Seasoned Litigator Sal Mungia Presents His Case for High Court Seat

Campaign Website - Sal Mungia

“Removal of death penalty and other unconstitutional statutes signed into law” from Office of Representative Tina Orwall

Defects and Omissions Letter - December 31, 2021 from Chief Justice Steven González of The Supreme Court of the State of Washington

[00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes.

Imagine a court that can strike down laws, protect your constitutional rights, and make decisions that affect everything from your healthcare to your child's education - that's the power of the Washington Supreme Court. As the highest court in our state, its nine justices have the final say on interpreting Washington's laws and constitution. So why should you care who sits on this bench? Consider that our Supreme Court justices serve six-year terms, but their decisions can echo through generations - setting precedents that lower courts must follow. These rulings touch on issues that affect our daily lives - from environmental protections to civil rights, from business regulations to criminal justice reform. The Court's reach extends beyond just deciding cases. It oversees the entire state court system, makes rules for all courts in Washington, and even supervises the State Bar Association. In essence, these justices shape the very fabric of justice in our state. In Washington, we elect our Supreme Court justices - this means you have a direct say in who interprets our laws and constitution. It's a responsibility that puts the power of shaping our legal landscape directly in your hands. Your vote in this election isn't just about choosing a judge, it's about steering the course of justice in Washington for years to come.

So I am very pleased to be welcoming to the program, candidate for Washington Supreme Court Position 2, Sal Mungia. Welcome!

[00:02:25] Sal Mungia: Thanks, Crystal.

[00:02:27] Crystal Fincher: Well, getting started - why are you running for Supreme Court? What went into this decision?

[00:02:33] Sal Mungia: Well, in addition to the fact that I was asked last year by a couple of people who were concerned about who's going to be taking over Justice Owens' position, probably three main reasons. One, the timing is right - I've been asked before, but the timing is most things in life is everything. And now with my youngest daughter being 17 - she's got one more year of upper school - works out timing-wise. Two, more and more, we're all seeing the importance of making sure that the rule of law is followed. I think our state Supreme Court has done a great job about doing that. I want to make sure that that's continued - that we respect both the federal and state constitution, that we respect precedent, that we provide reliability and predictability to the law. And three, I think I can add something to our state Supreme Court - with my appellate law experience, with my commercial and business and personal injury trial work experience. I think that that will help fill in some of the gaps we have in our court right now.

[00:03:36] Crystal Fincher: Now, I do want to talk about that variety of experience in the legal profession. What is it about those experiences in your background that has best prepared you to serve on the state Supreme Court?

[00:03:48] Sal Mungia: I have, luckily, an extensive experience arguing appeals. I've argued appeals at all levels of state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. There's an association known as Best Lawyers in America - I've been recognized as a "Best Lawyer" by them since 2011. I've been recognized by Washington Law and Politics Magazine as a "Super Lawyer" since 2008. And what's great is I've been endorsed by eight of the nine current state Supreme Court justices. So the reason I say that is that these people know my experience in the appellate courts - not just the experience, but hopefully the quality of my work. And they're the ones saying - all of these either organizations or individuals - saying Sal has the qualities and qualifications, knowing that I have argued appeals at all levels, that I've done the briefing, that I've been involved with federal and state constitutional issues.

[00:04:49] Crystal Fincher: Obviously, a wide variety of experience, a wide variety of supporters, endorsers - what does that tangibly translate to when the public is considering why that makes you a valuable asset to the court?

[00:05:03] Sal Mungia: I think it's really tough for people to know what judges to vote for, I think it's even tough for lawyers. I get asked all the time by non-trial lawyers - Hey, Sal, who are you supporting as far as X position on the court? And so I tell them. So I think for your listeners, there's probably a few reference points you always want to look at, not just one. Obviously, what candidates say - I think you want to listen, and candidates can say a lot of things, right? So, one - look at who's endorsing them. So again, eight of the nine current state Supreme Court justices, I have four retired state Supreme Court justices who endorse me, and over 100 active and retired judges from around the state. So, this is the judiciary who know about me - who know about the other candidates, frankly - and they're saying, Sal is the one that we think should be our next state Supreme Court justice. Then I think you look at what different bar associations are rating the candidates, or how they're rating them. So I've undergone that process by eight different bar associations - two of those bar associations have rated me as "Well Qualified," whereas the other six have rated me as "Exceptionally Well Qualified." And so that's another reference point - you go through, you submit these materials, and you undergo an interview process, and they give their ratings from that. Third, I think what you want to look at is people or organizations within your community that you may respect, that you may have your values aligning with - who's supporting whom. And again, I'm very fortunate. I've got three Washington state governors - current Governor Inslee, former Governors Gregoire and Locke - who've endorsed me. I've got the Speaker of the House Laurie Jinkins, our Attorney General Bob Ferguson, over 50 elected officials. And of those people that - you respect them, if they align with your judgment - that may be another reference point. I worked as a union member in two different grocery stores when I was at high school and in college, and I love having worker support. And if that's important to you, I've got the Washington Labor Council, Washington Federation of State Employees, Washington Education Association PAC, along with other unions who have endorsed me - in fact, I've got their sole endorsement. So I think what you try to look at is these different reference points - not just one, but multiple reference points. And I'm lucky - I've been a lawyer for 40 years - I think people within the legal community, within our elected officials know about me, know about my work. And then that's reflected now in their support of me.

[00:07:34] Crystal Fincher: I think, especially in today's reality, a lot of people's perceptions of justices are shaped by our federal Supreme Court. Certainly right now, I think that there's a perception that powerful interests can influence judicial outcomes through donations, or being a benefactor, or support from certain segments, or who may be appointing or playing a big role in electing a justice in our state's case. So as an elected justice, how do you view this concern? And how do you maintain impartiality and public trust - even if you can't solicit your donors, you know who they are - in that situation and in this current environment?

[00:08:18] Sal Mungia: Yeah, I think having people on the bench who at least can maintain the appearance of not being biased is very important. And I'll go further than that - everybody has their bias. I mean, everybody is biased one way or the other. Hopefully the people that we're putting on the bench have a track record of being able to put aside or recognize their biases, putting those aside to their best ability, and then just deciding the matters before them purely on the law and on the facts of that presentation. So with what you just said, Crystal - I agree - money can play a part of it. It's just natural that money can influence people. I will tell you this - and I know that both judicial candidates within our state and judges handle it two different ways. One group says - Well, I have to look at the PDC reporting to see who's donating so I can sign off on that and make it accurate. But there's another group, and that's the group I'm falling in - and I think it's a legitimate way of doing this - is that I'm relying on my both finance manager and my campaign manager to look at those. I don't look at who's donating money. For that very reason, I don't want to know who's donating at all. And so I don't - if you ask me who's donating, I don't know, except for maybe a couple of people who've told me. I haven't asked them, but they say - Sal, I just wanted you to know I've donated. I feel a little embarrassed. I said - Okay, just stop right there. I don't want to know how much, I might want to thank you, because of our prohibitions. I know the prohibition is we can't ask for donations. I like to take that one step farther - I don't want to know who's donating because I don't want to have that influence, I don't want to have that even appearance of influence upon me.

