Barbara Madsen

Barbara A. Madsen

Nonpartisan

Washington State Supreme Court Position 5

Tenure

1993 - Present

Term ends

2029

Years in position

32

Compensation

Base salary

$247,064

Elections and appointments

Last elected

November 8, 2022

Education

Bachelor's

University of Washington, 1974

Law

Gonzaga University School of Law, 1977

Contact

Official website

Official Twitter

Campaign website

Personal Facebook

Personal LinkedIn

Barbara A. Madsen is a judge for Position 5 of the Washington Supreme Court. She assumed office on January 11, 1993. Her current term ends on January 7, 2029.

Madsen ran for re-election for the Position 5 judge of the Washington Supreme Court. She won in the general election on November 8, 2022.

Madsen first became a member of the Washington Supreme Court through a nonpartisan election. She was first elected to the court in 1992, defeating Elaine Houghton. Madsen was chief justice of the Washington Supreme Court from 2010 to 2017. To read more about judicial selection in Washington, click here.

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country. As part of this study, we assigned each justice a Confidence Score describing our confidence in the degree of partisanship exhibited by the justices' past partisan behavior, before they joined the court. Madsen received a confidence score of Mild Democrat. Click here to read more about this study.

Biography

Before serving on the supreme court, Madsen served on the Seattle Municipal Court. Before that, she was the special prosecutor at the Seattle City Attorney’s Office. Madsen began her career as a public defender, after receiving her J.D. from Gonzaga University School of Law in 1977. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of Washington in 1974.

Madsen was awarded the Judicial Award by the Equal Justice Coalition in 2004 and was named the Woman of the Year by the Seattle University School of Law in 2003. She was appointed chair of the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission in 1998.

Elections

2022

See also: Washington Supreme Court elections, 2022

General election

General election for Washington State Supreme Court Position 5

Incumbent Barbara A. Madsen won election in the general election for Washington State Supreme Court Position 5 on November 8, 2022.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Barbara A. Madsen (Nonpartisan)	97.8	1,937,634
		Other/Write-in votes	2.2	43,453

---

	Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 1,981,087
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Nonpartisan primary election

The primary election was canceled. Incumbent Barbara A. Madsen advanced from the primary for Washington State Supreme Court Position 5.

2016

See also: Washington judicial elections, 2016

Madsen ran for re-election in 2016. She ran against challengers Greg Zempel and John Scannell in the primary on August 2. Madsen and Zempel defeated Scannell in the primary and advanced to the general election. Madsen defeated Zempel on November 8.

Election results

November 8 general election

Incumbent Barbara Madsen defeated Greg Zempel in the general election for the Washington Supreme Court, Position 5.

Washington Supreme Court, Position 5, 2016
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Barbara Madsen Incumbent	61.95%	1,679,786
Greg Zempel	38.05%	1,031,698
Total Votes (100% reporting)		2,711,484
Source: Washington Secretary of State Official Results

August 2 primary

Washington Supreme Court Primary, Position 5, 2016
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Barbara Madsen Incumbent	63.90%	759,475
Greg Zempel	29.71%	353,149
John Scannell	6.38%	75,849
Total Votes (2000 of 2000 reporting: 100%)		1,188,473
Source: Washington Secretary of State Official Results

Race background

The 2016 election was the first since the 1990s in which all three state supreme court justices up for re-election faced opponents. At least one justice in every election typically runs unopposed, but this year all three incumbents drew challengers. Republican state Representative Matt Manweller said he and other lawmakers actively recruited candidates to run against the justices. This was partly because of the court's decisions in the long-running school funding case McCleary v. Washington, over which the court drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for holding the state in contempt of court, and in a separate case about the state funding of charter schools.

Those in favor of replacing the justices said the court has overstepped its boundaries into legislation and policymaking and failed to respect the autonomy of the state legislature. In the McCleary school funding case, the court both found the state government in contempt and fined the state $100,000 per day until the state complied with the court's orders.

In a separate case, the court ruled unconstitutional the state funding of charter schools right before those schools were set to open in 2015.

