During the debate, the two candidates clashed on key issues, from infrastructure and immigration to the economy and foreign policy

Ken Vance, editor
Clark County Today

For the third time in 12 days, Southwest Washington voters had the opportunity to watch 3rd Congressional District candidates Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Joe Kent present their positions on issues impacting their race in the Nov. 5 general election. Perez, the incumbent Democrat, and Kent, the Republican challenger, appeared on a live, televised debate hosted by KOIN 6 News.

KOIN 6 Political Director Ken Boddie and Political Reporter Lisa Balick served as hosts for the event. The rules for the debate were very similar to last week’s debate televised by KATU News. Each candidate was given one minute for a response. If a follow-up or rebuttal was needed, each candidate received 30 seconds for that. At the end of our debate, each candidate was given a one-minute closing statement with no rebuttals.

Perez, who owns a car repair business in Portland and lives in Skamania County, defeated Kent by less than 1 percent (under 2,700 votes) in the 2022 general election. Kent, a former Green Beret Special Forces veteran, is a resident of Yacolt.

Perez continued to position herself as a bipartisan, practical legislator focused on real solutions for working families, small businesses, and infrastructure. Kent emphasized strong national security, border control, and cutting government spending, aligning closely with the Trump agenda while positioning himself as a strong conservative voice for change.

During the debate, the two candidates clashed on key issues, from infrastructure and immigration to the economy and foreign policy. 

• On the I-5 bridge replacement, Kent criticized the current plan for failing to relieve congestion and including tolls and light rail. He advocated for a third bridge without tolls. Gluesenkamp Perez supported the replacement plan but emphasized using federal funds to reduce tolls, criticizing Kent’s third-bridge proposal as unrealistic.
• Regarding immigration, Kent argued for closing the border and deporting illegal immigrants, while Gluesenkamp Perez highlighted her efforts to secure the border and tackle the fentanyl crisis, emphasizing support for law enforcement.
• The economy was another point of contention, with Kent blaming inflation on excessive government spending and calling for deregulation. Gluesenkamp Perez focused on supporting small businesses and affordable housing through regulatory reforms and bipartisan initiatives.
• On foreign policy, the candidates diverged sharply on support for Israel and Ukraine. Kent criticized U.S. aid to Ukraine and questioned military involvement, while Gluesenkamp Perez stressed the importance of backing democracies like Israel and Ukraine to maintain national security.
• The candidates also discussed homelessness, with Kent focusing on mental health resources and drug treatment, while Gluesenkamp Perez emphasized building more housing and promoting vocational training.

In their closing statements, Kent called for addressing inflation, border security, and the fentanyl crisis, while Gluesenkamp Perez appealed to voters to reject Kent’s divisive politics, citing her record of bipartisan achievements. The debate highlighted deep ideological differences between the two, with control of Congress potentially at stake.

Here’s a transcript of Monday’s debate:

Question (Balick): About the I-5 bridge, Oregon, Washington, and the federal government have pledged billions of dollars for replacement of the aging bridge. Do you support replacing the I-5 Bridge, and what are your concerns about it?

Kent: Unfortunately, the current plan replaces a three-lane bridge with another three-lane bridge for billions of dollars. It does nothing to relieve congestion. It adds light rail, bringing downtown Portland’s problems into downtown Vancouver. There will also be tolling. I support replacing the bridge and adding a third bridge for real congestion relief. Federal funding should go towards that third bridge, without light rail. My opponent’s plan includes light rail and no congestion relief. Clark County residents have rejected tolls and light rail three times.

Balick: To follow up, the I-5 Bridge is aging and could collapse in an earthquake. Are you saying don’t replace it and just let it collapse?

Kent: We can allocate funding to retrofit the bridge to endure an earthquake. If it can’t be retrofitted, I support replacing it. But the focus should be congestion relief. We need federal funding for a third bridge, without tolls or light rail.

Boddie: Congresswoman Gluesenkamp Perez, what are your thoughts about the interstate bridge replacement project? Do you have any concerns?

Perez: Where I live in Skamania County, 80% of employed people work outside the county because we’ve hollowed out the timber economy. We sit in traffic. As a federal legislator, my role is to bring back our federal tax dollars to build a bridge that eases congestion and uses Southwest Washington labor and American-made steel. I also need to make sure state and local regulators hear from our community when making decisions about tolling. I’ve been clear that tolls are a regressive tax, and my job is to secure as much federal funding as possible for Southwest Washington.

