Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Dave Larson

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Ballotpedia does not currently cover this office or maintain this page. Please contact us with any updates.
Dave Larson
Image of Dave Larson
Federal Way Municipal Court
Tenure
Present officeholder
Elections and appointments
Last election

November 5, 2024

Education

High school

Federal Way High School

Bachelor's

University of Puget Sound, 1980

Law

Seattle University School of Law, 1984

Personal
Birthplace
Tacoma, Wash.
Religion
Catholic
Profession
Judge
Contact

Campaign website

Campaign Facebook

Campaign Twitter

Campaign Instagram

Personal Facebook

Personal YouTube

Personal LinkedIn

Dave Larson is a judge of the Federal Way Municipal Court in Washington.

Larson ran for election for the Position 2 judge of the Washington Supreme Court. He lost in the general election on November 5, 2024.

Larson completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. Click here to read the survey answers.

Biography

Dave Larson was born in Tacoma, Washington. He earned a high school diploma from Federal Way High School. He earned a bachelor's degree in public administration from the University of Puget Sound in 1980, and a law degree from the Seattle University School of Law in 1984. His career experience includes working as a judge. Larson has been affiliated with the following organizations: District and Municipal Court Judges Association, Kiwanis Club, Federal Way School District Air Force JROTC Advisory Board, and Civil Air Patrol Squadron at McChord AFB.[1][2][3]

Elections

2024

See also: Washington Supreme Court elections, 2024

General election

General election for Washington State Supreme Court Position 2

Sal Mungia defeated Dave Larson in the general election for Washington State Supreme Court Position 2 on November 5, 2024.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of Sal Mungia
Sal Mungia (Nonpartisan) Candidate Connection
 
50.1
 
1,644,253
Image of Dave Larson
Dave Larson (Nonpartisan) Candidate Connection
 
49.4
 
1,624,309
 Other/Write-in votes
 
0.5
 
16,654

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 3,285,216
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Nonpartisan primary election

Nonpartisan primary for Washington State Supreme Court Position 2

Sal Mungia and Dave Larson defeated Todd Bloom and David Shelvey in the primary for Washington State Supreme Court Position 2 on August 6, 2024.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of Sal Mungia
Sal Mungia (Nonpartisan) Candidate Connection
 
43.4
 
762,797
✔
Image of Dave Larson
Dave Larson (Nonpartisan) Candidate Connection
 
36.4
 
640,116
Image of Todd Bloom
Todd Bloom (Nonpartisan)
 
16.3
 
286,298
Image of David Shelvey
David Shelvey (Nonpartisan) Candidate Connection
 
3.4
 
59,676
 Other/Write-in votes
 
0.4
 
7,347

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 1,756,234
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Withdrawn or disqualified candidates

Campaign finance

Endorsements

Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Larson in this election.

2020

See also: Washington Supreme Court elections, 2020

General election

General election for Washington State Supreme Court Position 3

Incumbent Raquel Montoya-Lewis defeated Dave Larson in the general election for Washington State Supreme Court Position 3 on November 3, 2020.

Candidate
%
Votes
✔
Image of Raquel Montoya-Lewis
Raquel Montoya-Lewis (Nonpartisan)
 
58.2
 
2,057,623
Image of Dave Larson
Dave Larson (Nonpartisan)
 
41.4
 
1,462,764
 Other/Write-in votes
 
0.4
 
13,661

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 3,534,048
Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Nonpartisan primary election

The primary election was canceled. Incumbent Raquel Montoya-Lewis and Dave Larson advanced from the primary for Washington State Supreme Court Position 3.

2016

Larson ran against incumbent Justice Charlie Wiggins for his seat on the Washington Supreme Court.[2] The two faced each other on November 8.