[00:09:58] Crystal Fincher: Well, I certainly understand that and appreciate the gesture. As you said, there are people who tell you, and you do see your endorsers - and oftentimes endorsers reliably appear on your donor rolls. Knowing that, how do you interpret even those endorsements? Are you soliciting those endorsements? Do you view that as a reflection of who you've been and the values that you have? Or do you see them as attempting to build a relationship and curry favor?

[00:10:30] Sal Mungia: For one thing, I am a first-time candidate - I haven't run for anything, Crystal, since the ninth grade when I ran for school treasurer. So this is a whole different ballgame for me. So I've luckily got advisors who say - Sal, go out, and early on. And one of the things we tried to do was get judicial endorsements because these are nonpartisan elected officials - people, again, who know about what it takes to be on the state Supreme Court and then know about the people who are asking for their endorsements. So yes, I went out and asked those people. And some said - Not quite yet, Sal, but let me see who else is going to be running. But others said - Yes, I know who you are, what you stand for, and what you've done. And so you build up on those endorsements. Same thing with organizations. Some organizations reach out to you, others don't - which is great either way. A lot of them - you're filling out questionnaires. And I always tell people - Yeah, you can ask me what my opinions are now, and I'll tell you what they are to the extent I can as a judicial candidate. But I think it's more important to look at what the candidate has done in their past. I can always talk about what I've done in the past, because that's just history. And I think that's the kind of stuff, again, people should know about their judicial candidates - what have you actually done? Not just what you say you're going to do or what you'd like to do. What have you done? And so I think all that will hopefully tell people - as you say - what you stand for, who you are, what your values are, how you've lived your life.

[00:12:01] Crystal Fincher: Well, can you give an example of a time where you recognized a personal bias or opinion that you had - that you had to set aside - in order to seek justice?

[00:12:13] Sal Mungia: Yeah, actually I do that quite a lot as an arbitrator - I'm an arbitrator for what's called mandatory arbitration disputes. And at one point - so I have, I know, a leaning of - you kind of want to help people who've been harmed. And even though I've done both sides of the aisle as far as my personal practice, it's just - I grew up the underdog, I grew up seeing other people harmed, and that's why I became a lawyer. And I know that's where my bias is. So I've got to set that aside, especially as an arbitrator, and say - Look it, I've got to look at these facts and I've got to look at the law. And I know that our law requires that anyone making a claim - they have the burden of proof. You've got to prove it - it can't just, it might have happened or it looks like it could have happened, but more likely than not that happened and that resulted in these harms. And I think I've done a very good job of setting aside my bias because I know how arbitrators are - they like to, if you will, split the dispute kind of down the middle. And I really don't. I look at that - whatever way it comes out, it comes out that way - so sometimes I award people nothing. Other times I award them more than, in fact, that they've asked for - because I think that the plaintiff's attorney tries to kind of, knows how the arbitrator's thinking. And my way is - I'm looking at the facts, I'm looking at the law, setting aside what I believe is my personal bias in trying to help people and fighting for the underdog, and just going by what's presented before me. Do it all the time.

[00:13:44] Crystal Fincher: So how do you handle potential conflicts of interests? And what steps do you take to ensure ethical decision making?

[00:13:52] Sal Mungia: Again, that's something that I've had to deal with in my 38 years of private practice. So we have two types of conflicts. One is just a purely by the rules, so we have rules of professional conduct that tells you - Okay, these are conflicts of interest. Obviously, if my firm is representing a client that I want to sue, that's an ethical conflict of interest. We run the conflicts check - that gets taken care of all the way. I think those are the easier ones because clearly I can't take on the case. There's another type of conflict, though, that I adhere to where it's not a professional rule of conflict. So in other words, I could take that matter on, okay? But it's my own personal - I am not taking that matter on. And I'll give you one example. And it's an embarrassing example in one sense - and just because it's in my lack of recognizing names. So I do medical malpractice work. I remember suing a doctor, and went to take that doctor's deposition where I'm going to question the doctor under oath. I show up at the deposition and who do I see? I see my neighbor. And I'm going to make up a name, I'm going to say - Mike, what are you doing here? He said - Well, I'm the defendant. I turned ashen white. I said - Oh my gosh, I had no idea. Because I just always called him Mike, I don't call him Dr. - say like, Dr. Smith, okay? who I sued. And so I said - Hold on a second. So I talked to the opposing counsel, who's a friend of mine, because it's a pretty small universe of people who do medical malpractice work. And I said - Look it, I can't, I'm going to call off this dep. I can't keep on pursuing this case because he's my neighbor, he's a friend. I just didn't realize that I sued him. And so we found my client new counsel, and I got out of that case. But it is important to me - one, I don't like suing people who I know and like. Two, I don't want that in any way impairing my ability to zealously represent my client - they deserve zealous representation all the way out.

[00:15:54] Crystal Fincher: Are there any specific types of cases in which you know you'll find it necessary to disqualify yourself should you be elected?

[00:16:02] Sal Mungia: Any specific types of cases? Wow, that question has not been asked of me before. Not that I can think of. I think when you're saying the subject matter - not like one of my law partners brings a case and they're arguing that case. But yeah, subject matter case - I can't think of anything offhand.

[00:16:21] Crystal Fincher: Okay. So what does diversity mean to you? And how is it valuable on the Supreme Court, and how would you contribute?

[00:16:30] Sal Mungia: Diversity - obviously, has this kind of range of diversity. But to me - what it means to me, most importantly - because you can have geographic diversity, you can [have] age diversity, which are important. I think the more of those kind of diversity elements you have on any group, the better decision-making you will have. But let's get real here and talk about what we're talking about in the state Supreme Court or any kind of body like that. What I want to see is racial diversity, sexual orientation diversity, gender diversity - I'm going to be missing some of them, I started listening a lot. But people that I think historically, historically have been marginalized, whose voices have been put down. I think that's very important because I think people generally who have come from those diverse backgrounds will help make better decisions as a group of a whole - when you have a mixture of diverse backgrounds, diverse thoughts, diverse ways of being brought up, diverse ways of really looking at the world. So that's what it means to me on our state Supreme Court. And I will say that our state Supreme Court is already the most diverse state Supreme Court in the country. And if I'm lucky enough to be elected, I will be bringing something else to that viewpoint. And we will have not only the most diverse - but I think for the first time in any state Supreme Court history, I'm pretty darn sure, you have to fact check me on this - but I'm pretty darn sure the first time that there'll be a majority of the members who are people of color.