Boddie: What about Mr. Kent’s idea of a third bridge?

Perez: He’s talking about using eminent domain on farmland in Ridgefield to build a third bridge. That’s unrealistic. He’s selling a bridge that’s not going to happen. It’s magical thinking.

Balick: Part of the I-5 Bridge replacement plan involves taking homes and businesses. What do you say to the people affected?

Perez: It’s a terrible situation. My responsibility is to ensure people are fairly compensated and to hold agencies accountable when they engage with constituents.

Boddie: Mr. Kent, you’re against tolling. Without tolls, how do we pay for the bridge and its maintenance?

Kent: The federal government takes in trillions in tax revenue but prioritizes sending billions overseas instead of taking care of our infrastructure. My opponent voted for that. We need to prioritize our district, build a third bridge with federal funding, and prevent tolls and light rail.

Boddie: Congresswoman Perez, your response?

Perez: It’s magical thinking to believe we’re going to build a third bridge. We need to ensure the I-5 Bridge is safe and functional. It’s been deemed obsolete by the Department of Transportation. I’m working to eliminate or reduce tolls and limit the time we pay them.

Balick: Let’s move on to the subject of immigration. Congresswoman Perez, immigration is top of mind for many Americans, especially regarding the southern border. How should Congress address this issue? Is the U.S. still a place where immigrants are welcome?

Perez: It’s not racist to want to secure the southern border. I’ve been vocal in taking on the Biden administration over their failed immigration policies. I helped reinstate Title 42 and advocated for a sensible asylum policy. This issue is personal for me. I have family members who work for Border Patrol, and I watched my father be extorted by corrupt police in Mexico when I was a child. I’m committed to defunding cartels benefiting from human trafficking and fentanyl, which is devastating rural communities like mine.

Boddie: Mr. Kent, should there be a legal pathway for immigrants to become U.S. citizens?

Kent: There already is, but it’s being exploited. One of the first votes my opponent took in Congress was to leave the border wide open. Now we have a fentanyl crisis in our district. I’ve spoken to families who’ve lost loved ones to fentanyl. This crisis is a direct result of our open border. We need to close the border, deport illegal immigrants, and adopt an immigration policy that benefits U.S. citizens. We also need to stop granting benefits to illegal immigrants, which my opponent has supported.

Boddie: Congresswoman Perez, your response?

Perez: He’s taking my comments out of context. What I said is that we need to take the fentanyl crisis seriously. It’s real, it’s here, and it’s affecting people. We need to secure the border, but we also need to make it easier to access rehab than to get high. I’m proud to have the endorsement of Washington’s oldest police union because I’ve been fighting for law enforcement support.

Balick: What’s the best way to stop fentanyl from coming in through the southern border?

Perez: We need a secure border, without a doubt. But we also need more support for addiction services. It’s critical to listen to law enforcement and provide them with the resources they need to tackle the fentanyl crisis.

Boddie: Mr. Kent, how do you propose we secure the border and ensure legal immigration is fair?

Kent: First, we need new leadership in Washington. My opponent voted to leave the border open, despite what she says now. Securing the border and deporting illegal immigrants is essential. If we cut off benefits and penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants, many will self-deport. Then we can focus our law enforcement resources on criminals like fentanyl dealers and cartel members.

Perez: Joe’s quoting a website filled with misinformation. You can check my voting record on official government sites. I’m one of the top bipartisan members of Congress. I focus on representing my community, not playing political games like my opponent, who spends more time live streaming at the southern border than working on real solutions.

Boddie: Let’s move on to bipartisanship. Both of you have stated you’d work across the aisle. Congresswoman Perez, can you point to specific bipartisan bills you’ve sponsored?

Perez: I’m proud of my bipartisan work. I helped pass a fentanyl bill that gave law enforcement more resources and introduced a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I also voted for the Bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act, which mandated spending caps. I’ve introduced 49 bipartisan bills, and I’m proud of my success in passing amendments because I focus on real issues affecting my community, like public schools, small businesses, and the right to repair.

Balick: Mr. Kent, how can you demonstrate that you’d work across the aisle, given your views on several key issues?

