Community Government

26th Legislative District Position 1 candidates in their own words

Republican David Olson aims to unseat incumbent Democratic Rep. Adison Richards in the race for House Position 1 in the 26th Legislative District. 

Richards took office in January 2025 and has a background in housing law. Olson is a retired Navy officer who has served on the Peninsula School Board since 2013.

Gig Harbor Now asked each candidate the same questions on some of the top issues in this fall’s campaign. Their answers are below.

We also wrote a short profile of each candidate. That story is here.

Midterm election day is Tuesday, Nov. 3. Voters may drop their ballots in ballot boxes by the end of the day on Nov. 3, or send them through the mail, as long as it is postmarked by Nov. 3. Voters can find a map of all 57 Pierce County ballot boxes here.

Q: Despite recent tax increases, the state is facing another budget shortfall. What steps should the Legislature take to reduce spending? Please be as specific as possible.

David Olson

Washington needs to restore fiscal discipline and accountability to the state budget. Families are being asked to pay more in taxes and fees, yet the state continues to face financial shortfalls. We cannot continue addressing structural budget problems primarily through additional taxation.

This concern extends beyond party lines. Former Democratic Governors Christine Gregoire and Gary Locke have both publicly expressed concerns about the Legislature’s spending practices. At an Association of Washington Business conference in May, Governor Gregoire stated that Washington doesn’t have an income problem, it has a spending problem.

I’ve consistently stated at candidate forums that before identifying specific programs to cut or reduce, the Legislature must conduct a thorough examination of current spending. I believe it would be irresponsible to announce arbitrary cuts without first understanding where taxpayer dollars are going, whether programs are achieving their intended results, and what consequences reductions might have on essential services.

I would focus on four specific actions.

First, strengthen independent performance and financial audits of major state programs and require agencies to act on findings, with particular attention to administrative overhead, duplication, and measurable outcomes.

Second, conduct a comprehensive review of agency staffing, administrative expenditures, and procurement practices to identify opportunities for consolidation, improved efficiency, and reduced costs without compromising essential services.

Third, require new spending initiatives to identify sustainable funding sources and measurable results before receiving approval. Programs that consistently fail to deliver their intended outcomes should be restructured or discontinued.

Fourth, prioritize existing obligations before creating new commitments, particularly K–12 education, public safety, services for vulnerable residents, and maintenance of critical transportation infrastructure.

My experience overseeing substantial public budgets, including more than 13 years on the Peninsula School Board and a career in government banking, has taught me the importance of maintaining financial discipline while protecting essential services.

I recognize that difficult spending decisions cannot be avoided. But those decisions must be based on careful analysis, measurable outcomes, and a thorough understanding of their consequences—not political expediency. Washington taxpayers deserve that level of accountability before being asked to pay more.

Adison Richards

To balance the budget, we need to look at cost drivers and minimizing those; energy, insurance, regulatory costs, and more. I’m working on permitting reforms for transportation projects because regulatory delays mean projects get more expensive and that costs us money and more projects. We also need to look at duplication across levels of government and harmonize services from education programs to homelessness programs. We also need to review audits of programs and make decisions around what is working and not, and fund the things that are working.

Q: Do you support Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal’s request for an additional $2 billion for public schools in the next budget? Why or why not? If so, what would you fund?

Richards

I support devoting more funding to education. Despite having grown revenue, the share of the budget going towards education has declined from roughly 51% to 42%. I have many questions about whether this request is more of the same, or if we can spend $2 billion in different ways to better address needs, like improving reading comprehension. 

For example, additional MSOC and early education funding makes sense, but I’d rather spend funds on improving energy systems like HVAC, and installing solar panels, etc, rather than just temporarily plugging a growing hole in school energy costs. I also see no plan to use new funds for improving basic skills in reading and math. We need a plan. We also need to support more Career Tech options to keep up with those demands, especially in light of AI and its impacts on the job market.

Olson

I strongly support adequately funding Washington’s public schools. Our state constitution identifies education as the state’s paramount duty, and after more than 13 years on the Peninsula School Board, I understand firsthand the financial challenges facing local districts.

However, I would not commit to approving an additional $2 billion without carefully reviewing the individual requests, supporting data, and expected impact on student learning.

Throughout my school board service, I’ve emphasized fiscal responsibility while keeping student achievement and educational opportunities at the forefront of our decisions. I’m proud that Peninsula School District received the State Superintendent’s Award for Educational Excellence in Academic Achievement in 2026, recognizing it as one of Washington’s 25 top-performing districts in that category. That recognition reflects the hard work of our educators, staff, students, and families, supported by a commitment to sound governance and student outcomes.

In evaluating additional state funding, I would prioritize documented shortfalls in special education, student transportation, and the actual costs of providing basic education. I would also support restoring funding for Transition to Kindergarten and protecting Running Start and other programs that provide meaningful educational opportunities.

I would simultaneously examine administrative costs, unfunded state mandates, and reporting requirements that divert district resources away from classroom instruction.

Education funding should be measured not simply by how much money the Legislature appropriates, but by whether those investments improve literacy, academic achievement, student safety, and educational opportunities while fulfilling the state’s constitutional obligations.