[00:18:04] Crystal Fincher: Yes. So are you familiar with the June 4th, 2020 letter that was issued by our Washington Supreme Court?

[00:18:15] Sal Mungia: Yes.

[00:18:17] Crystal Fincher: So it was really a nation-leading letter signed by all of the members of the court recognizing, saying that - The devaluation and degradation of Black lives is not a recent event. It's a persistent and systemic injustice that predates this nation's founding. - and acknowledges explicitly racial injustice within our system and the responsibility to address it. Do you agree with that letter? Is there anything that you would add to or amend to that letter now that we're four years following? How did you view that? And as you reflect on that, what is your take on it?

[00:18:52] Sal Mungia: Three initial responses. One, it was a great letter. Two, it was a great letter. Three, it was a great letter. Really was. That letter, that viewpoint from our state Supreme Court - not only was a beacon, if you will, of light and justice in our state. There were a lot of stakeholders looking at that letter saying - Yes, we love that. And yes, we have to own it. We have to take action. But throughout this country, that letter got national recognition. So there's not a thing I would change about it. I would sign off on that letter in a heartbeat. And our state Supreme Court has taken action as a leader - not just saying those words and not just statewide, but nationally. And well, one thing was General Rule 37 [The purpose of this rule is to eliminate the unfair exclusion of potential jurors based on race or ethnicity.] - just really addressing systemic racism within the judicial system.

[00:19:48] Crystal Fincher: Can you describe your judicial philosophy and how it will influence your decisions on the Supreme Court?

[00:19:53] Sal Mungia: Yes. One is rule of law. I mean, you know what? It doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter what your personal opinions are as a judge, especially as an appellate judge. You are there to enforce the federal and the state constitutions - that is your primary purpose. It doesn't matter whether you would like to see differences in the Second Amendment - the federal, the U.S. Supreme Court has given us parameters, and whether we like it or not, you live by those parameters, you enforce those parameters. And so people - and that's one thing that I really would just hope that your listeners understand - judges don't make the law. And people get upset - Oh, the state Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, or let's say, Court of Appeals ruled a certain way. Yes, because the U.S. Supreme Court told them they have to rule that way, right? It's just not their decision. There's an old saying - The U.S. Supreme Court isn't last because they're right, they're right because they're last. And that's something very important. Two, my judicial philosophy is respecting precedent. Again, whether I like that prior decision or not, it should really be the highly exceptional case where precedent gets overruled. Because we do need predictability, we do need reliability within the law - and again, it's not what Sal Mungia thinks the law should be. If other justices have ruled a certain way in a majority decision, that's the law. Now, my judicial philosophy is prior precedent gets a whole lot less respect if it's based upon homophobia, if it's based upon racism, based upon sexism - you get it, you're getting the idea - then it gets less respect, right? Because the very foundation of that decision was not sound. Finally, I think just as a general parameter - and I think good appellate judges do this - you only decide the matter before you, and try to narrowly construe that matter. Because once you start getting kind of these broad pronouncements, you get unintended consequences - you get matters that, no matter how smart you think you are, you haven't thought that out. So that's why you should always try to address what's before you and keep it narrow and make those small steps that courts should be making.

[00:22:16] Crystal Fincher: So, I'm not a lawyer, I have no experience as a professional in the legal system. I'm just a layperson who respects the courts and really sees its profound impact on our community and society. And so I hear what you're saying, I've heard many judges say that before - but it seems like two things that are in conflict or in tension - where there's precedent and that's solid and we have to go with what was decided before, unless we feel that it's discriminatory or unjust in some way. And that feels very subjective. So how do you balance the subjective with the objective there? And how do you interpret within those two extremes?

[00:23:05] Sal Mungia: I think I have two answers to that. Again, if it's based upon racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, you go on - I am less inclined - when we say less inclined, I will maybe scrutinize that decision more, than one that isn't based upon that type of discriminatory basis. Two, I think that what you really want to look at is how other courts have addressed the matter. There's other courts throughout the state where now a majority view have faced that same issue and said - Look it, the very basis of that decision was bad. And you look at the reasoning. I think that may give you some guidance there. But other than that, just to be frank, just - again, hopefully you're looking at that saying, Gee whiz, we got to be really careful here. And don't just do it because you think it's - especially when you use that label unjust, because that's too wide a label. It's really got to, has to fall within one of the parameters that we see for reversing a prior decision - should be done very rarely.

[00:24:14] Crystal Fincher: Can you give an example of decisions, preferably on the state level, where precedent was respected, but you felt it was based on something that was racist, sexist, homophobic, and should have been overturned or modified?

[00:24:32] Sal Mungia: Not that I can say, that's a good - man, okay? Have not had that question and I can't think of anything offhand. The federal level - obviously, the Dred Scott case, which was a horrible case, which if you just purely respect precedent, we'd still have racial discrimination in this country. You wouldn't have Brown v. Board of Education because of the Dred Scott case. So I can give you a federal example, I can't give you a state example.

[00:24:54] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. Are there any examples in the reverse, where something was overturned that you thought shouldn't have been?

[00:25:02] Sal Mungia: That I thought should not have been? No, but here's the closest I can give to you right now. It's the Blake decision, which, so your listeners know about, that's the decision where our state Supreme Court said - You know what, having a state statute that allows the state to criminalize the possession of drugs without it being a knowing possession of drugs is unconstitutional. That may be a recent decision where - and you saw the split on the court - because I think this decision really encapsulates what we've been talking about here. How do you respect precedent? Because the Court had previously held that statute passed constitutional muster, but only because the state Supreme Court years ago put this gloss on it - saying as long as the defendant had the opportunity to present a defense that it was not a knowing possession of drugs, then the law was constitutional. In other words, not making that burden upon the state, but making it a burden upon the criminal defendant. And the fact that the State Legislature, I think it was eight or ten times, had amended that statute without putting on that requirement. And then it came up before the state Supreme Court again, where criminal defendant said - I didn't know that these drugs were in this pair of jeans that I bought, used. And yet I was convicted of this crime. So you saw that tension because I think it was four or five - it could have been five other justices saying - You know what? We're going to reverse our prior decision putting on this gloss. This gloss - we don't know where it came from, but no other state has this requirement. I think the last state that faced this issue was Louisiana, where its high court struck down a similar statute. But all the other 49 states have a requirement that the state has to prove that the defendant intended to possess those drugs. So therefore, we are going to now overturn our prior court decision - it was five of the justices. Two of the justices said - You know what? I wouldn't approach it that way. I would just say, Yes, you have to have that knowledge requirement, but we can put that on. That's what we should have done initially - made that requirement upon the state. And then you had two of the justices saying - No, you know what? We've got to respect precedent. We did this long ago. The Legislature had multiple times of fixing it, if you will, if they disagreed with it. But it passes constitutional muster.