Kent: I’m happy to work with anyone who’s serious about securing the border, stopping fentanyl, and balancing the budget. My opponent claims to support a balanced budget, but she voted for $4 trillion in new spending, which has accelerated inflation. Her so-called bipartisan border bill codified the current invasion and allowed illegal immigrants to get work visas, which hurt American workers. I’d work with Democrats on civil liberties and ending foreign wars, but my focus is on putting our country and district first.

Balick: Congresswoman, your response?

Perez: He’s attacking me for voting against a bad bill that would have hurt veterans. I take my responsibility to veterans seriously. I fought to reopen the VA clinic (in Lewis County) and delivered over 16,000 letters to the VA secretary. I voted for a better bill that passed, but Joe’s making it sound like I didn’t care about veterans.

Balick: We want to move to the issue of readiness to serve. Mr. Kent, your military service is well known, but what are you doing professionally now? Who have you been working for in the past year?

Kent: I’ve been focused on running for Congress full-time. I receive a military pension after serving 20 years and recently wrote a book about my late wife, who was killed fighting ISIS. I believe we need people in Congress who understand national security and can hold the Department of Defense and intelligence community accountable. I’m not currently working for anyone else; my campaign has been my full-time focus.

Balick: Congresswoman Perez, what do you know now that you wish you had known when you first ran for Congress two years ago?

Perez: Running a small business isn’t all that different from running a congressional office. Hiring the right people is crucial. Joe, on the other hand, hired a Proud Boy for his campaign. As a mom and small business owner, I understand the struggles of working families and small businesses. My experience has informed my legislative agenda, and I’ve been able to make a real difference by focusing on the things that matter to my community.

Boddie: Let’s move on to the next issue. Mr. Kent, you were endorsed by President Trump in 2022. Do you still believe that Trump won the 2020 election?

Kent: I support President Trump’s agenda and his endorsement for 2024. However, my focus is on the issues that matter to the people in our district, like inflation, the fentanyl crisis, and securing the border. While there were concerns about the 2020 election, I’ve accepted the results. If my opponent wins this election, I’ll concede again, just like last time.

Boddie: One more follow-up. Trump has said he’ll pardon those convicted of crimes related to January 6th. Do you agree with that?

Kent: Trump said he’d pardon non-violent offenders, and I agree with that. Non-violent individuals who’ve been imprisoned for four years should have their cases reviewed. But my focus is on what matters to people now — the economy, crime, and our communities.

Balick: Congresswoman Perez, what’s your response to what Mr. Kent just said?

Perez: It wasn’t a clear answer. We need more transparency from someone trying to represent our community. I’ve been clear about where I stand, and I’m proud of the work I’ve done in Congress to reflect the independent values of my district.

Boddie: Let’s move on to the economy. Congresswoman Perez, what condition do you think the economy is in right now?

Perez: I see my neighbors and family putting groceries on credit cards, and it breaks my heart. Prices are rising, and it feels like we’re stuck between corporate greed and a government that prints money for dumb things. I’ve been clear in my votes. I supported the Bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act, which capped spending. I also presented a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. On the Agriculture Committee, I’m fighting for young farmers, who are being priced out of land. On small business issues, I’m working to dismantle regulations that protect big corporations while hurting small businesses like mine.

Balick: Is there anything you can do in the immediate term to help?

Perez: There’s no silver bullet, but we must take action now. One of the biggest areas is supporting homeownership and building more housing, which allows people to invest in their futures. On small business issues, I’m fighting against regulations that force people like me to replace equipment more often. We need to support American businesses that make things worth investing in.

Boddie: Mr. Kent, your thoughts about the economy and where we are right now?

Kent: The economy is terrible because Washington, D.C. keeps printing money. My opponent voted for $4 trillion in new spending, which caused inflation to skyrocket. She also supports Biden’s war on domestic energy, which has driven up gas prices. We need to cap spending, stop printing money, and deregulate to grow the economy. We can’t tax or spend our way out of this. My opponent says she’s for deregulation, but she voted against the Reins Act, which would have reined in bureaucratic control.

Boddie: Congresswoman, do you have a response?

Perez: I actually introduced legislation to combat foreign ownership of farmland and worked with both parties to make that happen. That’s why I have the endorsement of the Washington State Farm Bureau. We need to ensure American farmland is used to feed American families, not sold to foreign investors. Joe’s comments are just not true.