Election results

November 8 general election
Incumbent Charlie Wiggins defeated Dave Larson in the general election for the Washington Supreme Court, Position 6.
Washington Supreme Court, Position 6, 2016
Candidate Vote % Votes
Green check mark transparent.png Charlie Wiggins Incumbent 57.49% 1,535,554
Dave Larson 42.51% 1,135,285
Total Votes (100% reporting) 2,670,839
Source: Washington Secretary of State Official Results

Race background

The 2016 election was the first since the 1990s in which all three state supreme court justices up for re-election faced opponents.[4] At least one justice in every election typically runs unopposed, but this year all three incumbents drew challengers. Republican state Representative Matt Manweller said he and other lawmakers actively recruited candidates to run against the justices.[4] This was partly because of the court's decisions in the long-running school funding case McCleary v. Washington, over which the court drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for holding the state in contempt of court, and in a separate case about the state funding of charter schools.

Those in favor of replacing the justices said the court has overstepped its boundaries into legislation and policymaking and failed to respect the autonomy of the state legislature.[4] In the McCleary school funding case, the court both found the state government in contempt and fined the state $100,000 per day until the state complied with the court's orders.[5][6]

In a separate case, the court ruled unconstitutional the state funding of charter schools right before those schools were set to open in 2015.

Satellite spending

The political action committee arm of the group Stand for Children spent $116,000 promoting the campaign of Greg Zempel, who challenged Chief Justice Barbara Madsen for her seat on the court.[7] Madsen authored the court's 2015 decision declaring Washington's charter schools, in their form at that time, unconstitutional. The legislature passed a new bill in 2016 that allowed charter schools to continue; opponents threatened to sue over this law as well.[7] Stand for Children's spending on Zempel's campaign was funded by several of the backers of charter schools who were opposed to the court's 2015 decision. The primary donors include Connie Ballmer, wife of former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer; Reed Hastings, founder and CEO of Netflix; and Vulcan Inc., owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. Vulcan and Ballmer were also among the primary backers of the ballot initiative that paved the way for the charter schools.[7]

Endorsements

Campaign finance

Dave Larson Campaign Finance, 2016
Contributions Expenditures Cash on Hand
$91,677 $49,764 $41,913
Source: Washington Public Disclosure Commission

Campaign themes

2024

Ballotpedia survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection

Candidate Connection

Dave Larson completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Larson's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.

Expand all | Collapse all

Judge Dave Larson is the only candidate in this race that has served as a judge. His 16 years as a judge and 23 years as a trial lawyer make him the best prepared and most qualified candidate for this position. He is rated "Exceptionally Well-Qualified" by multiple bar associations. He is a Washington native that has been living in South King County for the past 57 years. We desperately need his proven leadership on the Supreme Court.

His leadership has been recognized statewide and nationwide because he develops solutions, solves problems, and has improved our courts. As a lawyer, his peers rated him as “AV Preeminent” through Martindale-Hubbell. This means that lawyers and judges felt that he deserved the highest possible rating which, "is a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him...at the highest level of professional excellence."