And the reason I'm saying I don't take a stance - I haven't read all the briefs on that. And that's something where it's really important to read all the briefs because there are a ton of them - and to hear the oral arguments. And what people don't realize most of all is we have a collaborative state Supreme Court - after they hear the arguments, they go back and they discuss it among themselves - how they initially come out, and then they discuss it as the opinions are being written. So people ask me - How would you come out, Sal? I don't know. And for all those reasons, I would say this - I think especially the majority decision and the concurring are very reasonable ways of coming out that way. And I'm not going to say the dissent was unreasonable on that. And I think that's important for people to know. As long as you can look at what is being written and say - That is a reasonable result, I think that that's huge. May not be a result that you agree with, but whether the reasoning is reasonable - that's the thing you want to look at.

[00:28:45] Crystal Fincher: So do you think that the 1933 Washington Supreme Court case, Culliton v. Chase was wrongly decided?

[00:28:55] Sal Mungia: You got me there, I'm not familiar with that case.

[00:28:58] Crystal Fincher: Or short version - is income property?

[00:29:03] Sal Mungia: And again - with that kind of question, I don't have an answer.

[00:29:08] Crystal Fincher: It's a major question, here in Washington State.

[00:29:10] Sal Mungia: It's a major question, yes. And it's one that - again, it's one of those broad pronouncements. You have to know what exactly you're talking about when you're saying income and property, how it is under our state constitution. I can't give an answer. I know you probably want me to, but I can't.

[00:29:26] Crystal Fincher: This is Crystal, and I'm adding this note after this conversation with Sal, because I believe it's the best way to present the next question. In the course of an interview, it's not uncommon for a candidate to need clarification or further explanation about an issue or a question that I've asked, and I'm usually happy to provide that information. My goal with candidate interviews is not to stump the candidate or ask gotcha questions, but to get their answers to questions important to the public on the record - regardless of whether I agree with those answers or not. Hacks & Wonks has a reputation for providing candidates of all stripes ample opportunity to answer questions as they see fit. However, this is the first time that we encountered a situation where there was a disagreement about whether something was even a responsibility of the job the candidate is seeking. During this question, you'll hear us referencing an article that I pasted into the chat with Sal to help clarify the question for him. That article is from a Washington state legislative website and details the Washington state constitutional requirement that the state Supreme Court advise the governor of any "defects and omissions in the laws" judges have determined to exist, as well as the "defects & omissions" report by Chief Justice Steven González that included the state's death penalty statute at the time, which spurred the Legislature to take action to end the death penalty in Washington. We'll now return to the interview and I'll be back with another note after the conversation around this question.

So what's your philosophy on the Court's role in addressing defects or omissions in state law, as required by the Supreme Court justices' duty to report to the governor? And is the Blake decision an example where that should have happened?

[00:31:08] Sal Mungia: Not quite understanding what you're asking me. Let me answer it this way first and then you can follow up, say - Well, Sal, that's not quite exactly what I'm asking. One is the state Supreme Court's role - it's not to advise anybody, it's to rule on the law on the dispute brought before it. So the Blake decision - yes, a decision had to be made one way or the other, and the court made a decision. Whether you like it or not, it made that decision. And I will point this out for people - again, judges, they don't make law. And I know they do because when you reverse a case, in effect, you're making a law. But really, it's the Legislature which should be making the law. And so what happened in Blake was the Court struck down that law, gave the Legislature time before that ruling went into effect for the Legislature to really handle it - where it should have.

[00:32:01] Crystal Fincher: The Washington Constitution requires the state Supreme Court to advise the governor on any "defects and omissions in the laws" judges have determined to exist as a result of legal challenges. What's your philosophy on doing that?

[00:32:17] Sal Mungia: I understand what you're asking now.

[00:32:19] Crystal Fincher: Okay.

[00:32:20] Sal Mungia: So one is - the state Supreme Court does not give advice to the governor. And I haven't looked at that specific constitutional provision, I'd like to see how it's been interpreted. But the state Supreme Court only rules on disputes that are brought before it, so it does not give advisory opinions. The attorney general, on the other hand, does give advisory opinions. And the attorney general's office will do that and they keep those. Two, so that's not a defect as far as a law being passed - that the Court didn't do that because it's not something the Court does. The Court only rules on the matters brought before it - actual controversies.

[00:33:02] Crystal Fincher: Okay. Again, you have much more legal experience, and so this is just based on prior conversations, research. But we can leave that there.

[00:33:10] Sal Mungia: So it looks like somebody sent you something, right? That Washington requires the state Supreme Court to advise the governor of any defects of which. Yeah, I-

[00:33:19] Crystal Fincher: That was from Steven González.

[00:33:22] Sal Mungia: Yeah. So I see a long narrative here - I'm not sure what's being quoted, I'm not sure exactly where it's coming from and in what context.

[00:33:32] Crystal Fincher: Okay.

[00:33:32] Sal Mungia: I will tell you this - the state Supreme Court does not give advice. The governor can't go to the state Supreme - Hey, I'm thinking about doing this. The legislature can't go.

[00:33:40] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, not advice. It seems like it's a one-way - hey, these appear to be unconstitutional, these need to be fixed - they're unconstitutional in their current condition. And that seems like the end of the role of the Supreme Court. And then it's up to governor, legislature, attorney general to decide what to do with it to make it constitutional - which is, my understanding, a unique responsibility of the Washington Supreme Court and not common with other state supreme courts.

[00:34:08] Sal Mungia: Again, I don't know where this is coming from. State Supreme Court does not give advice on whether something's constitutional or not.

[00:34:21] Crystal Fincher: Okay, well, it does not appear to give advice on what to do about it, but it does appear to inform the governor of laws or statutes that it determines are unconstitutional.

[00:34:34] Sal Mungia: Only in a case. Only in a case ruling.

[00:34:37] Crystal Fincher: No!

[00:34:38] Sal Mungia: I understand, Crystal - I understand you're looking at this and I'm telling you that the state Supreme Court doesn't do that. There's a whole reason. So the whole reason is that these matters are briefed - that's why you have a controversy. The state Supreme Court isn't there to do research and try to look into stuff. Actual controversy is brought before the court - and where both sides are represented, fully briefed, hear oral arguments, decide the matter.

[00:35:06] Crystal Fincher: I would encourage you to look that up because it appears pretty concrete from what Steven González is saying here and what the text on the Supreme Court website says. But we will move on.

[00:35:19] Sal Mungia: Okay.

