Laura Christensen Colberg

Laura Christensen Colberg graduated from Wenatchee High School. Christensen Colberg earned a bachelor's degree from Seattle Pacific University and a law degree from the University of Washington School of Law in 1996. Christensen Colberg's became a judge of the Snohomish County Superior Court in 2008.[1]

Laura Christensen Colberg did not complete [the profile publisher]'s 2026 Candidate Connection survey.

blockquote{border-left:none !important;padding-left:2em;position:relative;color:#444;font-family:"Libre Franklin",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;color:#202122;font-style:normal;}blockquote::before{content:open-quote;font-size:3em;line-height:0.1em;position:absolute;left:-10px;top:40px;color:#ccc}blockquote::after{content:close-quote;font-size:3em;line-height:0.1em;position:absolute;right:0;bottom:0;color:#ccc}

Campaign websiteChristensen Colberg's campaign website stated the following:What experience qualifies you for this position?I’ve been a family law attorney for almost 30 years, and for 18 years, I’ve served as a Court Commissioner pro tem in Snohomish County Superior Court, as well as a court-appointed Arbitrator for ten years. This means I “put on the black robe” and make decisions in family law cases—mostly temporary orders (parenting plans, child support orders, restraints, contempt and the like).I take seriously the responsibility entrusted to me to determine facts, apply the law, and sign orders that will have far-reaching implications on families in crisis. I’m charged with ensuring that the best interests of the children come first, and I humbly realize that in the context of what happens behind closed doors, I may never know what really happened when the only evidence is what “he said” vs what “she said.” There is no substitute for judicial experience. It takes hard work, diligence, and humble pursuit of wisdom in discerning the truth and the best/most appropriate path forward under the law.What is your judicial philosophy?A regular-sitting Court Commissioner, in providing training for pro tem Commissioners, put it this way: “Start with ‘No.’” Whatever the litigant or attorney wants, the answer is “No”—until they first provide a legal basis for their right to request the relief they’re asking for. Once the legal basis for the request is established, then evaluating the facts comes next, including any credibility determination as to what most likely occurred (looking for corroborating evidence or weighing in-person testimony by demeanor and the like)—here is where the court necessarily applies discretion. Then applying the law to the most-likely set of facts should lead to a consistent body or range of outcomes, keeping in mind (at least in family law), the broad range of discretion bestowed on the court.When asked to evaluate a Constitutional issue, I will start with the plain language of the Constitution. If it says what it says without ambiguity, there’s no need to embellish or take things further. Where there could be a difference in interpretation, then case law and precedent should inform and direct an outcome. In rare situations, it’s still appropriate to revisit a prior decision in order to correct an error in law or application—but this should never be done lightly or without a comprehensive and valid justification. As humans can make mistakes, so any human system or court can still get something wrong. The beauty of our system is that it provides a way to fix things, even a Supreme Court decision.Which U.S. Supreme Court Justice is your role model/hero?I do not have a role model/hero on the U.S. Supreme Court.As a fifth-grader, I recall a sense of admiration for Sandra Day O’Connor when President Reagan appointed her as the first female Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. She faced pressure in that role as the “first” and yet stayed true to herself and carved her own path, not always voting the way everyone expected her to. She is notable in that regard, but I look elsewhere for role models and heroes.How are you different from your opponents in this race? What sets you apart?Of the three candidates in this race for Position 1, I am the only one who would come to the Supreme Court bench with prior judicial experience (the incumbent was appointed four months ago). My 18 years as a pro tem Commissioner making decisions in high-conflict, highly emotional and stressful situations have impressed upon me the gravity of the responsibility as a judicial officer. There are long-lasting ripple effects resulting from every decision I make. Protecting children, protecting victims is paramount. But so is creating a path toward restoration, rehabilitation or reconciliation, especially within family relationships. I don’t take any decision lightly. I read piles of case materials. This undoubtedly prepares me for this role in ways that litigation alone cannot.Bringing a Family Law perspective to the court is unique to me. In fact, there has only been one other Supreme Court Justice (Justice Faith Ireland) who had any family law practice background and she left the court 20 years ago, in 2006. Family Law is the area the average Washington citizen is most likely to brush up against the court system—everyone either has or knows someone who has gone through a divorce. It’s relatable, accessible, and for Justices who have not practiced as an attorney or been through a divorce personally, the decisions made by the court, or delays in getting a family law decision finalized… these are perspectives I can bring that might not otherwise be part of the discussion.I’m not a governor-appointee. I want to earn my place on the Supreme Court by vote of the people, not a partisan politician. I haven’t “shown my cards” by litigating tax issues (as has one of my opponents), knowing a tax-related challenge is likely to come before me.I owe no favors to anyone. I don’t have any appearance of a conflict of interest. I can consider and decide cases based on the law alone.How do you ensure that you will be free of political/partisan influence or from contributors or endorsers?In the world of political messaging today, it is (to me) impossible to discern the truth. So much polarization and extremism from both major political parties leaves me trusting my own judgment more and more, rather than any slogan or catch-all denigration of any political party or leader.All of us are human. All of us are flawed. We all come with baggage and biases (some we might not even realize). Starting with that awareness—that in every human system or institution there is still the possibility for mistakes—keeps me humble and aware that I, too, can make mistakes, as much as I try my best to discern what is really going on and the most-correct decision under the circumstances.I’m new to campaigning but when I campaign, I plan to open with something along these lines: “I can’t promise you anything. I can’t ask you for anything. I offer my willingness to serve, my education and experience, and my commitment to working hard, doing the best job I can, and earning your trust to make those judgments based on the character, acuity and work ethic I bring to this position.”Ultimately, anyone who endorses me will not be in the room when I do the reading, the analysis, and the opinion-drafting. I will have in my mind the facts, the law, and the appropriate outcome, without consulting anyone who might think they have an interest in the outcome. I will keep in mind the voters of Washington State, the citizens who will have entrusted me with this responsibility and I will do my best by them—all of them/us.What types of cases have you handled and how do they relate to the Supreme Court?Family law cases, including about a dozen that have gone up to the Court of Appeals, have been the scope of my practice, but this touches upon other areas of law—I must recognize criminal behavior and allow for someone to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights when criminal charges are pending (or might be); I must know my way around financial records to determine income in calculating child support—tax returns, pay stubs, allowable deductions, capital gains, investments, interest… all of these are implicated and play a part in a party’s financial circumstances. Property rights and transfer requirements are present in almost every case.Few family law cases present themselves to the Washington State Supreme Court because of the impracticality of getting a speedy decision. If it takes 18 months (give or take) to get a decision on Appeal, and another 12-18 months to apply for cert for consideration by the Supreme Court, a lower decision, even if in error, will likely be moot by the time the review process runs its course. Meanwhile, children grow up, age out… and any harm from an incorrect decision by then is near irreparable—either the children have been in contact with a parent in a harmful manner, or they have been deprived contact with a parent and lost the benefits of that relationship. Or a parent has been without sufficient financial resources—or been required to pay more than they can afford. In these cases, “Justice delayed is justice denied,” so most have to “live with” the initial decisions made. In the logistical flow of cases through the appellate courts and the Supreme Court, I will advocate for a fast-tracking approach to family law cases for this reason.None of the Supreme Court Justices in Washington have had an extensive family law background. It’s time for this voice to be part of discussions.Family law itself is not a narrow specialty — see the full breadth of law it touches.— Laura Christensen Colberg's campaign website (July 6, 2026)Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.