Judge Larson is involved and highly respected in youth and adult civics education. He was a 2014 recipient of the Washington Judge’s Foundation Judge William Nevins Award, an award given to judges with a long-term commitment to youth education and public understanding of both the law and the role of the judiciary in American society. In addition, he was recognized as a “Hero” of Federal Way Public Schools in 2018 and again in 2022, and the readers of the local newspaper selected him as “Best Community Leader” in 2022. He is the recipient of numerous other awards and recognitions as well.
  • The people of this state need Judge Larson. Crime is out of hand and the Supreme Court has been silent, and, in some cases, has made matters worse. As the only candidate who has actually been in the "trenches," Judge Larson's innovative and effective approaches have been recognized statewide and nationwide. Many of his ideas have been adopted by the legislature. His common-sense strategy has earned support from judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs, mayors, legislators, and the very people who work directly with those suffering from addiction and untreated mental illness. His intellect, courage, and desire to stand up for what is right for our courts and communities are exactly what we need.
  • Judge Larson has proven throughout his entire career that he will uphold our state and federal constitutions and the individual rights they protect. A vote for him will be a vote for the confidence we desperately need in our courts. Our state and nation are divided, and our Supreme Court has become too political. Judge Larson wants to make our Court the trusted institution it is supposed to be by bringing us together with trust and confidence. He has tried to unite us by reaching out to Democrats and Republicans, Labor and Business, and to citizens in Eastern and Western Washington because everyone deserves to have trust and confidence in our Supreme Court regardless of their political beliefs, economic status, or geographic location.
  • Judge Larson has and will continue to follow our state and federal constitutions as written. He will not legislate from the bench. Our State Constitution is the best in the nation with strong protections for your rights that are worthy of being upheld as written. He has a proven record of standing up for your individual rights, even when not popular to do so, and we desperately need that leadership on our Court. Judge Larson will be a fair and impartial Justice. We need our courts to be a politically neutral forum that people can trust to be fair and impartial, and that requires someone to stand up and be willing to uphold the principles that build trust and confidence in our courts. Judge Larson is that someone, and he is that Justice.
The response to the criminal justice crisis, public defender crisis, civics education, and how to properly structure government to best serve the people. Crime is a top priority; it is out of hand in our communities and the Supreme Court has been silent, and, in some cases, has only made matters worse. Judge Larson has worked closely with the legislature and local government and has been recognized statewide and nationwide for his common-sense and effective approaches to criminal justice. Finally, he created a presentation for members of the public called, "How Freedom Works" which teaches the fundamentals of freedom and government. He wants to use his position to improve how we govern ourselves in Washington State.
My father, my football coach, and three lawyer mentors. My father showed me integrity and a solid work ethic and my football coach instilled an "attitude makes the difference" approach to life. My first lawyer mentor taught me how to be thorough, my second lawyer mentor taught me how to be tenacious, and my third lawyer mentor taught me how to control it.
The "political philosophy" of a judge should be that politics should have no place in the decisions made by a court. A liberal judge, a moderate judge, and a conservative judge should be able to make similar decisions about the law if they each adhere to the notion that politics are reserved for the legislative and executive branches, and not the courts. As stated above, I must respect and follow Art. I, Sec. 1, by recognizing that my role as a judge is that of a servant of the people; I am not a master of the people. I serve at the consent of the people and my primary job is to protect individual rights by making sure that the state and federal constitutions are followed by the legislative and executive branches. I recommend that people read the state and federal constitutions if they want to know what will be at the foundation of my decisions.
Needed characteristics for elected officials include humility, integrity, and a servant's heart. The reason those traits are important is because our form of government relies on elected officials to act as servants of the people, not masters of the people. The very first provision in our state constitution emphasizes the need for government officials to understand the nature of government and their role as servants. Art. I, Sec. 1 provides, "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights." Many of the issues we face today are caused by the fact that too many people running for office are seeking power for themselves and the people who support them. In reality, our form of government relies on people seeking the responsibility of office; the responsibility to serve others.
Humility, integrity, and a strong sense of responsibility to the public. Too many people are motivated by seeking power in elected office. I am motivated by seeking responsibility in elected office. I will tell a story to demonstrate how I feel about elected office. I was with several high school students along with some other elected officials. One of the students asked, "When did you feel closest to your position?" The other elected officials talked about special projects, programs, laws that they passed, and other accomplishments within the scope of their official duties. When it got to me, I talked about being in the back of the line at a chili cook-off. A person I knew came up and spoke with me for a few minutes and called me "judge". When that person left, the person behind me said, "You're a judge just cut up in front of the line." I turned to the person and said, "When I don't have my robe on, I'm like anybody else." The reason I told the story to the students is to emphasize that my number one position is that of fellow citizen. I simply play a role in my position as judge, and I am no more special than anyone else. I am a servant, and not a master. These qualities should not be rare within government. I hope to bring that ethic to our state’s highest court.
The primary job of a Supreme Court Justice is to make legal decisions consistent with common sense and fairness that is achieved by complying with the meaning and purpose of the state and federal constitutions. Supreme Court Justices also need to act as leaders to support the lower courts and the proper administration of justice. The Supreme Court sets the rules and the tone for the lower courts (see response regarding court rules below).
I would like to have been known as someone who strived for a justice system that fulfilled its true purpose by delivering dignity and respect to all who enter the halls of justice.
The assassination and funeral of President John F. Kennedy. I was five years old.
Picking up litter on the freeway for the Washington State Department of Transportation as part of a program called "Weekend Warriors." It was every Saturday the Spring of my senior year in high school.
Profiles in Courage by John F. Kennedy because it chronicles people who took tough stands in the face of adversity.
Superman because of "Truth, Justice, and the American Way." "American Way" was replaced with "a Better Tomorrow" in 2021, but we will have a better tomorrow if we follow the intended American way of valuing truth and justice.
Adagio for Strings after recently seeing the movie, Platoon.
Being resisted when I suggest change to people in positions of power, but I keep moving forward because I know in history that anytime positive meaningful change has occurred, somebody had to pay a price for suggesting the change. I'm not afraid to be that person.
The Supreme Court creates court rules for all courts in this state. Court rules set procedures used in courtroom proceedings, procedures used in discovery before court proceedings occur, rules affecting the admissibility of evidence at court proceedings, rules for pursuing appeals, rules for how trial courts are managed, ethics rules for lawyers, ethics rules for judges, and many other types of rules. These rules set the tone for the trial courts, for judges, for lawyers, and for the public who use our court system.
My legal philosophy is grounded in my oath as a judge. The oath of a Supreme Court Justice is similar to a trial judge's oath and provides as follows: "I do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Washington, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of judge of the supreme court of the State of Washington to the best of my ability." The law creates the boundaries that all of us need to operate within, but dignity and respect serve as the foundation of justice. Dignity and respect are as essential to humans as eating, drinking, and sleeping. Injustice is created in our interactions with each other, and the law and the courts need to focus on restoring justice when it is breached. However, sometimes the courts aggravate disputes by failing to recognize its core purpose as the peace keeping branch of government. We also lose focus in the judiciary when we fail to understand the part of human nature that craves justice through the delivery of dignity and respect. Court rules and court proceedings need to follow the principles of procedural justice. The four principles of procedural justice are dignity and respect, voice (being heard), neutral and transparent decision-making, and judges and lawyers adhering to trustworthy motives in what they do. The system breaks down and confidence is lost if the judiciary allows itself to depart from these principles.
Former Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.
Yes. A judge's heart (empathy) and mind (intellect) must be in balance. Too much of one or the other causes judges to make bad decisions.
So far, I have been rated "Exceptionally Well Qualified" by each bar association evaluating me this year.
Our lack of any uniform strategy to address crime, addiction, and untreated mental illness in our communities. We are facing out of control crime in our communities. Instead of helping our communities, the current supreme court’s decisions have undermined efforts in the trial courts and in our communities to address this unprecedented crisis. Our trial courts are an essential tool used to protect the health and welfare of our communities and they need to be supported, not undermined. Our Supreme Court needs to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