[00:35:22] Crystal Fincher: Here I am again, following the conclusion of that question, with a note that I'm adding after the interview. As I said during the conversation with Sal about that question, I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar - and because of that, we do quite a bit of research and consultation for judicial candidate interviews and forums. Our research for this question included what is written in the Washington State Constitution, specifically Article IV, which covers The Judiciary. In Section 25, dealing with Reports of Superior Court Judges, which reads, "Superior judges, shall on or before the first day of November and each year, report in writing to the judges of the supreme court such defects and omissions in [the] laws as their experience may suggest, and the judges of the supreme court shall on or before the first day of January in each year, report in writing to the governor such defects and omissions in the laws as they may believe to exist." This is further codified in state law - in RCW 2.04.230, regarding Report to the governor, which reads, "The judges of the supreme court shall, on or before the first day of January in each year, report in writing to the governor such defects and omissions in the laws as they may believe to exist." After the show, we also consulted with a law professor who expressed that the reporting duty might be surprising to some since under federal law, with separation of powers and the federal Article Three being really concerned about judges only deciding "cases and controversies" - and they could understand a judge or lawyer feeling like a general duty to talk about the law would be a bit weird. The law professor said they would not be surprised that a judge or lawyer might initially be unaware of the duty. However, they would be surprised if, in response to hearing that information, the candidate was adamant about not examining the information. The law professor said, "Since if you don't know something and someone tells you it's true and it doesn't seem right to you, I figure a judge's first thought should be, 'Hmm. Well, I'd have to look into that.'"

This question in this interview by me was intended to be the first of several questions about the duty to report defects and omissions and how that could potentially influence state policy. We had not heard this discussed in judicial forums or interviews before, so we felt it was important to ask because this duty - while unusual nationally - has proven to be consequential in our state. We felt that exploring a candidate's perspectives of this potentially powerful responsibility serves the public interest. Now, I'm not a journalist. I'm a political consultant with a microphone - and my professional experience has provided me with some useful context about issues, candidates, and elected officials. And that's why I do the show. This was our first time navigating this specific situation, and I would love to hear feedback from you about what you thought about this interview, how we handled it, and how we can improve. With that, we'll return to the rest of the interview.

How do you define judicial activism? And can you give an example of it on the state level?

[00:38:36] Sal Mungia: Well, I think judicial activism is a term used by a lot of people when they simply don't like the ruling itself. And I think it's overused. And I think I've heard that with the Blake decision - Oh, that's judicial activism. So that's an example where - at least some people think that that's judicial activism, but it's really just they don't like the way that that decision came out. I guess in my view, judicial activism would be where you really aren't respecting precedent, you aren't really trying to do what the constitution - whether federal or state - is mandating to be done, which is always just kind of this gray area. And again, that's why I always say - Look at the reasoning. Look at the reasoning of the opinion, not the result. Because it's just too easy saying - Oh, I disagree with the way that court came out, they must be engaging in judicial activism.

[00:39:33] Crystal Fincher: Do you ever see instances - aside from interpretation, are there times when you see that supreme courts are acting outside of their role of interpreting the law?

[00:39:44] Sal Mungia: I haven't seen it in our state Supreme Court. Not to say it isn't there, but at least what I've seen.

[00:39:51] Crystal Fincher: Have you seen any recent examples on the federal level?

[00:39:55] Sal Mungia: Where I'd say it's judicial activism? Yeah, there - okay. And the reason I'm not going to answer this question is I think it could be matters coming before the court - where they've been decided where I think precedent has not been respected. So I will leave it at that.

[00:40:10] Crystal Fincher: So how do you balance the principle of separation of powers when the Court's faced with cases that may require judicial intervention in legislative matters?

[00:40:23] Sal Mungia: I will say this. I think our state Supreme Court takes separation of powers very seriously, and so do I. I think, for the most part, you've got to respect the executive and the legislative branches. And I can't think of any recent examples where the Court has had to do that, except in the public school education funding, which is the only time that I know of where the state Supreme Court has done that. It was an exceptional circumstance, because - you can see that - because it doesn't happen ever. That was the one time.

[00:41:00] Crystal Fincher: Well, and some argue that redistricting and Court's findings and orders regarding redistricting also fall under that category. Do you think that?

[00:41:10] Sal Mungia: That'd be a hard one to argue - it's really an infringement upon the legislation. So that, again, is a constitutional requirement that we don't have discriminatory lines drawn. And when a legislature does that and doesn't fix it, then I don't think that that's judicial activism - that is just what needs to be done. It's just like a court entering an injunction - that's what courts do, it's an injunctive relief. Courts are ordering that certain things get done.

[00:41:38] Crystal Fincher: So regarding that McCleary public school funding decision, what lessons do you think the judiciary and legislature can learn from the McCleary case and their respective roles and responsibilities?

[00:41:50] Sal Mungia: Well, you know - and again, I think that McCleary was the exception - I can't think of another time when the state Supreme Court has taken action such as that. So I think it reinforces much more than teaches. I think it reinforces the need to respect the separation of powers - to do it only in very limited circumstances, only for the time needed. So that would be the lesson for me.

[00:42:16] Crystal Fincher: So kind of in that same vein, how do you think the Supreme Court should handle situations where legislative compliance with court orders is slow or incomplete?

[00:42:26] Sal Mungia: Again, I think that as a general rule, the state Supreme Court - as it has done, and I believe will continue to do - show deference to the legislative branch. Tries to give that branch every single opportunity - if you will, bending over backwards - to fix any constitutional violation before the Court goes in and takes action.

[00:42:49] Crystal Fincher: What is that point at which the Court should go in and take action, given that it's issued an order for action to be taken?

[00:42:56] Sal Mungia: Yeah, that's one of those questions you can't say - Oh, at this stage, after three times, after four months, after five - you can't. I mean, it's so case specific. Can't.

[00:43:06] Crystal Fincher: So do you think the Supreme Court acted appropriately, or should there have been other actions taken or not taken to require enforcement?

[00:43:17] Sal Mungia: I think what our state Supreme Court did was within the realm of reasonableness. I don't fault those actions at all.

[00:43:26] Crystal Fincher: Is it what you would have done?

[00:43:28] Sal Mungia: Don't know. Because again, did I read all the briefs? Did I hear the oral arguments? Was I part of the deliberations? No.

[00:43:33] Crystal Fincher: So how do you approach writing majority decisions? And how do you handle dissenting or concurring opinions?

