Community Government

Vet Caldier, upstart Mitchell vying for 26th District seat

Four Democrats have taken a crack at state Rep. Michelle Caldier since she edged Larry Seaquist in 2014 to capture the 26th Legislative District’s Position 2 seat. None have come close. Caldier, R-Gig Harbor, has won every general election race by double digits.

Next up is Tiffiny Mitchell, who finished second to Caldier in the five-person, Aug. 6 primary election. Caldier, 48, garnered 33.7% of the vote to 29.8% for Mitchell. Falling out of contention were Gig Harbor Republican Rachel Harter (18.4%), Bremerton Democrat Lori McPherson (10.7%) and Gig Harbor independent Josh Smith (7.6%).

The general election is Nov. 5. Pierce County will mail ballots on Oct. 18. They must be postmarked no later than election day or placed in a ballot drop box by 8 p.m. Drop boxes are at the Gig Harbor library and city hall, Nichols Center on Fox Island, the Purdy park-and-ride, Lake Kathryn Food Market, Key Center Food Market and Home Park.

The 26th District comprises the Gig Harbor area, Key Peninsula, most of South Kitsap and part of Bremerton. Representatives earn $61,997 per year.

Caldier a known commodity

Besides the 4-point gap, Mitchell, 40, must overcome Caldier’s name recognition. She is relatively new to the area and to politics. The former Astorian arrived in Port Orchard in 2021 after completing one term in the Oregon Legislature.

“My Democrat opponent is very far to the left, I feel, and she also has little name recognition. She hasn’t lived here,” said Caldier, a retired dentist. “Name recognition is one of the more important factors when it comes to running an election. That’s the advantage of the incumbent. I don’t think Tiffiny will garner the independent support. Historically, I’ve always garnered more independent support. We’ll see. I haven’t changed my stripes. I’m the same person, and I’m hopeful the voters will support me for another term.”

Caldier believes familiarity becomes more significant in general elections. Primaries largely comprise hard-core Republican and Democrat voters. Many independents and moderates don’t jump in until the general, she said.

“They’re the ones who determine whether it’ll be a Republican or Democrat (who’s elected),” she said of the swing district.

Mitchell concedes that Caldier is better known, but said she’s frequently heard while canvassing that residents are ready for a change.

“Michelle does have the name recognition that incumbency gives her,” Mitchell said. “I’m realistic with that being a challenge I have to overcome. … Even with that name recognition, Michelle has had 10 years to show us who she really is in office, and if you look at her votes it tells the story about where she stands when it comes to what she’s trying to accomplish in the Legislature.”

Mitchell backs reproductive health care, workers

Where Caldier stands, Mitchell said, is not strongly enough behind Mitchell’s top issues of women’s reproductive health care and policies that support working people. In Oregon, Mitchell helped pass bills for paid family and medical leave, rent stabilization, more affordable and more plentiful housing, and to generate $1 billion per year for education by taxing large businesses.

“The presumption that people have is that an incumbent has been effective, and I don’t think that’s the case,” Mitchell said. “We need someone to vote for progressive legislation to bring down the price of health care and housing, to bring creative situations to Olympia that will actually help people. I feel like the people here are ready for that change.”

Though Washington women’s right to abortion appears safe, other states have shown after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade that it isn’t guaranteed. Mitchell said she would support a constitutional amendment to allow voters decide whether to codify abortion protections.

Caldier serves on the Regulated Substance and Gaming; Health Care and Wellness; and Innovation, Community and Economic Development and Veterans committees. She worked to end the statewide eviction moratorium, bring toll relief, procure funding for new ferries, resume police pursuits and help people overcome health challenges, she said.

Caldier expecting to gain Harter voters

Normally, most of Republican Harter’s votes would be expected to shift to Caldier. Though Caldier doesn’t get along with former 26th District seatmate Jesse Young, who she says recruited Harter to run against her, she still thinks that most of them will come around to her.

“Those (Harter) voters tend to be more extreme on the Republican side,” Caldier said. “They’ll likely still vote, and I doubt they will vote for a Democrat.”

Mitchell finds hope in the primary election results.

“I think it was a fairly telling primary about how truly swingy this district is and how purple it is, and it could go either way,” she said. “If you look at the percentages and add them up, it creates a really close race between the two of us. There is a real opportunity to flip the seat, and there are plenty who are ready for something new. At the end of the day, it’s up to people like myself to say we need a change and someone to stand up for the rights of working people.”

The Pierce County Republican Party endorsed political newcomer Harter instead of veteran Caldier in the primary. The group criticized Caldier for supporting Jim Henderson against Young for the 26th District’s Position 1. It claimed that Henderson, who is gay, is not a Republican. The group opposes gay marriage and Caldier’s use of an intrauterine birth control device, views the average Republican doesn’t share, Caldier said.

