DemocratINCUMBENT

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

Washington House District 3 2026 · 2026

Policy Positions

45%

Avg Confidence

Issue Areas

Find Your Alignment →

Record vs. Rhetoric

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez has a congressional voting record. The comparison between their stated positions and that record is still being computed — check back soon.

Policy Positions

●

Economy

2 positions

Would you support raising the federal minimum wage to $17 per hour?

Support

Party InferenceNo legislation in the provided record directly addresses federal minimum wage; position is inferred from her Democratic affiliation and general working-class economic focus, including the Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act and support for rural workers. Fact-check this →

Do you support using tariffs as a tool to address trade imbalances with other countries?

Neutral

Party InferenceNo direct evidence in the provided legislative record addresses tariffs specifically; Gluesenkamp Perez is a moderate Democrat from a competitive district who has shown some economic populist tendencies (Stop Scamming Truckers Act, Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act), but her position on tariffs as a trade tool cannot be reliably inferred from this record alone. Fact-check this →

■

Education

1 position

Would you support canceling up to $50,000 in federal student loan debt per borrower?

Neutral

Party InferenceNone of the candidate's recently sponsored legislation addresses student loan debt cancellation, and no direct public statements or votes on this specific policy were identified in the available record. Fact-check this →

◆

Environment

3 positions

Would you support legislation to reduce US carbon emissions by 50% by 2035?

Neutral

Party InferenceThe candidate's recently sponsored legislation does not address carbon emissions or climate targets directly, providing insufficient evidence to determine her position on a 50% emissions reduction by 2035. Fact-check this →

Would you support legislation requiring the US to reduce carbon emissions by 50% below 2005 levels by 2035?

Neutral

Party InferenceNo legislation or statements in her recent record directly address carbon emissions targets; her sponsored/cosponsored bills focus on salmon protection, transportation, agriculture, and crime, with no clear signal on aggressive climate emission mandates, requiring inference largely from party affiliation. Fact-check this →

Would you support ending new federal permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands and offshore waters?

Neutral

Party InferenceMGP's legislative record shows no direct evidence on oil/gas drilling permits; she is a moderate Democrat from a competitive district who has cosponsored a salmon protection bill but no explicit fossil fuel leasing legislation, making her position on this specific question unclear. Fact-check this →

▽

Foreign Policy

3 positions

Would you support increasing the federal defense budget by more than 5% annually?

Neutral

Party InferenceNone of the candidate's recently sponsored legislation addresses defense spending or military budget levels, providing insufficient direct evidence of her position on increasing the federal defense budget by more than 5% annually. Fact-check this →

Would you support increasing the federal defense budget by more than 5% per year above the rate of inflation?

Neutral

Party InferenceNo direct evidence from her sponsored or cosponsored legislation addresses defense budget levels specifically; she has cosponsored some veterans/military-related bills suggesting engagement with defense issues but no clear stance on large defense budget increases. Fact-check this →

Would you support maintaining or increasing current levels of US foreign assistance to allied and developing nations?

Neutral

Party InferenceMGP's sponsored and cosponsored legislation focuses on domestic issues (transportation, agriculture, law enforcement, veterans) with no direct evidence of her position on foreign assistance levels, requiring a neutral assignment based on insufficient evidence. Fact-check this →

□

Gun Policy

3 positions

Would you support universal background checks for all firearm purchases in the US?

Support

Campaign PlatformNo sponsored legislation directly addresses gun policy; position inferred from MGP's general moderate-Democrat profile representing a competitive district, where she has previously expressed support for background checks while distancing from more expansive gun control measures. Fact-check this →

Would you support requiring background checks for all firearm purchases in the US, including private sales and gun show transactions?

Support

Party InferenceNo direct evidence on universal background checks appears in the provided record; as a moderate Democrat from a competitive district who has cosponsored bipartisan crime and law enforcement bills, she likely supports expanded background checks but her centrist positioning suggests measured rather than strong support. Fact-check this →

Would you support a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to civilian buyers?

Neutral

Party InferenceGluesenkamp Perez represents a competitive rural-leaning district and has not sponsored or cosponsored gun control legislation in her recent record; her legislative activity focuses on trucking, agriculture, law enforcement support, and veterans issues, providing no direct evidence of her position on a semi-automatic rifle ban specifically. Fact-check this →

♥

Healthcare

2 positions

Would you support expanding Medicare to cover all Americans regardless of age?

Neutral

Party InferenceNone of the candidate's recently sponsored legislation addresses Medicare expansion or single-payer healthcare, providing insufficient direct evidence of her position on this specific question. Fact-check this →

Would you support federal legislation requiring Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers?

Support

Party InferenceNo direct evidence on Medicare drug price negotiation found in the provided record; position inferred from her Democratic affiliation, cosponsorship of the ROCR Value Based Program Act (health policy), and Metastatic Breast Cancer Access to Care Act, suggesting support for policies that improve healthcare access and value, though her moderate/bipartisan voting pattern tempers confidence. Fact-check this →

▶

Immigration

3 positions

Would you support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for more than 5 years?

Neutral

Party InferenceNone of the candidate's recently sponsored legislation directly addresses immigration or a pathway to citizenship, providing insufficient evidence to determine her position on this specific policy question. Fact-check this →

Would you support a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have lived and worked continuously in the US for more than 5 years?

Support

Party InferenceNo direct evidence in her recent legislative record addresses immigration pathways; as a moderate Democrat from a competitive district, she likely supports a pathway to citizenship but her record shows no sponsored or cosponsored immigration legislation, requiring party-inference with low confidence. Fact-check this →

Would you support significantly increasing federal funding for border security infrastructure and personnel at the US southern border?

Neutral

Party InferenceGluesenkamp Perez's legislative record shown here focuses on trucking, trade, salmon, and local law enforcement issues with no direct evidence of her position on southern border security funding; she is a moderate Democrat from a competitive district (WA-3) known for bipartisan stances, but party inference alone is insufficient to assign a clear position. Fact-check this →

⚑

Taxes

3 positions

Would you support increasing the top marginal income tax rate to 50% for income over $10 million?

Neutral

Party InferenceNone of the candidate's recently sponsored legislation addresses income tax rates, and no direct statements or votes on this specific policy were found in the available record. Fact-check this →

Would you support raising the top federal income tax rate to 50% for individual income exceeding $10 million per year?

Neutral

Party InferenceGluesenkamp Perez is a moderate Democrat known for representing a competitive district; her legislative record shows no direct evidence on a 50% top marginal tax rate, and her co-sponsorship of a payroll tax technical amendment offers no signal on high-income tax policy specifically. Fact-check this →

Would you support raising the federal corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%?

Support

Party InferenceNo direct evidence from her legislative record addresses the corporate tax rate specifically; as a moderate Democrat from a competitive district, she likely supports raising the corporate rate toward Democratic party consensus (28%) but her record emphasizes bipartisan issues, suggesting support without strong championing. Fact-check this →

◇

Voting Rights

1 position

Would you support federal legislation requiring all states to automatically register eligible citizens to vote when they interact with government agencies?

Support

Party InferenceNo direct evidence in the provided record addresses automatic voter registration; position inferred from her Democratic affiliation and moderate-progressive legislative profile, though her record shows significant bipartisan tendencies that prevent a strong support rating. Fact-check this →