We surveyed Republican Cindy Kirk and Democrat Arvind Venkat, the candidates for Pennsylvania's 30th State House District, on top issues for the 2022 election.
About the WESA Candidate Survey: WESA sent surveys to all candidates running in competitive races for federal and state offices in our listening area, including Allegheny, Armstrong, Cambria, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Greene, Lawrence, Washington, and Westmoreland counties. Our candidate survey was based upon input we solicited from voters.
We followed up with candidates multiple times via both phone and email. If a candidate did not respond, we have noted that below. (If you're a candidate and would like to complete the survey now, please email Patrick Doyle, pdoyle@wesa.fm).
We have fixed basic capitalization and punctuation issues, but have not otherwise edited candidates' answers.
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, some state lawmakers believe Pennsylvania should ban abortion after six weeks, with no exceptions. Would you support such a proposal — yes/no?
- Please explain your stance and identify other changes, if any, you would like to make to the state’s abortion laws.
Kirk: Did not respond.
Venkat: No. As an emergency physician who has treated hundreds of pregnant women including one who nearly died in my care after suffering complications of a back-alley abortion, I strongly believe that abortion is a critical part of reproductive health care. I will be a voice and a vote to preserve the existing Pennsylvania law that leaves the decision on abortion to women prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy and only allows abortion after 24 weeks in the case of risk to the life or health of the woman. The law recognizes the fundamental difference between when a fetus can survive outside the womb and when it cannot and has worked in our state for the protection of the fundamental rights of women and ensuring that reproductive healthcare can effectively be delivered in the Commonwealth.
Pennsylvania's minimum wage has been set at the federal rate of $7.25 an hour since 2009. Do you favor state action to change the minimum wage? Yes/no?
- Please explain our stance and, if you support a change, identify the minimum wage rate you believe is appropriate.
Kirk: Did not respond.
Venkat: Yes. I would like to see a gradual increase in the minimum wage over a number of years to $15 with consideration of indexing to inflation after. It is unacceptable that full time workers in our state can receive a wage that places them below the poverty level. The current $7.25 minimum wage is also bad economic and public policy given surrounding states have raised their minimum wage and can therefore draw workers and businesses and leads to further state outlays for benefits that would be available for workers to cover themselves if they earned a more reasonable wage. We have now started to cut corporate taxes and should similarly benefit workers.
Do you support no-excuse mail-in voting in Pennsylvania — yes/no?
- Please explain your stance and identify any other changes you believe should be made to state voting laws.
Kirk: Did not respond.
Venkat: Yes. Fundamental to our democracy is that every eligible voter should be able to access the ballot box, accepting that our current elections are free and fair, and that the results of our elections are respected regardless of outcome. I strongly believe no-excuse mail-in voting is critical to meet these tenets. I additionally believe that we should enact early in-person voting, same-day registration, open primaries, pre-registration of those eligible 16-year olds and above so that they are on voter rolls when they turn 18, and independent, non-partisan redistricting. Our democracy works when every eligible voter participates and when voters pick their political leaders, not the other way around.
Do you support Pennsylvania’s involvement in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which sets pricing for carbon emissions — yes/no?
- Please explain your stance, and describe any changes you wish to see to state energy or climate policy.
Kirk: Did not respond.
Venkat: No. I believe in the scientific consensus on climate change being driven by our predominantly carbon-based energy profile and that we must transition to a carbon-free energy profile over time. I believe the way to do so is the structure of the recently passed federal climate change legislation that creates tax incentives for the energy transition to non-carbon sources and recognizes that this is an energy transition that will require renewables, such as wind and solar, non-carbon sources, such as nuclear power and hydrogen, and carbon-mitigation of existing energy sources such as natural gas. The recent federal bill will incentivize the electrification of vehicles further reducing our carbon footprint. While carbon pricing as envisioned by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a means of reducing our carbon footprint, it will only work if enacted on a national level and ideally with global cooperation. The new federal legislation takes a different approach that to my mind means that a regional carbon pricing approach is not likely to be effective and has been passed by the new federal policies.
Inflation is a concern for Pennsylvanians, and some legislators have called for either reducing or suspending the 58-cent-a-gallon gas tax. Would you support such a measure? Yes/no?
- If yes, how would you replace the revenue to pay for State Police and road spending — and are there other inflation-fighting policies you would pursue?
Kirk: Did not respond.
Venkat: No. I believe the gas market has been disrupted by both the whipsaw effect of shutting down and turning down our economy and the geopolitical tensions of the Ukraine war that has affected the global price of oil and subsequently gasoline. I am in favor of a gas tax rebate to provide immediate relief for consumers. Unlike a gas tax suspension, the savings from a rebate are guaranteed to reach consumers while a gas tax suspension will likely only provide savings for large oil and gas companies without any likelihood of passing on to Pennsylvanians. I am open to alternative funding streams for supporting State Police and infrastructure as the dependence on a gas tax is antiquated given the improved fuel efficiency of cars and the transition to electric vehicles. Finally, to address inflation, we must invest in in-home care for the elderly, childcare, affordable and accessible healthcare, particularly mental health care, our public safety services — police, EMS, and fire — and public schools and enact pay equity and paid family leave laws to get more women, and particularly non-college-educated women, back into the workforce. This will increase workforce participation, alleviate labor shortage inflationary pressures, and benefit all Pennsylvania families.
In the face of rising homicide and other crime rates, would you support requiring universal background checks for gun purchases? Yes/no?
- Please explain your stance, and describe other approaches to fighting crime that you would support.
Kirk: Did not respond.
Venkat: Yes. As an emergency physician, I see every day the public health threat posed by gun violence. I believe there is a Second Amendment right to own a firearm for personal protection and other purposes. Universal background checks do not impede that right for law-abiding citizens and ensure that those those who have shown a propensity for violence or self-harm do not have access to weapons that can cause wider harm in their hands. If it is the person and not the gun, then laws like universal background checks, red-flag laws, and safe storage laws focus on those individuals who may cause harm to themselves or others without impeding the constitutional right to own a gun among law-abiding citizens.
School funding in Pennsylvania is heavily supported by property taxes. Would you support efforts to change that system — yes/no?
- Please explain your stance and describe the changes you would support to how public education is funded.
Kirk: Did not respond.
Venkat: Yes. It is immoral that the quality of any Pennsylvania child’s education is governed by their residential zip code. The answer is for the State to prioritize meeting its obligations under the Fair Funding Formula so that school districts do not need to raise property taxes, a special burden on the elderly on a fixed income and the middle class and working poor. What emphatically will not work is diverting vital state funds meant for public education to vouchers or other programs that benefit few children, are not held to the same standards as our public schools, and place additional stress on local school districts to fill funding gaps by raising property taxes.