“The people know at the end of the day I will listen to the public and vote the way the public wants,” she said. “If that means I’m getting attacked by political extremists, I feel that’s part of my job and I will stand up for them. I don’t believe a small minority should dictate what the majority wants. Historically, voters have come out to support me because of that.”

Caldier puts investigations behind her

Caldier also became involved in a dispute with House Republican Caucus leadership that she attributed to insufficient accommodation for her vision loss. She left the caucus in November 2022, forfeiting her committee assignments, but returned in spring 2023 after minority leader J.T. Wilcox stepped down from the role. Reports found she bullied and berated employees and retaliated against three witnesses by revealing their names to reporters. Her access to caucus staff was curtailed. Her disability was addressed and she returned to her committees.

Caldier said the community knows who she is, and that’s not the person depicted in the reports.

“What they’ve written is not my character at all, and I have to trust the public will see through all that,” she said earlier.

The House Republican Organizational Committee contributed $15,000 to Caldier’s campaign.

Mitchell overcomes late start

Mitchell surmounted a late campaign start to advance to the general election after confusion whether becoming a lawmaker would conflict with her position as a Washington Employment Security Department benefit specialist. She didn’t register until the last day of filing week in May. She has also closed a fundraising gap.

Caldier, who graduated from Central Kitsap High School and Olympic College before earning bachelor’s and Doctor of Dental Surgery degrees from the University of Washington, has raised $140,027, according to the Public Disclosure Commission. Donors include $47,107 from individuals, $42,650 from political action committees, $28,892 from businesses and $17,500 from the caucus. She received strong support from the medical/dental community.

Mitchell, who received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Utah followed by an MBA from Western Governors University, has raised $123,811, including $49,000 from the party, $32,163 from individuals and $26,445 from political action committees. Top donations are $35,000 from the House Democratic Campaign Committee and $14,000 from the 26th District Democrats. She has spent just $36,020 to Caldier’s $109,527.

Question & answer

Gig Harbor Now asked both candidates for written responses to five questions covering living costs, school funding, women’s reproductive rights, drug abuse and rent hikes. Their responses are printed verbatim below:

Tiffiny Mitchell

1. What, within your control as a state representative, would you do to address the rising cost of living?

Acknowledging that the state cannot fix everything, I do think that there is still quite a bit that the legislature can do to address Washington’s high cost of living. And as someone who has experience as a state representative in the past (in Oregon), I already have a track record of supporting policies that make a difference in the lives of everyday people–and I’ll do the same in Washington. As a state representative, I would continue to focus on several key areas that impact Washingtonians’ bottom lines: housing, healthcare, and transportation costs.

For example, not only will I advocate for affordable housing initiatives like increasing funding for low-income housing, but I’ll also work to support policies that will responsibly increase the supply of housing and infrastructure that can accommodate all different types of income levels in our state and work to stabilize rental costs for those who rent. People who don’t meet the traditional definition of lower-income, who are making what was once considered a good living, are still struggling paycheck-to-paycheck with soaring rental costs and housing that is far too expensive. That is why I would also support policies that encourage the development of affordable units, like traditional “starter” homes, infill housing, and would work to stabilize rental costs and reduce “junk fees” on renters. Additionally, I’d work to ensure that our state’s minimum wage keeps pace with inflation, helping workers earn a livable wage.

It’s also crucial to invest in public transportation to provide accessible and affordable options for commuting, reducing the overall cost of travel for families. This is especially true in forgotten areas like the Key Peninsula, where getting around is all-but-impossible without a car. And for many of our commuting working families — working to build on the accomplishments of Senator Randall to lower the toll on the Tacoma Narrows bridge will be a primary objective, working on getting funding to address the Purdy bridge, and the dreaded Gorst corridor.

Finally — healthcare costs, insurance, and prescription drugs take a huge chunk out of the paychecks of Washingtonians — both working families and retired folks alike. I would push for legislation aimed at lowering prescription drug prices, expanding access to healthcare services, and working with partners on solutions aimed at implementing reasonable regulations to help control cost.

By prioritizing these issues, I believe we can make meaningful progress in alleviating the financial burden on our communities.

2. How would you fully fund public schools while also funding other high-priority demands for state spending?

Funding essential state services, including ensuring that all of our kids get the best possible education, shouldn’t be pitted against each other. To ensure we can support all the things that are important to Washingtonians and ensure our kids have the skills they need to succeed in the future requires creative thinking and a commitment to rebalance our regressive tax code that currently broadly targets all Washingtonians, regardless of their ability to pay. I would advocate for a comprehensive review of our state’s tax structure to ensure it is equitable and sufficient, and look to enhance funding through progressive tax policies that could create more dedicated revenue streams that can fully fund our school districts without asking communities to step up after-the-fact through bonds and levies.

