Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.020 (2025)
Divisions—Locations—Judges enumerated—Districts
✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The court shall have three divisions, one of which shall be headquartered in Seattle, one of which shall be headquartered in Spokane, and one of which shall be headquartered in Tacoma:
(1) The first division shall have twelve judges from three districts, as follows:
(a) District 1 shall consist of King county and shall have eight judges;
(b) District 2 shall consist of Snohomish county and shall have two judges; and
(c) District 3 shall consist of Island, San Juan, Skagit, and Whatcom counties and shall have two judges.
(2) The second division shall have eight judges from the following districts:
(a) District 1 shall consist of Pierce county and shall have three judges;
(b) District 2 shall consist of Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason, and Thurston counties and shall have three judges;
(c) District 3 shall consist of Clark, Cowlitz, Lewis, Pacific, Skamania, and Wahkiakum counties and shall have two judges.
(3) The third division shall have five judges from the following districts:
(a) District 1 shall consist of Ferry, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Spokane, and Stevens counties and shall have two judges;
(b) District 2 shall consist of Adams, Asotin, Benton, Columbia, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Walla Walla, and Whitman counties and shall have one judge;
(c) District 3 shall consist of Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Klickitat, and Yakima counties and shall have two judges.
[ 2009 c 77 s 1; 1999 c 75 s 1; 1993 c 420 s 1; 1989 c 328 s 10; 1977 ex.s. c 49 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 221 s 2.]
Notes:
Rules of court: Cf. RAP 4.1(b).
Judicial position contingent on funding—2009 c 77: "The judicial position created by *section 1, chapter 77, Laws of 2009 shall become effective only if that position is specifically funded and is referenced by division and district in an omnibus appropriations act." [ 2009 c 77 s 2.]
*Reviser's note: The judicial position created by section 1, chapter 77, Laws of 2009 was not referenced in a 2009 omnibus appropriations act.
Effective date—1993 c 420: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [May 15, 1993]." [ 1993 c 420 s 3.]
Intent—1989 c 328: See note following RCW 2.08.061.
Appointments to positions created by the amendment to this section by 1977 ex.s. c 49 s 1: RCW 2.06.075.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: Eugster v. State, 171 Wash. 2d 839 (2011).
Eugster v. State, 171 Wash. 2d 839 (2011). “RCW 2.06.020. 1 According to Eugster, the popula *842 tion per judge in the various districts ranges from 201,750 to 467,500.”
Eugster v. State, 259 P.3d 146 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 2.06.020. [1] According to Eugster, the population per judge in the various districts ranges from 201,750 to 467,500.”
Schillberg v. Williams, 801 P.2d 241 (Wash. 1990). “See RCW 2.06.020(1)(b); RCW 29.21.370. On September 21, during that filing period, Judge Schillberg filed a declaration of candidacy for the Court of Appeals position.”
Knight v. Fontes, 579 P.3d 1235 (Ariz. 2025). “Compare Wash. Rev. Code §§ 2.06.020 , 2.06.070, 2.”
Wash. Rev. Code § 2.06.020(1)(b): 1 case
Schillberg v. Williams, 801 P.2d 241 (Wash. 1990). “See RCW 2.06.020(1)(b); RCW 29.21.370. On September 21, during that filing period, Judge Schillberg filed a declaration of candidacy for the Court of Appeals position.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.