Dave Larson
Non-Partisan | Washington
Candidate Profile
Originalist (Conditional)
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Dave Larson
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2024
Election
Primary
Race
Supreme Court, Position 2
Incumbent
No
Links
EDUCATION
Seattle University School of Law, Seattle, Juris Doctor, 1984
University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, Bachelor of Arts, 1980
WORK & MILITARY
City of Federal Way, Presiding Judge, 2008-present
Federal Way School Board, Board Member/President, 2006-2008
Civil trial lawyer, Trial lawyer, 1985-2008
AFFILIATIONS
District & Municipal Court Judges Association, Member (also member of multiple committees)
Civic Learning Council, Board Member
Kiwanis Club of Federal Way, Board Member
Aktion Club of Federal Way, Founder and Advisor
Council on Independent Courts, Member and former co-chair
St Vincent de Paul Parish, Former Chair of Pastoral Council
St Vincent de Paul Parish, Eucharistic Minister
Public Trust & Confidence Committee - Board of Judicial Administration, Former Member
Puget Sound Honor Flight, Guardian
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Judge, 2008-present
School Board Member - Federal Way Public Schools, 2006-2008
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
(Candidate did not provide)
ENDORSEMENTS
CONSERVATIVE (1)
Washington State Republican Party
OTHER (3)
Association of Washington Business (AWB); Snohomish County Republican Party; Clark County Republican Party
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (1)
Local, County, and District Republican Organizations (2024)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (13)
Jeanette Burrage (2024); Mark Davies (2024); Local, County, and District Republican Organizations (2020); Mark Hargrove (2020); Mike Padden (2020)
LIBERAL
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (0)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (3)
Cheryl Hurst (2024); International Brotherhood of Teamsters (2016); Office and Professional Employees International Union (2016)
OTHER INFORMATION
"Election 2024: Judge Dave Larson – Candidate for State Supreme Court." Undivided podcast with Brandi Kruse.
- Disagreed with the majority opinion in Quinn v. State, 526 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 680, 217 L. Ed. 2d 381 (2024). Agreed with the Justice Gordon McCloud dissent stating, “it’s income.”
- Disagreed with the majority decision in State v. Blake, 197 Wash. 2d 170, 481 P.3d 521 (2021), stating that “The majority’s decision was based on some things that were never argued in the case. In other words, it's not even fair to the parties to make your decision based on things that were not even argued by the parties.” In State v. Blake "the Court ruled that RCW 69.50.4013(1)—the portion of the simple drug possession statute crime—is unconstitutional and void."
"The test for a judge is not what personal opinions the judge holds. The true test is whether the judge can overcome their personal opinions to follow the law and the constitution as written."
Dave Larson said, "The single most important reason to vote for me is I will uphold my oath of office by supporting the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington. I will also respect you and the other branches of government by not legislating from the bench. We have the best state constitution in the country. It has greater protections for our rights. Our state constitution restates the promise of the Declaration of Independence and defines the relationship of the individual and government as follows: 'All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.' This means that anyone that takes the oath of office...promises to protect and maintain individual rights of: Due process, Free Speech, Freedom of assembly, Property rights, Freedom of religion, The right to bear arms, The rights of the accused, Privacy and Equal protection of the law. In these divisive times, the Courts need to be that branch of government that is fair and impartial and does not take sides in the political battles that are consuming us. I will respect the Constitution as written and leave politics to the other two branches of government."
Larson believes that inserting personal opinion into the judiciary makes in chaotic and inconsistent. Larson said, “infusion of policy and policy creation within the judiciary is dysfunctional and doesn’t work.”
When asked, "Are there reasons where it is appropriate to give more weight to a person’s skin color or is that always irrelevant?" Larson responded, "It is not always irrelevant.... If there experience as a black young male or female or Asian, if it influenced their behavior in some way then yes, it is relevant. How I deal with it as a white male, is in some people’s eyes is troublesome, but it goes back to dignity and respect. The system does aggravate racism. It aggravates it because we're more about process.... So yes, a person’s experience is relevant.”
Agreed with the decision in McCleary v. State, 173 Wash. 2d 477, 269 P.3d 227 (2012) but found that “what the Court has done with it since the decision has been made has been disruptive to our system of government and doesn’t not solve our education funding issues. The aftermath of the McClearly case become so extreme that the Supreme Court has been asked to close to the school and one justice even asked if they could raise taxes by $28 billion.”
Judge Dave Larson, running for Supreme Court of Washington, Position 3. Seattle's Morning News with Dave Ross
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
Dobbs v. Jackson and Roe v. Wade are examples of cases that reveal the problem with courts setting public policy. Setting public policy is not a role of the courts under the state or federal constitutions. The founders never envisioned a court system that would or could undermine the legislative branch power to set public policy, such as defining when life begins or to what extent a woman can control the outcome of a pregnancy.