The success of the capital gains tax illustrates a viable path forward. With only about 4,000 Washingtonians contributing, it generated nearly a billion dollars for education funding and school construction. And as a state representative in Oregon’s 32nd district, I lent my vote to a legislative effort that added a projected billion dollars a year into their education system through a carefully targeted, gross sales receipts tax on highest-earning businesses in the state (think Nike and the Tillamook Creamery, not small businesses). The bill was called the “Student Success Act,” and demonstrates how we can create a fairer tax system that supports our schools. And additionally, we should strengthen the funding formula to meet the actual costs of education — particularly for students with diverse needs. Exploring partnerships with local governments and businesses can also help supplement funding initiatives. By being proactive and innovative in our funding strategies, we can build a stronger, more equitable system for everyone.

3. What would be your priorities around abortion and women’s health care?

People should have control over what happens to their own bodies — full stop. The government, whether federal or state, should not be in people’s exam rooms. Keeping decisions about women’s bodies squarely with them is a huge priority of mine in light of the larger, overarching threats we’ve seen emerge since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade and decades of precedent.

Admittedly, we have incredibly robust protections around women’s reproductive rights in Washington — something that makes us a haven for women fleeing the punitive and restrictive laws in conservative states like Idaho and Texas. One of the key differences between myself and my opponent, however, is the idea that these protections are set in stone. I absolutely believe we should not take our protections for granted. Politics can change at a state level — as we’ve seen that change recently in historically conservative states like George and Arizona, which Biden won in 2020 and are still in play in the 2024 election. And while my opponent has tried to suggest that it’s inconceivable to believe Washington might ever change so drastically, Republicans who support policies like removing women’s right to choose wouldn’t be trying so hard to expand their majorities if they felt it was impossible.

And in our particular district, the incumbent has voted consistently against bills designed to protect access — including a bill in 2023 that allowed for the state to stockpile Mifepristone (the drug used in the majority of abortions in this country), voted against a bill that protects the licenses of physicians in Washington who have been previously disciplined for performing abortions in states where it is illegal, and remained silent on the failure of an attempt that same year to pass a constitutional amendment — implicitly signaling her own lack of support for allowing Washingtonians to make that final decision.

That’s why I believe we need deeper protections. Putting forth and championing a constitutional amendment that codifies the rights of Roe will be one of the first things I do as your next state representative. Changing the constitution is difficult — requiring 2/3rd of the legislature to pass the bill, and then asking Washingtonians to vote yay-or-nay on such a measure. I absolutely believe that Washingtonians should have that opportunity, and believe we can get that consensus by asking on-the-fence legislators to support Washingtonians’ right to choose.

I will also continue to advocate for additional support around women’s healthcare, and would focus on ensuring access, equity, and comprehensive care for all women in Washington. I would also prioritize increasing funding for reproductive health services, including family planning, prenatal care, and postpartum support, ensuring that all women have access to the full spectrum of healthcare they need. Part of this includes supporting the resurrection of the Keep Our Care Act, a policy championed by Senator Emily Randall in past years, which would have created a system of additional needed oversight through the Attorney General’s office to make sure that in the event of a proposed hospital system merger, care and access to services within the community would not be protected.

4. The so-called “Blake Fix,” which makes drug possession a gross misdemeanor, has been in place for over a year. Do you think the Blake Fix appropriately balances the competing needs to provide consequences for drug use without criminalizing addiction?

This is a nuanced issue. The “Blake Fix” is a good first step to ensuring public safety by re-criminalizing possession of hard drugs, thus giving law enforcement more tools to do their jobs in keeping communities safe. That said, while it does provide some level of accountability, it’s not the full answer and it is important that we don’t lose sight of the fact that addiction is a disease, and the only way we’ll truly solve the social ills that often come with it is by addressing its root causes and creating effective treatment pathways and support systems. This includes increasing access to mental health services, substance use treatment programs, and harm reduction strategies like needle exchange programs.

I support measures that hold individuals accountable while simultaneously providing them with the resources they need to recover. And I appreciate that the “Blake Fix” does attempt to do this — for example, by giving the opportunity in some cases for defendants to enter pre-trial diversion programs is a great feature. That said, I do think we need to do more. This might involve investing in rehabilitation programs and ensuring that those facing addiction can access support, with options that help them overcome criminal charges that will follow them for the rest of their lives. We can still hold people accountable, while also providing pathways that allow for someone to have a viable pathway forward.

