As someone who spent his life and career striving to help the disadvantaged, I was disappointed when Sean O’Donnell was endorsed by the Seattle Times over Ian Birk. From a progressive standpoint, Birk’s record is far superior to O’Donnell’s. The Seattle Times, perhaps concerned about Birk’s successes taking on corporations, concocted a runaway story challenging Birk’s ethical standing in the legal community. Their lopsided coverage of this race shows their own partisanship and their own concern for corporate interests.
On July 26, 2026, the Seattle Times endorsed Sean O’Donnell for State Supreme Court over Ian Birk. Typically, mainstream newspapers give relatively equal time to both candidates—favoring, of course, the candidate they want to endorse. This endorsement wasn’t like that. It was almost exclusively about O’Donnell, even though the editorial’s authors acknowledged both candidates were highly qualified. There was no recognition of the Washington State Court of Appeals on which Birk serves, being of a higher status than the King County Superior Court, on which O’Donnell sits. While they noted that Birk was elected unopposed, which is common when incumbent judges run for office, there was no mention of his extensive volunteer work through the King County Bar Association, including, for example, providing free legal assistance to disadvantaged people for over 10 years.
On September 14, 2026, the Times published an article on O’Donnell’s claim that Birk had violated judicial ethics by mentioning that O’Donnell was supported by the WA GOP. Birk’s claim about O’Donnell being a Republican is most likely true. O’Donnell received their endorsement. Anyone who has been involved in state politics knows that the WA GOP is highly unlikely to support anyone who is not a Republican or a Republican-agenda supporter. The state GOP endorsement is much different than endorsements by local Democratic legislative district organizations, which both O’Donnell and Birk list. Legislative districts are far less careful about who they endorse. Why doesn’t O’Donnell list the WA GOP as one of his endorsers as a sign of his bipartisan appeal? That endorsement isn’t on his website. He lists a number of Democratic organizations—why not the WA GOP? It seems that he is trying to hide his Republican affiliation.
On September 20, the Times again, this time as an editorial, attacked Birk, accusing him of taking his campaign into “the gutter”—retreading that same issue of Birk exposing O’Donnell’s political leanings.
And then on October 21 the Times, unbelievably, once again published yet another scathing attack on Ian Birk. Keying off that same tired issue, the Times posted innuendos of sleaziness—actually using terms like “sleazy hit jobs” without specifying what those activities were. As near as I can tell, the editorial’s authors are referring to the sources of Birk’s donations because they then state, “Roughly 80% of Birk’s total contributions come from personal injury firms, their attorneys and families.” They go on to say that only 1 percent of O’Donnell’s contributions come from such donors.
Well, it doesn’t take a genius to know that this difference is a function of the type of law the two attorneys practiced during their careers. O’Donnell was not a personal injury attorney; Birk was. The Times’ editorial board heavily criticizes Birk and other personal injury attorneys for suing the state for millions of dollars. They neglect to include the millions such attorneys won for plaintiffs by suing megacorporations as well. Persons injured by corporate and government actions have the right to seek redress. Birk and other attorneys like him should be applauded for being good enough at their trade to take on the droves of corporate and state attorneys who defend the wrongdoers.
The vicious attacks on Ian Birk exemplify the Times’ efforts to defend corporate interests, the interests of organizations like those endorsing Sean O’Donnell: Yakima Valley Landlords Association; Washington Retail Association; Association of Washington Businesses; the Central Washington Home Builders Association; the Tacoma Business Council, etc.
The Times’ relentless attack on Birk is unabashed partisan politics. The editorial board recognizes in Birk, who is endorsed by just about every well-known progressive organization in the state, a formidable opponent of their own conservative agenda. There is a reason the Times endorsed O’Donnell—not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times! They know where his heart is, just like the Republican Party knows.
Birk’s history involves making sure that all people have equal access to the protection of the law, and he has committed himself to maintaining that position. Washington voters should support Ian Birk. He is honest, fair, and brilliant. He will serve us well on the Washington State Supreme Court.
As for the issue of nonpartisan races, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this concept. Races are identified as nonpartisan to prevent political parties from becoming involved. This does not mean the candidates running for nonpartisan races are nonpartisan. They still have ideological viewpoints. That includes judges. Just look at the United States Supreme Court. So, who do you prefer to run for office, someone who hides their political ideology or someone who makes no effort to do so? I prefer the latter, and that is the preference of just about everyone I talk to. People want to know who they are voting for. Ian Birk doesn’t come out and say what his political party preference is, which would be an ethics violation, but he makes no effort to hide who he is either. Those who try to hide who they are, like Sean O’Donnell, are being dishonest and doing the public a grave disservice.
John C. Alessio is a retired professor and university dean, and current Steilacoom resident. He is the author of multiple books.