Boddie: You’ve both emphasized improving the lives of the middle class. What actions are you taking, or would you take, to improve the lives of everyday people, especially with inflation in mind?

Perez: We need more competition in the marketplace and a clearer regulatory environment for small businesses. Big corporations use regulations to protect themselves from competition by family businesses like mine. That’s why I’m fighting for right-to-repair legislation and other initiatives that give people the tools to fix and keep their equipment, instead of being forced to buy new products. Supporting farmers, encouraging more family-owned businesses, and promoting competition are key areas where we can make a real difference in lowering costs.

Boddie: Mr. Kent, your response?

Kent: We need massive deregulation to grow the economy and bring down costs. My opponent voted against the Reins Act, which would have returned control to the people and taken it away from unelected bureaucrats. We need to get back to harvesting timber, utilizing our mills, and producing what we need here in America. My opponent talks about helping small businesses, but she consistently votes for more spending and regulations that hurt them.

Boddie: Let’s move on to abortion. Mr. Kent, two years ago, you said you’d push for a national ban on abortion. Last month, you released a video saying you wouldn’t support a national ban. Why the change in your position?

Kent: I support the Supreme Court’s decision to return the issue of abortion to the states. The federal government shouldn’t be involved in this issue. I’m pro-life, but I believe that divisive issues like abortion are best handled at the state level. In Washington state, abortion access is not in question, and I’m focused on making it more affordable to raise children through tax deductions and lower costs associated with childbirth.

Balick: What would you say to a woman in a state like Idaho, where most abortions are banned and she doesn’t have the means to travel to another state for an abortion, and her life is in danger?

Kent: If her life is in danger, she can get the care she needs. But again, I’m running for Congress in Washington state, where abortion is not on the ballot. The Supreme Court has made it clear that abortion is a state issue. My focus is on supporting families, expanding the child tax deduction, and making adoption more accessible.

Boddie: Congresswoman Perez, would you support any limits on abortion? Would you vote for a federal law guaranteeing abortion access nationwide?

Perez: The reason Joe changed his position is because the pollsters told him to. He’s on record, after the Dobbs decision, saying he supports a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. He signed a pledge supporting a national ban. I know what it’s like to be a mother, and I know that men in D.C. have no business making these decisions. I will always fight to protect women’s access to healthcare, and I will support a federal law guaranteeing abortion access nationwide.

Boddie: Mr. Kent, your response?

Kent: The Supreme Court has made it clear that abortion is a state issue. It’s not on the ballot at the federal level, and my focus is on supporting families by lowering the cost of raising children. The Democrats want to make this election about abortion, but the reality is that we need to focus on the issues that affect people daily, like inflation and the cost of living.

Balick: Congresswoman, your response?

Perez: Our rights are absolutely on the ballot. Joe’s friends and supporters have a clear agenda to take away reproductive rights. I’m fighting for families and their freedoms, and I will always stand up for the right to healthcare.

Boddie: Let’s move on to the topic of transgender athletes. Mr. Kent, what are your views on transgender athletes competing in women’s sports?

Kent: I support protecting biological women’s rights to safe spaces, like locker rooms and women’s shelters, and ensuring that women compete on a level playing field. The bill I supported would prevent biological men from competing in women’s sports or entering their protected spaces. This is about fairness and protecting women’s rights, not about targeting anyone.

Perez: Joe’s trying to attack me over a bill that would have led to genital exams for girls as young as five. I want sports to be fair, but the federal government shouldn’t be making these decisions. This is an issue for families, schools, and sports organizations to address, not Washington, D.C.

Boddie: Do you believe transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in sports?

Perez: It depends on the sport. This is why it should be a local issue, decided by families and sports organizations, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.

Boddie: Let’s move on to foreign policy. On October 7th, Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing over 1,200 Israelis and taking 250 hostages. Since then, Israel has destroyed entire cities and villages in Gaza. The U.N. reports that over 42,000 people in Gaza have been killed, and the conflict has escalated to include Lebanon and Iran. Should there be any limits or conditions attached to U.S. support for Israel? Mr. Kent, we’ll start with you.

