Ad Info

seattletimes.com navigation
Election 2000 : State Legislature : Candidate Bio

Voters Guide
President
U.S. Congress
Governor & Other Executive Offices
State Legislature
Judicial Races
Ballot Measures
Voter FAQs
 
Endorsements
Editorials & Opinion
 








Kathy Lambert, Republican (Incumbent)
 
Candidate: State Representative,
Kathy Lambert
Kathy Lambert
  District 45, Position 1
 
Age: 47
 
Residence: Redmond
 
Occupation:
  Public school substitute teacher/state representative
 
Education:
  B.A. in business education, University of Washington
 
Political history: State representative
 
Endorsements:
  Washington Taxpayers Association, Mainstream Republicans, Public School Employees of Washington
 
Campaign Web site: http://www.kathylambert.com
 
Campaign theme: No response.
 

 
1.  What is your position on the initiatives proposed on this year's November ballot?
  I-713 - Animal trapping no
  I-722 - Property taxes yes
  I-728 - School district financing no response
  I-729 - Charter schools yes
  I-732 - Teacher raises no response
  I-745 - Transportation funding yes
 
2.  Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared blanket primary elections like Washington's violate political parties' constitutional rights, what form of new primary election system would you propose adopting?
  It is important that we balance the right of the citizens to express their choice for candidates with the Supreme Court ruling of freedom of association. This will require public hearings so that all citizens are confident that their voice is heard in the process. Washingtonians are independent thinkers.
 
3.  Would you continue the trend of recent years and support tax cuts for businesses? Which ones specifically? If not, why?
  Family-wage-paying jobs are the basis of a healthy economy. We have created many new jobs in the last five years by attracting and retaining businesses. Many companies are highly mobile, and we need to provide the regulatory environment to keep excellent companies here providing jobs.
 
4.  Would you support a Constitutional amendment that would allow tax breaks for homeowners but not for business or commercial property? Why or why not?
  We need to reduce property taxes for all citizens. Uniform property taxation is a constitutional protection in this state. This amendment would shift the tax burden from one group to another, possibly creating additional costs with retail-price increases. Currently all taxpayer groups have an equal interest in reducing taxes.
 
5.  What privacy legislation would you support? Would you exempt financial institutions? Why or why not?
  Citizens deserve the confidence of knowing their privacy is protected. Technology provides for many types of records to be linked. This is a national issue and laws should be uniformly applied to government and businesses. People must be able to give informed consent about usage of their information.
 
6.  A commission studying transportation funding says a new financing mechanism is needed to keep Washington transportation projects on track. How would you propose financing future transportation projects?
  The Blue Ribbon Commission report has 64 options to evaluate. I've been attending meetings preparing for these decisions. We need to coordinate the 468 jurisdictions that are funding transportation projects. We must streamline costs and regulations as we're among one of the most expensive states in cost per lane mile.
 
7.  With some states reconsidering the death penalty, what is your position and what changes, if any, do you think are needed in Washington's law? Under what circumstances would you support a moratorium?
  The Office of Public Defense Commission created in 1996 monitors that justice is served and that the accused get fair trials. As a charter board member, we monitor the cases of the 13 people on death row. There is not a problem here with the administration of the death penalty.
 
8.  A judge struck down Initiative 695's provision that would have required a public vote for all tax and fee increases. Would you support a Constitutional amendment that would require the public vote? Why or why not?
  This is the people's money! Citizens have a right and responsibility to oversee spending. The initiative required voting on all increases; that might be cumbersome. It should be clearly defined. Citizens have input in the legislative budget process and this would provide added protection that their money is spent wisely.

 


Ad Info
[ seattletimes.com home ]
[ Classified Ads | NWsource.com | Contact Us | Search Archive ]

Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company

Back to Top