Ad Info navigation
Election 2000 : State Legislature : Candidate Bio

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

Dave Schmidt, Republican (Incumbent)
Candidate: State Representative,
Dave Schmidt
Dave Schmidt
  District 44, Position 1
Age: 46
Residence: Bothell
  Personnel administration
  B.A., George Fox University, M.A., theology, Multnomah Seminary
Political history: State representative
  Washington State Council of Police and Sheriffs, Human Services and Housing Now, National Federation of Independent Businesses
Campaign Web site:
Campaign theme:
  Leadership we know and trust.

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
  I-729 - Charter schools yes
  I-732 - Teacher raises no
  I-745 - Transportation funding no
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?
  I favor an open primary system allowing individuals to chose their ballot at election time. No party registration would be required. Individuals would be able to vote as they choose in each primary election, continuing our state's tradition of independent voting.
3.  Would you continue the trend of recent years and support tax cuts for businesses? Which ones specifically? If not, why?
  Washington's business-and-occupation-tax system has produced a burdensome environment for our businesses. As we progress into the information age it has placed a disadvantage on our businesses competing with those in other states. A restructuring of the B&O tax system is essential.
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?
  NO. The state constitution requires all properties to be taxed on a fair and equal basis. Creating a multiple-tax-rate system through a constitutional amendment opens the door for hidden tax shifts and increases. This issue has been before the Legislature many times disguised as a tax cut. In reality it becomes a loophole to shift and increase property taxes.
5.  What privacy legislation would you support? Would you exempt financial institutions? Why or why not?
  Approximately 20 bills were introduced on this issue during the past session. Many of them I co-sponsored. Both private financial institutions and government agencies need attention regarding misuse of individuals' private data. That few passed indicates the sensitivity of the issue. While many want absolute privacy, constitutional freedoms do not allow laws to discriminate. I support protecting individuals' private data from being used without their knowledge.
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 mobility of people, goods and services has reached a crisis point. Arguments revolve around roads vs. transit, government waste vs. spending efficiencies. The problem is greater than any one solution. Road expansion and transit are required. Spending and accountability priorities alone will not provide the funds needed. I have supported indexing the gas tax as well as a modest increase. This year I supported vehicle-related tax revenues dedicated to transportation.
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?
  Washington's death penalty laws are used in extreme and severe situations. Our appeal process is long and extensive with numerous safeguards. We have had very few executions in the past 20 years in contrast to other states with such laws. I do not support a moratorium.
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?
  I support some changes in laws but not the constitution. Ours is based on a system of representative democracy. No corporation turns to its stockholders regarding decisions on everyday policy. Such practices would hinder the company or put it out of business. Overreaching amendments will be counterproductive.


Ad Info
[ home ]
[ Classified Ads | | Contact Us | Search Archive ]

Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company

Back to Top