Kent: October 7th never would have happened if President Trump were still in office. Under Trump, we had the historic Abraham Accords. But the Biden-Harris administration gave Iran access to billions of dollars, which allowed them to fund Hamas and orchestrate the attacks. Immediately after the October 7th attack, House Republicans allocated $14 billion from existing IRS funds — no new inflationary spending — to aid Israel and recover American hostages. My opponent and the Democrats dragged their feet, using the crisis in Israel as a bargaining chip for a broader foreign aid package that included Ukraine. This is nothing but an inflationary payday for defense contractors. We need to let Israel finish off Hamas and Hezbollah, but we must stop funding Iran.

Boddie: Congresswoman Perez, should there be any limits or conditions attached to U.S. support for Israel?

Perez: We must ground this conversation in the fact that October 7th was the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. I believe the fastest way to end this war is for Hamas to release the hostages they’re holding. Israel has the right to defend itself, and as a liberal democracy, it’s crucial for the region. Our national security is advanced when we support democracies like Israel, especially in a region where women’s and LGBTQ rights are under constant threat. I stand with our allies, and I recognize that our foreign adversaries are eager to exploit any vacuum if we walk away from supporting Israel.

Boddie: Do you support any limits on the weapons the U.S. sends to Israel or conditions on how those weapons are used?

Perez: I’m not a munitions expert, but I do know that taking out apartment buildings while leaving tunnels underneath — where hostages and terrorists are hiding — doesn’t make sense. Our military contributions to Israel are less than 10% of their GDP, so we don’t have the leverage some think we do. Israel must defend itself, and I trust their judgment in how to do that.

Boddie: Mr. Kent, would you support a ceasefire if there were an agreement?

Kent: The issue with a ceasefire is that it requires both parties to agree, and right now, Hamas continues to hold hostages. There’s no realistic path to a ceasefire without their release. As for U.S. involvement, we are on the verge of crossing a dangerous line. The Biden administration has deployed U.S. troops to man missile defense systems in Israel, and no one in Congress has voted on this. If an American is killed while operating those systems, we could be drawn into the conflict. We must have a vote in Congress before sending U.S. troops to war, as the Constitution dictates.

Balick: Let’s switch gears to Ukraine. Mr. Kent, are you in favor of continuing U.S. military support to Ukraine in its fight against Russia?

Kent: No, I’m not. It’s immoral to send billions of dollars to foreign wars while our own citizens are struggling. We’ve spent two years providing Ukraine with unlimited funding and weapons, and all we’ve done is get a generation of Ukrainians killed. Russia now controls more of Ukraine than they did at the start of the war. We need to stop sending American missile systems that are being used to strike inside Russia without congressional approval. It’s time to get both parties to the negotiating table and stop the killing. We must prioritize our own citizens, secure our southern border, and address the homelessness crisis in our own country before funding foreign conflicts. 

Balick: Some argue that if the U.S. withdraws support from Ukraine, Russia could take over the country and continue its aggression into Europe. It could also embolden China and other adversaries. How do you respond to that?

Kent: We’ve seen Russia’s military capability on display, and they failed to take Kyiv in the early stages of the war. They’ve kept their actions limited to Ukraine’s border regions, and they haven’t shown any intention of attacking NATO countries, which would be World War III. The real issue is that we’re firing American-made missiles into Russia without congressional approval. We need to de-escalate nuclear tensions and focus on diplomacy.

Boddie: Congresswoman Perez, your thoughts on U.S. support for Ukraine?

Perez: Joe’s plan to hand over continental Europe to Putin won’t make us safer at home, and it certainly won’t solve our problems with inflation or homelessness. Abandoning Ukraine would leave us vulnerable to adversaries like China, who are eager to fill the void left by the U.S. if we step back. I agree with Speaker McCarthy when he said we need to send American munitions now, rather than American soldiers later. My opponent has called Putin a “reasonable guy” and referred to Zelenskyy as a “thug.” His rhetoric mirrors that of Russian state media, and that’s dangerous.

Boddie: Can you add perspective based on your time in Congress regarding the current foreign situation?

Perez: I led a bipartisan group of Congress members in introducing a discharge petition called “Defending Borders, Defending Democracies,” which aimed to provide military aid to our allies and enhance border security at home. This legislation turned into five bills that we voted on to support our allies and secure our border. We can and must do both — support our allies abroad and strengthen security at home.