[00:43:41] Sal Mungia: Luckily, I was a law clerk for one year for Justice Dore in the Washington State Supreme Court, so I saw how opinions were written - both majority and dissenting. And let me go with the latter, because they're just actually, in one sense, a lot more enjoyable - because you're free to say whatever you want and to really poke holes or point out the deficiencies of the majority opinion. And if you will, use a little more colorful language at times - so there's a lot more leeway on that. Two, I think that what you may try to do, especially if you have like three people on the dissent side - you're writing for the dissent - see whether you can flip a couple of the majority opinions. Again, it's a collaborative process - you're talking with the other justices, you're trying to point out why your analysis is the correct analysis. And so that's, again, a little more enjoyable. As far as a majority opinion, what you want to do, obviously, is keep that majority. So whatever came out in conference - in fact, even before conference - I don't know whether you know this or your listeners will know this, but before conference, somebody is given the assignment for that case. So that justice's law clerk will do a bench memo, which will get reviewed by that justice, but then gets sent around to all the justices beforehand. That law clerk will read all the briefs, do extra legal research, and then point out maybe any deficiencies within the briefings. So that goes out to all the justices after oral arguments - and that's why, you know, it's so important - people say, How would you come out? And that's what I'm saying - I can't say that unless I've read all the briefs and reading the bench memo that the law clerks put together. But after oral arguments, which will help you answer some of the questions you have, you go back and then the initial thought process - and they go off and starting with the most junior justice saying how they think the case should come up. Goes to the most - not the most senior, but then the last person to talk on that will be the chief justice. And then usually if the writing assignment justice is in the majority, they will hold that assignment - to write for the majority opinion. So there you want to make it very clear why the case is being decided the way it is. And to me, the most well-written opinions are the opinions that are starting off - what the dispute is, what the issue is, and how the Court is ruling upon that issue. And then going on from there, the analysis after that. So, I think it's a long answer to what should have been a much easier, shorter answer.

[00:46:02] Crystal Fincher: No, no, that is fine. Do you think there is a responsibility to make those opinions accessible or more accessible to the public? And if so, how would you do that?

[00:46:15] Sal Mungia: I guess there's two ways of answering that accessibility question. And I think the first way is making sure that the opinion is written, if you will, in English. And all the time, especially with new associates in our firm, I will go and I'll mark up with red pen - or now it's on the computer screen, red marking through - because I say, Don't use legalese. I say - Is that the way you talk to your friends? Do you use heretofore, here and under? You don't. So leave those out. And that was the way, same thing with opinions - they should not be written in legalese. They should be written the way that you would expect any type of non-legal writing to be - so that a person can actually understand what's being said. So that's one, accessibility. Two is just how they're distributed. And even though you can sign up and they're online - I really thought about how they could be more accessible. Again, they're accessible online. How you would make them even more than that, I'm not sure.

[00:47:11] Crystal Fincher: The Washington Supreme Court has more of a supervisory role of lower courts in Washington than many other state Supreme Courts in the country. In what ways do you believe the Supreme Court can improve its supervisory role and accountability over lower courts and judges?

[00:47:31] Sal Mungia: Actually, I'm going to give a little contrary response. I don't know how every state is set up, so with that caveat. But what you see in a lot of states, they have a unified court system where, in fact, their state supreme court has direct supervisory roles over, if you will, the lower courts, over the court of appeals, over the trial courts. We don't have that in this state, all right? Each level of courts are their own elected judges, and they are their own courts. So it's not like our state Supreme Court can go and order things to be done. Now, with that being said, our state Supreme Court does have the authority to enact court rules, general court rules - which apply to our superior courts, which apply to court of appeals. But that is, again, somewhat limited. What our court system here does is, as a group, tries to work collaboratively together to improve the running of courts at all levels.

[00:48:37] Crystal Fincher: Well, let me clarify. So we're seeing courts at various levels being underfunded, understaffed, backlogged, and experiencing challenges stemming from changes in the way things were done during the pandemic and after - really struggling in a variety of ways. What plans do you have to help and improve the administration of the courts?

[00:49:03] Sal Mungia: That question I understand. So just so your listeners know - again, the Court does not control its court budget - that is set by the legislature.

[00:49:12] Crystal Fincher: Yes, and so I should ask my actual written question. What plans do you have to improve the administration of the courts in a reality where resources are constrained?

[00:49:22] Sal Mungia: Right. And here are the things that justices, just like all other judges, can do. And just like I can do as a lawyer, and I have done as a lawyer - you educate your state representative, educate the Legislature about the need for court funding and why that's beneficial. There's limited dollars - we all get that. But why should those limited dollars, if you will, a bigger share get allocated to the state judiciary? And that's something that I know our state Supreme Court, especially the Chief does, and I believe other justices do. It's something that I plan on doing - I've done it before. I've done, especially on funding for civil legal aid, which is a separate question, but it's the same type of matter - where I've gone and talking to our state representatives. Except for that, I've also gone to Washington, D.C., which would not apply for the funding of courts.

[00:50:11] Crystal Fincher: So is there anything outside of increasing funding for the courts that can be done to improve administration?

[00:50:19] Sal Mungia: I'm sure there are. But what you're really hoping for is that you hear that from the Superior Court Judges Association, that you hear that from the District and Municipal Court Judges Association - they're the ones who are at that level who know that the best. And again, they have their own associations - they make up their own rules - especially local rules, they make those up. And so what you don't want to have is the state Supreme Court, again, mandating in areas they don't have the particular expertise in.

[00:50:46] Crystal Fincher: Right. As you've interacted with the courts in your various roles and as you've been running for and preparing to take on the role as a Supreme Court justice, is there anything that you see in particular, anything that you've heard from those organizations that would help?

[00:51:04] Sal Mungia: I'm not sure whether those from organizations, but from other places, certainly. One big bucket is simply more funding, which I think you said - Let's set aside. Because, yeah, Sal, we get it.

[00:51:13] Crystal Fincher: It's not in your jurisdiction.

[00:51:15] Sal Mungia: Yeah, it's not something I can just sign a check on - let's put it that way or sign off on. But as far as trying to make improvements - and I guess I should also say that also goes at the local level, because the counties fund actually half of the superior court judges' salary. So make sure that the local jurisdictions know about the importance of court funding. The other things that can be done - that I think should be, but again, it's an allocation of resources - courthouse facilitators do a great job, and I think have a great return on the dollar investment of helping people. So not lawyers, but giving guidance to the people who can't afford lawyers, especially in divorce actions, family law matters. There's a great return on the money.

[00:51:54] Crystal Fincher: Gotcha. How do you plan to engage with the public and enhance the understanding of the Court's role and how to more effectively interact with courts across the state?

[00:52:07] Sal Mungia: Just like I've been doing as a lawyer for 38 years - I get out there. So I will tell you this - in my various roles as a lawyer, but I've spoken at tons of elementary schools, junior highs, high schools, colleges. I've spoken to civic groups. I've written articles. I've written op-ed pieces before when matters come up. I've written articles for legal publications. Whenever I get a chance to talk, I get out there and talk - and I think it's so important to do that. So I will continue doing that - something I actually enjoy doing.

[00:52:42] Crystal Fincher: Do you see ways that the Court can improve its public outreach and civic education programs and initiatives?