I support a right to accelerate ending a human life.
Neutral
As stated above, judges should not express opinions on issues such as these, and this kind of neutrality allows for the application of the law, rather than the goal of furthering personal agendas.
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Neutral
See response to Question #2.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States.
Neutral
The First Amendment is well known, but Art. I, Sec. 11 of our State Constitution is clear that, "Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion..." However, there is undeniable hostility towards religion in some of the courts throughout the United States. Judges/justices should protect all rights, including religious rights.
2ND AMENDMENT
The right to bear arms is fundamental and must be protected.
Neutral
My rulings are dictated by the state and federal constitutions; the right to bear arms is in the 2nd Amendment and Art. I, Sec 24. However, this issue is currently in litigation so I cannot comment directly on this issue.
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
The legislative branch.
How should the court address public health and individual freedoms in the time of a public health emergency?
Decide cases not regulate
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
None
Is there a separation of church and state in the Constitution? Please explain.
The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion but protects the individual's right to religious expression. The concept of "separation of church and state" has been used by some to justify interfering with the free exercise of religion in the public square and in that way, it is a flawed concept.
Should courts address threats to religious liberty in the United States? If so, how?
Only if litigation on the issue is before the court.
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain.
The U.S. Constitution does not regulate marriage.
Was Bostock v. Clayton County rightly decided under the law? Please explain.
Not enough space
iVoterGuide Notes:
Candidate notified iVoterGuide that his answer should have been, "42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1) is a remedial statute, meaning that it proscribes a right of action for those who are protected by the statute. Sexual orientation is not listed as a protected class in the statute. Several states, including Washington, amended their discrimination statutes by including sexual orientation. Washington added sexual orientation as a protected class in 2006 as societal views on sexual preference changed. (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2661). Although this view is not popular with many, the Court should not have extended the statute beyond its plain meaning, and Congress should have decided whether to include sexual orientation as a protected class in the same manner that our own legislature did."
I agree that “the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 (2000); quoting Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
Neutral
As stated above, judges should not express opinions on issues such as these, and this kind of neutrality allows for the application of the law, rather than the goal of furthering personal agendas. However, that is the current state of the law, but the issues is before the Court so no further comment is appropriate based on ethics constraints.
What should a judge do when legislative texts and court precedents dictate different results?
Assuming that the issue relates to something squarely within the legislature's power, the legislative text should control.
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
When it is shown that the reasoning of the previous case is flawed.
When, if ever, should a judge take popular opinion or the social views of the majority into consideration?
Never CJC 2.4, Comment 1
Do you believe the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, absent changes through the amendment process of Article V?
No
What do you believe is the single most important quality a judge should possess?
Humility, a strong sense of responsibility to others, and a commitment to the law and the principles that formed the state and federal Constitutions.
If you are an incumbent judge, describe a recent instance in which you acted to preserve your judicial independence. If you are an aspiring judge, how do you plan to remain independent if elected to the bench?
My work in the area of judicial independence inspired the formation of the Council on Independent Courts and earned me the President's Award from the District and Municipal Court Judges Association in 2018. It is my humility, a strong sense of responsibility to others, and a commitment to the law and the principles that formed the state and federal Constitutions that keeps me independent.
ABOUT YOU
What, if any, church or organizations do you belong to?
St. Vincent de Paul Parish in Federal Way
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
No
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
No
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else? Please explain.
I believe that a judge's role is to interpret and enforce the law and Constitution as they are written and not to impose their personal opinions on what the law and Constitution should be. Our job is to not legislate from the bench, it’s to protect the health and welfare of our communities and uphold constitutional rights.
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I am a Roman Catholic.
What is your view of parental rights regarding the upbringing of children, specifically education and sexual "identity"?
This matter is currently in litigation so I cannot comment.
I support "gender identity" as a specially protected class. Please explain.
Neutral
As in all issues affecting public policy, this is an issue for the legislature.
What do you believe to be true about the human condition?
That we are flawed and that just as we have free will to gravitate to the best in human nature, we also have free will to gravitate to the worst in human nature. It is the presence or absence of a moral compass that dictates our path. The extent to which we can be free depends upon our collective ability to make choices that gravitate to the best in human nature.
EQUALITY
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Neutral
As stated above, this is another question that is not for a judge to answer, but I can say that anything that focuses on the worst part of our history without also looking to the best in our history is flawed, dangerous, and disrespectful to those who fought for freedom and human dignity. However, it would also be folly to ignore the worst parts of our history because that is where we can learn to be better.