Boddie: Let’s move on to homelessness. The problem in southwest Washington isn’t as severe as in Portland, but thousands of homeless people remain in the region. What would you propose as a solution to homelessness in southwest Washington? Mr. Kent, let’s start with you.

Kent: We must prioritize our people. The billions we’re sending overseas should be redirected to help our citizens. We need to reopen federal mental health crisis centers and institutions to provide a safe place for those suffering from mental health issues. We also need to stop the flow of fentanyl, which is destroying lives, and get those struggling with addiction the treatment they need. Many existing resources only keep people on the streets rather than helping them get clean and sober. We must stop the endless overseas spending and invest in our citizens.

Boddie:
Congresswoman Perez, how would you address the homeless issue in southwest Washington?

Perez: Homelessness in southwest Washington often looks different — you see a lot of RV encampments rather than tent cities. We need to build more housing, plain and simple. Housing abundance is the key to solving this crisis, which is why I’m a relentless advocate for shop class, where people can learn the skills to build homes. Manufactured and mobile homes are some of the most achievable forms of affordable housing. My husband and I built our house ourselves because banks don’t like loaning to self-employed people in the trades. We need to empower people to build their own homes and address the housing crisis from the ground up.

Boddie: Housing affordability is a significant issue. What can be done to make housing more affordable for people who can’t keep up with skyrocketing costs?

Perez: Every housing unit we build brings down costs. That’s why I support the YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) bill, which prioritizes federal housing dollars for communities that streamline their permitting processes. The average federally funded affordable housing unit costs around $500,000 in Washington state. My husband and I built our house for $120,000. We need to streamline the process and cut costs to create more affordable housing for everyone.

Kent: We’ve seen a huge influx of illegal immigrants into our country in the past three years, and they’re contributing to the housing crisis. If we start deporting those who are here illegally, that will free up housing and bring down costs. We also need to get the government out of the way by reducing regulations and harvesting timber to create more housing. My opponent talks about deregulation but consistently votes against it.

Perez: Joe keeps bringing up the Reins Act, but we already have the Congressional Review Act, which allows us to block regulations. I exercise that authority frequently. Joe has one solution for every problem, but it’s not that simple. We need real, thoughtful approaches, not just slogans.

Boddie: We’re moving into closing statements. Mr. Kent, your final thoughts?

Kent: Thank you to everyone for tuning in. Our country is facing real problems — inflation, an open border, and a fentanyl crisis that’s killing our loved ones. My opponent voted to keep the border open, and her spending votes have driven inflation through the roof. We can fix these issues by capping spending, securing the border, and restoring common sense to Washington, D.C. I’ve fought for this country for over 20 years, and I’d be honored to fight for you in Congress.

Boddie: Congresswoman Perez, your closing statement?

Perez: I want to speak directly to Republicans in Southwest Washington. Two years ago, Kent moved here to purge the Republican Party of people like my parents and many of you. He even put a Proud Boy on his campaign. Joe doesn’t represent our values. I’m a small business owner, a mom, and a proud sixth-generation Washingtonian. I’m not a politician, and I’m proud of the work I’ve done to represent our community. I’d be honored to earn your vote, and I thank you for participating in our democracy.

---

Also read:

• 
  Opinion: Blood on the highways fails to move Ferguson and Kotek
  Lars Larson criticizes Washington and Oregon governors over licensing policies he says are linked to deadly truck crashes and ongoing highway safety risks.
• 
  Opposing statements sought for Feb. 10, 2026 ballot measures
  The Clark County Elections Office is seeking registered voters to write opposing statements for two local school district propositions ahead of the February 10, 2026 special election.
• 
  Opinion: A warning to Washington – The ‘Minnesota Model’ of fraud has arrived
  Yacolt resident Mark Rose warns that Washington’s grant pass-through system mirrors the failures behind Minnesota’s Feeding Our Future fraud scandal and urges stronger oversight before taxpayers face major losses.
• 
  Voting by mail faces uncertain moment ahead of midterm elections
  With a Supreme Court case looming and states tightening deadlines, voting by mail faces new legal and political uncertainty ahead of next year’s midterm elections.
• 
  Let’s Go Washington issues initiatives signature count update
  Let’s Go Washington says it has collected more than 315,000 and 289,000 signatures on two initiatives and is pushing toward 400,000 per measure.