[00:52:50] Sal Mungia: There's always ways to improve - and just how many resources are you going to commit to that? So one program that I'm sure you know about - to make sure your listeners know about - is that the Court actually takes the show on the road a number of times each year. So it'll go out to local colleges, community colleges, public forums - and hold oral arguments on actual cases. And what is great about that outreach is that after oral arguments are done, the Court will entertain, or the justices will entertain, questions from people who have heard the arguments. In other words, people just in the audience - not about that particular case, but about other cases, about matters that may help them understand the process. Which is a great outreach - I mean, are you kidding? I don't know how many state supreme courts do that. My guess is not many, and ours does that. Are there other ways of getting out there? Likely. Have I thought about them? No. Will I think about it? Likely.

[00:53:46] Crystal Fincher: So do you think that all residents have adequate access to legal help in our legal system? And if not, what can be done to provide wider and better access?

[00:53:57] Sal Mungia: In a word, no. And that's a firm no. There's been a couple of civil legal needs studies done, but the most recent one - probably about six years ago now, maybe eight years ago - shows that of the people who are eligible for civil legal aid and who have legitimate problems, we don't have the resources to provide lawyers for 78% of them. It is woefully underfunded. Most people don't know this. Where civil legal aid first started was under the Nixon administration. Hey, saw the value of providing lawyers - and my thing is, if you can provide help early on, we can actually address a lot of these systemic problems. Such as people who don't have homes to live in - if we can help them out on the front end. And what people don't know is there are fewer civil legal aid attorneys now than when President Nixon started this program. So funding has gone down. I have spent my career just trying to increase funding for civil legal aid. And again, this is one of the things I've gone down to Olympia to lobby our state lawmakers, I've gone to Washington, D.C. to lobby our federal delegation. In my role as Washington State Bar President, I've gone out, told people about the importance of providing free representation to those who can't afford it - that's part of being a lawyer - and supporting civil legal aid. I've taken on cases both for just individuals, for families, and class action lawsuits for people whose voices are not heard because they don't have a voice. They don't have funds to have an attorney to represent them. So something that's near and dear to my heart - I'm going to be doing more of that if I'm elected. The only thing that I regret - if I am elected - that I won't be able to do is to make the ask. I love making the ask of going to lawyers and saying - Look it, you know what? This is part of being a lawyer. You have to fund it. I won't be able to do that as a justice - we're not allowed to do that.

[00:55:53] Crystal Fincher: Well, speaking of regrets, we're all human - justices included. And once you have a long career, we look back and wish we might have done some things differently. Do you ever wake up in the middle of the night, or just sit and think about a case or something that you've done professionally that you wish you would have handled differently? Can you tell us about that?

[00:56:14] Sal Mungia: Yeah, I'll give you one regret. That may not be what you're looking for, but it is a regret and it has to do with my practice. I represented this woman - and I love being a lawyer, I love being a lawyer, I love being a lawyer - and I always thought that I'd be doing this until I dropped. So it wasn't until last year when those - plans may change. We'll see. And I love my clients. Some you really just - you take on their map. So I represented this woman, Maddie Jones, years ago. I love Maddie, but early on - Maddie was a very strong-willed woman - I forget, she must have been even at that time in her 70s when I first represented her. And so we got into it - and she just laid it out on me, and I laid it back out - we could have that. But it kind of just brought us that much closer together. And so I settled - it was a medical malpractice case - settled her case for her. But what I loved about it was that we kept in contact, okay? She would call me or I would call her. At the end of our telephone calls, I would either say or she would say, I would say - Maddie, I love you. And she'd say - Sal, I love you. Now, here's my regret. She always wanted me to attend her church, Tacoma Hilltop, because she was every Sunday church-going woman. And I said - Maddie, I will. I will. I will go there because I know it means a lot to you. I'm going to start crying here because that's the thing we regret, right? Things you don't do. I never did it. And that's a huge regret I have because I know how much it would have meant to her. So it's one of those things.

[00:57:48] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that, I think, makes a ton of sense. You said you love being a lawyer. What is it that you love about being a lawyer? And will you be able to hold on to that as a justice?

[00:58:01] Sal Mungia: So many things I love about being a lawyer. But one of the huge things I love about being a lawyer is really being a voice for those who don't have a voice - I love that. That is why I became a lawyer - because I saw how my parents were treated, right? And even last year, the ACLU called me up - and I've been an ACLU cooperating attorney ever since 1986 - and saying, Sal, we've got this case against King County involving the King County Jail. Would you be willing to be a cooperating attorney on that? I love that because what I said was - Hell yes - because you know what? Talking about people who don't have a voice - people who are incarcerated in jails don't have a voice. Not at all. I love being that voice for them. And I've been a voice for people incarcerated at Pierce County Jail, people incarcerated at Northwest Detention Center because they don't have a voice - that's the best thing about being a lawyer. But the other things are, I just love the competitiveness about it - about the fact that you either win or lose, well, you can settle as well. But even that, you can kind of tell who won or lost. Creativity, especially being a trial lawyer, you get to be creative. Being able to really take on other people's problems and helping them with that. Really bonding with people - again, like the Maddie Jones - I can't tell you how many clients that we just form these relationships with. With the expert witnesses I work with all across the country, I've made some great friendships. I've made friends with lawyers all across this country, because I'm a lawyer. I've been able to serve on nonprofit boards because I'm a lawyer. I love being a lawyer for all those reasons. And shoot, I get to control my own calendar - as long as I don't have a court appointment or something booked - but I want to go see my kids' games, if I wanted to coach their teams, I've been able to do that. Yeah, there's probably even more reasons, but yes, I love being a lawyer.

[00:59:50] Crystal Fincher: That all makes sense, but that does not necessarily sound like the job of a Supreme Court justice.

[00:59:56] Sal Mungia: No kidding.

[00:59:57] Crystal Fincher: So why do you want to be a justice?

[00:59:59] Sal Mungia: To make a bigger difference - in a nutshell. Am I willing to sacrifice that? Yes. If I can make a bigger difference, if I can increase access to justice, if I can fight racism and discrimination even more as a justice, if I can ensure that the rule of law is enforced - I will give that up. There are sacrifices you have to make - those will be the sacrifices. The rewards - potential rewards - outweigh those sacrifices for me.

[01:00:28] Crystal Fincher: That makes sense. I get that. So just a couple more questions. We've covered a number of things today - is there anything that we haven't covered or anything that you wish people would be paying attention to or talking more about?