Satellite spending

The political action committee arm of the group Stand for Children spent $116,000 promoting the campaign of Greg Zempel, who challenged Chief Justice Barbara Madsen for her seat on the court. Madsen authored the court's 2015 decision declaring Washington's charter schools, in their form at that time, unconstitutional. The legislature passed a new bill in 2016 that allowed charter schools to continue; opponents threatened to sue over this law as well. Stand for Children's spending on Zempel's campaign was funded by several of the backers of charter schools who were opposed to the court's 2015 decision. The primary donors include Connie Ballmer, wife of former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer; Reed Hastings, founder and CEO of Netflix; and Vulcan Inc., owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. Vulcan and Ballmer were also among the primary backers of the ballot initiative that paved the way for the charter schools.

Madsen and Zempel on issues

The Yakima Herald published a set of answers given by Chief Justice Barbara Madsen and her challenger, Greg Zempel, to questions that included the primary salient issue of the election: the court's handling of the McCleary case.

On the McCleary case:

“

Question: How do you reconcile the court’s role as legal interpreter with the Legislature’s policy-making role, particularly as it applies to cases such as McCleary? Barbara Madsen: "I know that my opponent likes to say that the court is becoming too political. I think it's important for people to remember that the Supreme Court and the trial courts—none of the courts reach out into the community to try to take issues that they think somehow need the touch of the court. Every single issue that comes to the court comes because a plaintiff brought the issue to a court. ... Necessarily, these cases will touch on issues that have a political aspect to them. The three branches of the government, none of us work in a vacuum. Our drafters designed a system of governance that includes the three branches. And governance is all about politics, right? ... And at the end of the day, with a case like McCleary, if people cannot come to court to get redress against their government, which is guaranteed under the constitution, then where do they go?" Greg Zempel: "One legislative body does not have the ability to bind future legislative bodies. ... In this particular case, the court said, 'We're going to retain jurisdiction. You have until 2018 to cure your contempt for not doing what you're supposed to do. And because we as a body don't believe you're going to do the job, we're going to keep checking in on you, and we're going to keep imposing sanctions, we're going to keep holding hearings.' ... They have basically told the Legislature, 'You adopted this plan and we're not going to let you change this plan unless there's an educational basis to do so.' But then they're the ones who decide whether there's an educational basis put forward by the Legislature or not. So in essence they're being told, 'You can't change your legislation.'"

”

On the regional balance of the court:

“

The issue: Of the nine justices on the state Supreme Court, only one, Justice Debra Stephens of Spokane, was elected while living in Eastern Washington. Both candidates for this seat on the court believe diversity among justices is important, but they differ on whether place of residence is an important factor in reaching that diversity. Question: Is it important to have increased Eastern Washington representation on the state Supreme Court? Why or why not? Madsen: "Diversity of experience is really important to any appellate court, because we do collaborate. That's the whole purpose of an appellate court is that it's made up of multi-members who bring something to the table that the others perhaps don't have in their experience either as lawyers or in life experience .... But do I think we need a representative from Eastern Washington? No. ... Representation is not the point of a court. It's experiences, both life and legal that bring richness to the fabric of a court." Zempel: "Right now we have eight of nine justices who are basically from the greater Seattle area.... If you all agree at the outset of your conversation, based upon the fact that you have all lived a common, similar life, then your discussion points are much different than if you broaden that up and bring in people who have different perspectives on the same issue. ... They have a much different perspective on the interaction of state agencies with local government. ... So I think when you talk about diversity, there's also a need for diversity of thought, which comes from geographic representation."

”

Campaign finance

Barbara Madsen Campaign Finance, 2016
Contributions	Expenditures	Cash on Hand	Debt
$67,300	$12,279	$55,021	$6,000
Source:	Washington Public Disclosure Commission

2010

See also: Washington judicial elections, 2010

Madsen was re-elected in 2010 after running unopposed.

2004

In the 2004 election, Barbara Madsen raised $46,491. For a complete summary, visit Follow the Money, "Barbara Madsen 2004"

Candidate	Incumbent	Seat	Primary %	Election %
Barbara Madsen A		Position #5	60.9%	100%
Terry Lukens		Position #5	39.1%

1998

Madsen was re-elected in 1998, defeating Jim Bates in the general election.

