Frequently Asked Questions
Dave’s opponent claims that her years as State Senator make her qualified to be a Superior Court Judge because she has been involved in creating and establishing the laws used in the courtroom. What should voters understand, in terms of this Superior Court Judge position, about the difference between Dave’s practical, relevant legal and judicial experience, and his opponent’s Senate experience. How do the two differ?
Voters should understand that laws are made cooperatively among our state legislators. It’s an admirable job, but one that is substantially different than applying the law at trial.
Once a legislator (or team of legislators) has introduced a bill, it is expected to need refining and reviewing throughout the process. There is room for a certain amount of error and adaptation as necessary, which is why the bill must pass through committee reviews and ultimately to the Rules Committee before a vote ever takes place in the Senate or House. Having a team of legislators working on creating the laws is far removed from the daily application of such laws at trial.
Superior court is our trial court. It is imperative that the judge knows the law, knows how to apply the law, and knows the “rules of evidence” at trial. Those rules are learned only through courtroom experience…either through trying cases or from prior judicial experience. This is where Dave’s experience is SO critically important!
Applying the law as a judge, is a serious matter with no room for error, as lives may depend on the outcome. It is NOT a team sport. When an incompetent Superior Court Judge makes an erroneous ruling because they don’t know how to apply the law or how the rules of evidence work, an appeal is filed. Appeals are costly in terms of both time and money. Far fewer appeals are filed from trials with competent judges.
Don’t be fooled by experience that isn’t relevant to the job of Superior Court Judge. Vote to maintain the integrity of our Superior Court…vote Dave Petersen on November 3rd.
​
What is your general judicial philosophy?
My general philosophy is one of judicial restraint, holding constitutional rights sacred, and maintaining transparency and efficiency within the system.
​
What types of clients have you represented while you have been an attorney?
I have represented private, corporate, and governmental clients in matters ranging from simple issues like traffic tickets, to family law matters and complex banking litigation.
Do you possess any expertise in a field other than law?
This is an interesting question. I have a business/accounting background from my undergraduate years and have served in leadership roles in the military, as a partner in law firms, and as the judge of Pasco Municipal Court. Additionally, my wife would say that I’m a “jack of all trades” when it comes to construction, welding, auto mechanics or general maintenance.
​
​
​