So, while the “Blake Fix” attempts to find a middle ground, we need to do more to ensure that we are addressing addiction as a public health issue rather than a criminal one. Our focus should be on compassion, support, and effective treatment options for those affected by substance use disorders.

5. Would you support a cap on rent hikes? What other steps would you take to address the high cost of housing in Washington?

As someone who lived in California for a few years post-college in the mid-2000’s, I viscerally remember the stress and anxiety that comes with having a rent payment that takes up more than half your income. What was once a New York/Los Angeles-problem is now an “everywhere” issue that is simply getting worse. Young adults are unable to leave their parents’ home after high school, and renters are unable to both support themselves and their families while also saving for emergencies, let alone save for anything else to help their future (including a downpayment on a home). Telling renters, “This is what the market will bear” is little consolation to someone making choices about which bills to pay or how much food they can buy.

Solving housing affordability, including sky high rents, is a complex and nuanced issue, which requires two different and distinct policies to be simultaneously enacted to work hand-in-hand as a solution to housing affordability. There is absolutely a supply side component that we need to address. And I want to do that through a collaborative process with builders, local governments, and reviewing our existing laws to find places where we can cut administrative red tape to make building housing easier and more affordable. There’s an entire portfolio of ideas to incentivize the development of different housing types that can accommodate different income levels: for example, incentivizing the development of “starter homes” through things like tax credits or other “carrot” incentives, working to develop more community housing cooperatives that eliminate profit as a driver in rentals, and helping local governments to find ways to address infrastructure needs. And I believe we can do this in a responsible way that also takes into consideration other needs of the state and local communities, including addressing the environmental concerns that come along with it.

Supply is only one component to the housing affordability puzzle though, and rent stabilization is another. What form rent stabilization in Washington ultimately takes, and what I would vote for, depends on several factors to build a well-reasoned policy that makes sense for protecting renters, while also giving landlords the right to a fair return on their investments. If that solution manifests itself in the form of a well-formed policy that caps year-over-year rent hikes and standardizes when and how those hikes take place so that rent can’t be used as a retaliatory tactic against renters, eliminates junk fees, and protects both renters and landlords alike — then yes, that’s something I would vote for.

I know this is possible — and it works — because I’ve supported this type of policy before. As a state legislator in Oregon, my vote in 2019 helped to create a first-in-the-nation statewide rent stabilization policy that capped rents at 7% plus inflation. And to address concerns around the policy disincentivizing the development of rental housing (a concern raised by developers and landlords) — the bill was crafted specifically to exempt rentals built within the last 15 years, only regulating older homes and apartments. The policy met all of the guidelines I’ve outlined as necessary for me to support — which included ensuring that landlords have the ability to see a reasonable and healthy return, stabilized costs for renters, and contained provisions that wouldn’t stifle future housing development projects.

Michelle Caldier

1. What, within your control as a state representative, would you do to address the rising cost of living?

The rising cost of living is due to a combination of a variety of things including the high federal fund rate and the recent increase in regressive taxes the legislature passed (which I opposed). In addition, our state has passed a number of policies (which I have also opposed) that have increased energy costs, food costs, and prohibited business and housing growth.

2. How would you fully fund public schools while also funding other high-priority demands for state spending?

Fully funding public schools is our paramount duty and has not been the priority of budget writers in our state. After the McCleary decision, the legislature did fully fund parts of basic education, but the pieces they did not fund were transportation and special education costs, which I have been a champion for in the legislature and have increased the amount of support for special education, but it is not to the levels it should be. Part of the funding problem with our public schools is the decline in enrollment due to low student outcomes and controversial curriculum, as the legislature allocates funding based on student enrollment.

3. What would be your priorities around abortion and women’s health care?

Democrats in our state will likely gain supermajorities in both chambers. Washington state has some of the most expansive abortion policies, including to birth in some cases. My opponent has stated that abortion rights are under attack in our state, but that would require Democrat leadership and Democrat lawmakers to make those “attacks”, which is not a reality.

4. The so-called “Blake Fix,” which makes drug possession a gross misdemeanor, has been in place for over a year. Do you think the Blake Fix appropriately balances the competing needs to provide consequences for drug use without criminalizing addiction?

No. It is better than the de facto decriminalization of all drugs that was in place before the governor called the legislature back to special session, but it doesn’t go far enough.

5. Would you support a cap on rent hikes? What other steps would you take to address the high cost of housing in Washington?

The best way to reduce the cost of rent is to increase supply. We have chased housing providers out of the industry with failed policies like the eviction moratorium.