Candidate	Incumbent	Seat	Primary %	Election %
Barbara Madsen A		Position #5	46%	68.1%
Jim Bates		Position #5	31.6%	31.9%
Linda Callahan McCaslin		Position #5	22.2%

1992

Madsen defeated Elaine Houghton in the November 1992 general election.

Candidate	Incumbent	Seat	Primary %	Election %
Barbara Madsen A		Position #1	27.6%	50.6%
Elaine Houghton		Position #1	26.1%	49.3%
Keith Callow		Position #1	22.8%
Edward Heavey		Position #1	15.3%
Philip Rodriguez		Position #1	8%

Campaign themes

2022

Ballotpedia survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection

Barbara A. Madsen did not complete Ballotpedia's 2022 Candidate Connection survey.

Analysis

Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship and Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters

Last updated: June 15, 2020

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.

The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on an ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. The scores were based on seven factors, including but not limited to party registration.

The five resulting categories of Confidence Scores were:

• Strong Democrat
• Mild Democrat
• Indeterminate
• Mild Republican
• Strong Republican

This justice's Confidence Score, as well as the factors contributing to that score, is presented below. The information below was current as of June 2020.

Barbara
Madsen

Washington

• Partisan Confidence Score:
  Mild Democrat
• Judicial Selection Method:
  Elected
• Key Factors:
  • Received donations from Democrat-affiliated individuals or organizations
  • Endorsed by Republican-affiliated individuals or organizations 
  • State was a Democratic trifecta at time of appointment

Partisan Profile

Details:

Madsen received $100 in donations from the Washington State Women's Caucus, $50 from the 5th District Democrats, $193 from the Metropolitan Democrats, and $4,000 from the Washington Education Association, all of which donate to Democratic candidates more frequently than Republicans. She was endorsed by the Network for Public Education, the Washington State Labor Council, the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association, the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters, the Washington Conservation Voters, the Washington Education Association, and the Washington State Federation of Democratic Women, all of which endorse Democratic candidates more frequently than Republicans. At the time of her election, the state of Washington was a Democratic trifecta.

Other Scores:

In a 2012 study of campaign contributions, Madsen received a campaign finance score of -0.63, indicating a liberal ideological leaning.

Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)

See also: Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores of state supreme court justices, 2012

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan ideology of state supreme court justices. They created a scoring system in which a score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology, while scores below 0 were more liberal.

Madsen received a campaign finance score of -0.63, indicating a liberal ideological leaning. This was less liberal than the average score of -0.91 that justices received in Washington.

The study was based on data from campaign contributions by the judges themselves, the partisan leaning of those who contributed to the judges' campaigns, or, in the absence of elections, the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice, but an academic summary of various relevant factors.

Noteworthy cases

Vote to uphold ban on same-sex marriage

The Washington Supreme Court determined in a 5-to-4 decision to uphold the state's Defense of Marriage Act. Six different opinions were issued in the case, and some stated that the legislature could extend the right of marriage to same-sex couples. Madsen wrote in her opinion that, “Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.” Madsen also argued that judges should not dictate public policy, stating, "The law banning gay marriages may yet change, but not because five members of this court have dictated it.”

State supreme court judicial selection in Washington

See also: Judicial selection in Washington

The nine justices of the supreme court are selected through contested nonpartisan elections and must run for re-election when their terms expire. Supreme court judges serve for six years.

Qualifications

To serve on the supreme court, a judge must be:

• admitted to practice law in Washington; and
• under the age of 75.

Chief justice

The chief justice of the supreme court is selected through a peer vote and has a set term of four years.

Vacancies

See also: How vacancies are filled in state supreme courts

In the event of a midterm vacancy, the governor appoints a replacement. The appointee serves until the next general election, at which point he or she may run to serve for the remainder of the predecessor's term. If the resignation and subsequent appointment takes place after the filing period opens for that year's elections, the appointee must stand in the next year's election to remain on the bench.

The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.