[01:00:42] Sal Mungia: I just want to emphasize that one thing about - people really don't understand, I think, the role of judges, especially appellate court judges - we're not there to go with a certain mission, we're not there to go with a certain agenda. You are there to go to really enforce the constitutions - the federal and state constitutions - and to respect the rule of law. And so people get upset. And it's the way it's reported by the media as well - The court upheld something. Well, the court really didn't uphold it, they may just have decided not to take a review. People don't know the difference on that. So really, that's part of just civics. Two, I think talking about civics and getting that back more into our schools. Because people don't understand - I forget, you always hear these outrageous statistics that maybe 30% of the people, of the public, can name the three different branches of government. Without that basic understanding, it's hard to understand what the Court does. And three, just the fact that it's important to try to learn about the candidates for the different judicial positions. I know it's hard, but you can go on certain websites such as Ballotpedia. You can look at what different groups, their endorsements are - to me, give me a clue. If you happen to know a lawyer, maybe they know, maybe they don't, but maybe they know and they can give you some recommendations. Look at what other groups that may align with your values or your thought processes may help you - and hopefully you triangulate - not just rely on one source, but multiple sources.

[01:02:06] Crystal Fincher: That's good advice. So as we're moving to close today, and as you talked about, voters are trying to understand who you are, who your opponents are, and figure this whole thing out. What do you tell them is the difference between you and your opponents, and why they should vote for you for Supreme Court justice?

[01:02:27] Sal Mungia: Three main reasons. One is my experience - I mean, really, the other three, far as I know, don't have any appellate experience at all. Two of them - I don't think have any trial, really, or they may have some - but not very much trial experience. And they certainly don't have experience litigating federal constitutional issues, state constitutional issues, or complex commercial disputes, property disputes - and don't have 38 years of experience.

[01:02:55] Crystal Fincher: Why does that matter? Is that something they can learn on the job?

[01:03:01] Sal Mungia: You can learn the substantive law to a certain extent. Everybody has their deficiencies, right? I mean, nobody is the perfect candidate going up. But I think what's important is whether people have grappled with, if you will, complex issues - if they have a track record of showing that they can - that they can analyze those. Yeah, you can learn them. Do you have the analytical skills to do it? Do you have a track record of showing you have done that? And what I'm saying is I don't think so with the others. And I think they're all three good people - I know one pretty well, the other two kind of well - they've got good hearts. I just think I have a different experience. Two, I think what makes me separate from the other three - and again, it's kind of reflected on one of the triangulations I talked about - is looking who's supporting me. When you have eight of the nine current state Supreme Court justices who are saying - You should be the guy - I think that, if I'm the listening public, would speak volumes, right? And they know the other three, especially Dave Larson, who is the municipal court judge. He's been around a long time - he's been around 38 years, or 40 years, 39, somewhere around there - and he's been on the municipal court bench 16 years or 18 years. So these judges know Dave Larson, and yet they're saying Sal Mungia is the guy who really should be up. And not just the eight, but over 100 judges, I said before, statewide. Most of the appellate court judges, again, have endorsed me on this position. And then looking at the union's endorsements, looking at elected official endorsements. And it's hard for me to say this because you want to try to remain humble at the same time and yet you're saying all this stuff. You like it when other people say it, but kind of triangulate on that. And then look at what maybe people have done in their past. My whole career, I fought for access to justice. I'm not just - said you should do pro bono work - I've represented people where the dispute's been less than $1,000 because they don't have a voice. I've represented people who are, again, incarcerated in jails, incarcerated in the Northwest Detention Center. I've gone to Eastern Washington to provide on a pro bono basis an appeal for a neighborhood group against a developer, because this neighborhood group couldn't afford counsel. And I said - Well, that's not right. - so I've gone over there. So hopefully I'm not just talk the talk, I've walked the walk. And so look at what they've done in the past. Go to my website, it'll show you what I've done in the past and I have a track record. And I think people can say whatever they want to say you want to do in the future. What have you done in the past?

[01:05:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. We're trending, or certainly elected officials are talking about trending towards incarcerating more people - particularly for lower-level misdemeanor crimes and requiring more jail space - while we are having challenges with some of those spaces with adequate staffing and services within those jails, in addition to issues with the ICE facility located in Tacoma and a seeming lack of accountability and transparency there. What role do the courts play and can you play as a justice in ensuring fairness in the treatment of people who are incarcerated and the approach to incarceration?

[01:06:11] Sal Mungia: Oh, I'm going to say - unfortunately, you can do more as a lawyer. And here's why. Judges don't make the laws. They don't get to say what the penalties are for certain crimes. They don't give the sentencing range - that's the Legislature, right? I talked about before - whether you like it or not as a judge, the Legislature has that authority. You have to respect that authority. And even though I may agree that we incarcerate way too many people. I always tell people the U.S. isn't number one in many things anymore, but we are number one in the percentage of people that we incarcerate. We're by far the number one country. And we tend to rely on penalties to address our civil ills. So I will leave it at that. As far as that main thing, what can judges do? Again, we can speak out on the administration of justice. So there's a couple of things we can do - we can set caseload standards for public defenders so that those who are accused of crimes hopefully will get competent representation and not get people who are just overwhelmed and overworked. And as you probably know, so many public defenders are just getting burned out and they're leaving the profession. And you can look at statewide where a lot of the counties are having troubles being able to hire and retain public defenders. Two, we can encourage the use of alternative courts. And this is at the lower courts, so usually at the municipal court level or district court level - drug courts, veteran courts, where again, trying to address the ills.

And I'll tell you a third more kind of a long range thing. I think it's incumbent upon all of us - is that you try to make a difference. And you know what? When I'm saying that is we know - here's one example. We know that if you can't read, if a kid can't read at grade level by the end of grade three, there's a direct correlation to being incarcerated. So that behooves all of us to do something about that. And I'm going to give the short version. Seven years ago, I started a program up at our law firm where we "adopted" - if you will, adopted, I'm using that in quotes - the first grade class at a local elementary school. We had people going in a couple of times a month. We provided them books. We actually took them on a field trip - I think in the first or second year - to the University of Washington, because we know that if you get a kid to a college campus, they're more likely to go to college. We told kids - We care about you. We know that if kids have at least one adult that cares about them - ideally it's a parent, but we know, unfortunately, that's not always the case - and that you care about them. So we followed these kids all through - until fifth grade, through fifth grade. I'm giving you the very short version. And it was great when the fifth grade teachers told me - Sal, I just want you to know, it's the first year all my kids were able to read at grade level and you guys were part of that. So we took a year off after that and we started back up with this year's first grade class doing the same thing. I love that. But that's the long-term thing, right? I would love to see our society front load issues instead of money to incarcerate people later on, where the cost of incarceration per person is anywhere from $50,000 on up.

[01:09:33] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. Completely agree. And thank you for that reflection - hopefully a lot of people in policymaking positions heed that advice. I do want to thank you for being extraordinarily gracious with your time today, extraordinarily open with your responses, and willingness to educate the public about where you stand and what's important. And your passion for the law - for representing people and for being a voice - clearly comes through. And it's exciting to see that passion in someone seeking office - it really provides a sense of optimism that's sorely needed, I think. So really appreciate you taking the time today. Thank you so much, Sal.

[01:10:17] Sal Mungia: Thank you, Crystal. It's been fun.

[01:10:19] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes.

Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.