.JPG)
.JPG)
U.S. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Skamania, was met with boos, heckling and calls to resign Thursday night during a contentious town hall in Vancouver, where hundreds of constituents aired frustration over her votes on election reform, party discipline, and immigration.
The event was moderated by Ridgefield Mayor Matt Cole, who read pre-submitted questions to Gluesenkamp Perez before a packed and restless audience. Nearly every one of her answers was met with jeers from the crowd.
Much of the audience’s frustration centered on Gluesenkamp Perez’s vote for the SAVE Act, a GOP-backed bill requiring individuals to provide documentation proving U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
Gluesenkamp Perez defended her decision, saying the intent was to protect trust in elections, not restrict access.
“Any idea that I am standing to disenfranchise people is [not informed],” she said. “I believe vehemently in having a system where Americans have an influence in who is represented.”
However, she acknowledged her belief that the legislation was deeply flawed, at one point calling it “a dumpster fire.”
One attendee shouted, “Then why did you vote for it?”
Gluesenkamp Perez cited a case in Oregon where hundreds of noncitizens were mistakenly registered to vote through the DMV. She stated such incidents contributed to public mistrust in elections, even if the impact was statistically small.
Her reasoning did little to dissuade the crowd’s anger. Among those left unsatisfied was Vancouver-area resident Nathan Hunter, who said the congresswoman’s explanation rang hollow.
“She knew it wasn’t going to pass the Senate,” Hunter said in an interview after the town hall. “She called it a dumpster fire of a bill, but she voted for it. Why? If that was a bullshit political performance, who is she performing for?”
Hunter argued that the bill would bring back historically discriminatory practices.
“These barriers, birth certificates, passports, they all cost money. That’s a poll tax,” he said. “We fought to end that, and now they’re trying to bring it back.”
Another flashpoint was Gluesenkamp Perez’s vote to censure Democrat Rep. Al Green of Texas. Green was censured by the House for disrupting a congressional address by President Donald Trump, a vote backed mainly by Republicans but joined by a small number of Democrats, including Gluesenkamp Perez.
Her answer began with an explanation of what a censure is compared to “censoring,” which irritated the crowd further. She then stated her vote was about maintaining institutional standards, not partisan alignment.
“This is a binary question of whether or not the rules [were] broken or not; it’s not about a political agenda,” Gluesenkamp Perez said. “It’s about a binary were the rules broken? and according to Al Green, he did break the rules.”
She acknowledged the perception of hypocrisy among voters, noting that Congress has not censured Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene for her own disruption during former president Joe Biden’s address. Gluesenkamp Perez attributed that to the Republican majority controlling the chamber. The explanation did little to ease tensions in the room, as many attendees remained upset over her decision to censure a fellow Democrat.
A question about federal workforce protections drew a sharp exchange between the congresswoman and the crowd. Asked what she was doing to protect federal employees from mass firings under the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.), Gluesenkamp Perez said, “There is a really profound demand in our country for an efficient government,” which drew a disruptive uproar from the crowd. Following this, she stressed she did not agree with the administration’s methodology.
“We don’t get there by randomly scapegoating,” she said, referring to Trump-aligned efforts to cut federal staffing. “You do not balance the budget by putting a lot of employees [out of work.]”
She argued that many government workers being targeted are in the best positions to know how to improve public systems and emphasized her work on the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. She said she has called for an oversight hearing to validate their work.
“Stop asking and start telling them, subpoena them,” one attendee yelled. “Stand up about it, speak up and fight,” another added.
Outside, a group of protesters gathered with signs criticizing Gluesenkamp Perez’s voting history and questioning her legitimacy as a Democrat. County resident Fia Marie, who brought a speakerphone, began to rally the crowd outside. Following the protest, Marie said the congresswoman failed to represent the people most affected by recent policy shifts.
“We just wanted to make sure marginalized voices felt safe and had a platform,” she said. “What we saw today was a community ready to hold its leaders accountable.”
She said Gluesenkamp Perez’s focus on moderation has come at the cost of ignoring her district’s most urgent needs.
“She spends more time reaching across the aisle than reaching out to the people she’s supposed to be representing,” she added.
Inside, questions spanned issues from housing costs to the I-5 bridge replacement.
On housing affordability, Gluesenkamp Perez spoke about her experience building her own home and the potential for simplifying the construction process. When she stated her home cost $12,000 to build, her response was interrupted once again.
“When?” One person yelled. “My parents bought their house for $75,000, but it was 50 f*cking years ago.”
Gluesenkamp Perez added she’s working on legislation to provide pre-approved blueprints for starter homes and emphasized her desire to expand access to vocational education, including shop classes as early as middle school.
“The way that you fight the kind of monopolization of housing is by building more houses, by ensuring that people have the skills and the ability and the capital to build their own homes,” she said.
Asked about the Trump administration’s immigration policies and deportations without due process, Gluesenkamp Perez stressed the importance of standing up for due process.
Her response drew further heckling, with critics saying she was doing little to fight the administration’s methods.
She also addressed the future of the Interstate 5 Bridge replacement, calling the funding battle a “dogfight.”
“We were successful in turning $1.3 billion into $1.9 billion for the I-5 bridge,” she said.
Gluesenkamp Perez emphasized the importance of the bridge project beyond immediate traffic needs, tying it to jobs, regional development, and long-term infrastructure.
“We cannot let light rail be the reason that the bridge doesn’t get built,” she said, stressing the need for flexibility in the design to serve multiple generations.
The tone of the evening remained adversarial. Dozens of attendees walked out of the town hall, visibly frustrated.
Chants of “Vote her out” echoed through the parking lot after the proceedings. Gluesenkamp Perez’s vehicle was surrounded by protestors waving signs and shouting at her as she left the premises.
