the need of the pandemic has passed?
The pandemic forced the judiciary to embrace the technology to operate remotely. Remote access is not necessarily the gold standard – it is important for parties to maintain the right to be present, in person, for decisions that affect their lives. But it’s a critical adjunct to in person appearances, especially for matters that do not involve critical fact finding. Our court has therefore published for comment the most recent version of stakeholders’ suggestions for rules concerning remote appearances. These proposed rules greatly expand the availability of remote appearances; provide rules to make sure that they proceed in a respectful and professional manner; and their goal is to make it cheaper and easier for people to access courts for all kinds of cases. The people it is intended to help include the litigants and the lawyers. But the new proposed rules also make it easier for others, such as potential jurors or witnesses, to take advantage of these lower cost options if 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 insure speedy justice?
The trial backlog was at its worst during the Covid pandemic, when the courts could not guaranty the safety of parties, lawyers, witnesses, and jurors, in the close congregate environment of the court. Since that time, the criminal trial backlog has been greatly reduced. In addition, with the end of the pandemic, the backlog seemed to be centered in the appellate courts – because the appeals from the backlogged trials were hitting at the same time.
The cause of the backlog, though, has changed. During the pandemic, the backlog was caused mainly by health and safety measures. Now, the problem is mainly the crisis in staffing public defense agencies and, to a lesser degree, prosecution agencies, across the state. There are packages of bills seeking funding to try to address this crisis pending, and the judicial branch is supporting many of them; the legislative session is still in progress, though.
7. What judicial reforms do you support to achieve greater equity and inclusion for BIPOC individuals in our communities?
Judges can make positive contributions on this topic through both activity in individual cases, and outreach to the greater community. In individual cases, judges must give respectful treatment to minority and women professionals and lay people (from lawyers to witnesses and jurors), and must be aware of customs, rules, and precedents that tend to favor groups that have traditionally had more access and opportunities over groups that have been excluded. In individual cases, judges must also consider historical legal doctrines and determine whether they reflect racism or other power imbalances that are baked into our history and law.
The work that judges do outside of individual cases is also critical. This includes reviewing historical barriers to entry into the profession and addressing them (for example, through outreach to the community and working with law students and student groups), paying attention to existing court practices to see whether they are excluding people (for example, from jury service and from admission to the bar), and working with minority and women's bar associations.
I also recommend adoption of the goals, and many of the recommendations, recently published by the Gender & Justice Commission’s report – the first one in 30 years – entitled, 2021: How Gender and Race Affect Justice Now and located at https://www.courts.wa.gov/?fa=home.sub&org=gjc&page=exploreStudy&layout=2&parent=study. The report focusses on: access to justice for women in poverty, consequences of judicial decisions for women of color as well as women in poverty, and the differential impact of the areas studied on women of color and the LGBTQ population.
By typing my name below, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Printed Name Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud
Date (mm/dd/yy) 02/26/2024