Q: In order to address the lack of affordable housing in the state, Washington passed housing reforms in 2023 that require jurisdictions to encourage housing diversity and density. Would you expand those reforms, leave them as they are, or roll them back, and why? If you would change policy in any way, how specifically would you change it?

Olson

I support expanding housing opportunities and building upon the 2023 housing reforms, but I believe the Legislature must do more to address the practical and financial challenges facing local communities.

In conversations with local mayors and county leaders, I’ve heard significant concerns about state housing mandates that require increased density without providing adequate funding for the infrastructure necessary to support that growth. Additional housing requires sufficient roads, water and sewer capacity, stormwater systems, and other essential services. When the state imposes requirements without addressing those costs, local governments may be left with difficult choices, including increasing taxes and fees on their residents.

I would focus on four specific changes.

First, streamline permitting and establish more predictable approval timelines for housing developments that meet established planning and environmental requirements. Unnecessary delays increase construction costs that ultimately get passed along to homebuyers and renters. 

Second, provide greater flexibility under the Growth Management Act to expand urban growth areas where infrastructure can reasonably support additional housing. Local governments should have the flexibility to accommodate responsible growth while recognizing differences in geography, transportation, utilities, and community needs.

Third, encourage a broader range of housing options, including accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes, condominiums, and smaller homes that are more attainable for young families, working professionals, and seniors seeking to downsize.

Fourth, require greater coordination between state and local governments, including a realistic assessment of infrastructure costs and funding sources before imposing additional housing mandates. The state should be a financial partner in implementing its housing policies rather than simply passing the costs to local taxpayers.

I also believe the Legislature must protect funding intended for capital improvements and transportation infrastructure rather than redirecting funding needed for those priorities. Responsible long-term budgeting means honoring infrastructure commitments instead of continually postponing them to address other spending pressures.

Ultimately, my goal is to increase the supply of housing, reduce unnecessary development costs, and protect local taxpayers. We need housing policies that communities can realistically implement and afford, not simply additional mandates from Olympia.

Richards

Reforms are always on the table for me because we are constantly learning and need to review if what we’re doing is working or not. When it comes to development, the number one issue I hear from folks is to ensure we have the infrastructure. When we raid the public works trust account in the state budget, we take away funding local governments need to pay for infrastructure. When we pass a lot of new requirements, we eat up local resources to process them. We both need more housing here, and we are not going to solve the housing crunch in Gig Harbor. I’m uninterested in adding significant strain to our existing infrastructure and environment when places along the I5 corridor have so much more room to grow taller, and I’m focused on achieving that.

GHN: About 11,000 people statewide have lost health insurance, due to stricter federal regulations. Starting in January, further regulations regarding work requirements will make it more difficult for even more people to qualify for health insurance. Do you think that the state should take a bigger role in helping the people who have lost health insurance and who will lose health insurance in January to get coverage? Why or why not? If so, what should the state do?

Richards

Yes, through Medicaid Reimbursement rates, which we have not significantly invested in, yet, to even attempt to backfill the cuts from the federal government. At the same time, the legislature has raised taxes and regulatory burdens on the healthcare sector, which is leading to a squeeze. By improving reimbursement, we can better help small practices stay open and take Medicaid patients so that those patients get preventative care instead of charity care at the emergency room, which then raises premiums for everyone else. There is no question that healthcare access and affordability has to be a top priority in light of the federal government’s actions that are taking healthcare away from people to the detriment of everyone.

Olson

Yes, I believe Washington should take a targeted role in helping residents who lose health insurance understand their options and access available coverage, particularly children, seniors, people with disabilities, and vulnerable families. No one should unnecessarily lose coverage because of confusing eligibility requirements, administrative errors, or difficulty navigating the system.

While recent federal changes to Medicaid eligibility are creating challenges for Washington residents, we must also recognize that Washington’s Legislature has made its own health care funding reductions. The state’s 2025–27 budget directed approximately $90 million in Apple Health managed-care expenditure reductions for 2026, along with reductions in dental reimbursement rates. Changes to public and school employee health plans have also affected coverage options and costs.

These decisions deserve scrutiny alongside federal policy changes, particularly when reductions in provider reimbursements may make it more difficult for patients to access necessary services.

First, ensure that individuals who remain eligible for Apple Health are not unnecessarily removed because of paperwork problems, administrative errors, or confusion about new federal requirements.

Second, improve coordination among the Health Care Authority, community health providers, and Washington Healthplanfinder to help people understand eligibility changes and identify affordable alternative coverage.

Third, examine the effects of state Medicaid reimbursement reductions on access to essential medical, dental, behavioral health, and disability-related services. Cost reductions should be evaluated not only for their immediate budget savings but also for their potential consequences for patients and providers.

Fourth, protect essential services for vulnerable populations and support community health providers that serve uninsured and underserved residents.

Finally, carefully evaluate the cost, effectiveness, and long-term sustainability of any proposed expansion of state-funded health coverage.

I believe both state and federal policymakers have a responsibility to understand how their decisions affect patients, providers, and taxpayers. Washington must prioritize essential health care services, improve accountability for existing spending, and pursue solutions that are both compassionate and financially sustainable.