The "Blake" case decided in 2021 is a prime example of what it means to be a part of the problem - the majority of justices made arguments in their decision that the lawyers did not make in their arguments, and subsequently declared our drug laws unconstitutional. Those same drug laws had been upheld by the Supreme Court on two previous occasions. The Blake decision put our state on its head because it essentially legalized drugs in Washington for two years. Much of the increased crime rates we’re seeing can be tied back to Blake, and it will take time before we completely recover from that decision. 

I have worked successfully with the legislature on common sense strategies that will reduce crime with compassion without sacrificing personal accountability, all of which are supported by judges, lawyers, legislators, mayors, police chiefs and sheriffs, those who advocate for people suffering from addiction and untreated mental illness, other leaders across our state, and the citizens who elect them. I want to bring that much needed leadership to our Supreme Court to work with the legislature and local government on solutions for the crime we are witnessing in our communities.
We also need to provide therapeutic alternatives to family law cases. Although there is cause for hope, too many children and families are adversely affected by the current approach to divorce and family law.
The Washington Supreme Court has the final say on how the State Constitution is interpreted and enforced. Its purpose is to serve as a check on the power of the other two branches and to make sure that our form of government is preserved.
It depends, because sometimes politics is injected into the process. I am in favor of forming a "Judicial Elections Commission" who would rate candidates in a non-partisan/bi-partisan manner using established criteria. The JEC would also serve to educate the public on what traits to look for in a judge so people could decide for themselves on how the various candidates rate for them. The JEC would also sponsor and promote debates and forums to help voters better understand judicial elections.
I like situational comedy instead of one off jokes.
I have been endorsed by judges, lawyers, mayors, law enforcement officials, legislators, people in the recovery community, and others. A list will be provided upon request.
All forms of transparency are essential, not just financial transparency. Public disclosure laws were adopted by citizen initiative and those laws need to be given full force and effect by the courts as written. It all goes back again to Article I, Sec. 1 of the State Constitution because transparency and accountability are mandatory, not an option. The government belongs to the people, not to government officials.
This is not an issue for the judicial candidates to weigh in on. Ethics rules prohibit judges from giving opinions on matters that might come before the Court.

Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.

Campaign website

Larson’s campaign website stated the following:

“

Meet Judge Dave Larson

Judge Larson has served as the presiding judge for Federal Way Municipal Court for 14 years. In his 16 total years on the bench, he has earned a strong reputation as a fair and accomplished judge. Before becoming a judge, he was a highly rated trial lawyer for 23 years, trying cases in both state and federal courts.

Judge Larson has worked closely with legislators and others across the state and nation to coordinate and develop real strategies for not only our state’s criminal justice system, but for the communities they serve. He intends to bring that desperately needed leadership to our state’s highest court so that we can work together with other branches of government to tackle the troublesome issues facing our communities and state as a whole.

Judge Larson brings a balance that we need in our courts now more than ever – he believes in upholding the constitution and uses common sense solutions to address problems.

One of the problems he is the most passionate about fixing is rising crime rates. Judge Larson’s approach to this uses both compassion and accountability as effective tools with those accused of crime. He has long devoted himself to the improvement of the justice system and judicial independence, earning him the President’s Award from the District and Municipal Court Judges Association in 2018 in addition to several other awards.

His values, legal knowledge, and balanced approach to justice set him apart and has earned him the past and current support of Democrats and Republicans, Business and Labor groups, Judges and attorneys from across the state, and people just like you.

Judge Larson respects and follows our state constitution, and unwaveringly believes in upholding the rights of the people.

He’s the Justice we need – now more than ever. [8]

”
—Dave Larson’s campaign website (2024)[9]

2020

Dave Larson did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.

Campaign finance summary

Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.

Dave Larson campaign contribution history
YearOfficeStatusContributionsExpenditures
2024* Washington State Supreme Court Position 2Lost general$193,840 $254,033
Grand total$193,840 $254,033
Sources: OpenSecrets,  Federal Elections Commission ***This product uses the openFEC API but is not endorsed or certified by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
* Data from this year may not be complete

See also

2024 Elections

Ballotpedia Election Coverage Badge.png
What's on the ballot?
U.S. President
U.S. Congress
U.S. Congress special elections
State executives
State legislatures
State courts
Ballot measures
Municipal government
School boards
Election analysis hub

Government

Seal of Washington.png
Who represents me?
U.S. Congress
State executives
State legislators
State courts
Ballot measures
Municipal government
School boards

Newsletters

Ballotpedia RSS.jpg
The Daily Brew
The Weekly Brew
The Ballot Bulletin
Checks and Balances
Economy and Society
Hall Pass
Number of the Day
Robe & Gavel


External links

Candidate

Washington State Supreme Court Position 2
  • Website
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
    		•

    Personal

  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
    		•

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ City of Federal Way, "Judge David A. Larson," accessed May 3, 2016
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Announce
    3. ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on July 8, 2024
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 The News Tribune, "Controversial school-funding rulings prompt crowded Supreme Court races," June 3, 2016
    5. ↑ The Seattle Times, "Contempt ruling ups ante in fight to fund public schools," September 12, 2014
    6. ↑ The Seattle Times, "School funding back on table as court fines state $100,000 a day," August 13, 2015
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 The News Tribune, "Charter-school backers spending $116,000 to try to unseat state Supreme Court justice," July 28, 2016
    8. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Dave Larson - For Justice. For All., “Home,” accessed July 22, 2024
    v • e
    2024 State Judicial Elections
    State supreme court elections by stateBallotpedia Election Coverage Badge.png
    Intermediate appellate court elections by state


    Flag of Washington
    v • e
    State of Washington
    Olympia (capital)
    Elections

    What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

    Government

    Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy


    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Dave_Larson&oldid=9718196"