Election forecasts you can inspect.Tested models, shown with their sources and their uncertainty.

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › Washington Senate

Washington Senate District 31

2026 forecast · Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

15% chance of a Democratic win · Phil Fortunato (R), Tamara Stramel (D)

Washington Senate District 31: Forecast (lines redrawn; start rebuilt from 2024 votes)Washington Senate 15: chance of a Democratic win <1%Washington Senate 2: not up in 2026 (held by republican); 2024 president R+8Washington Senate 25: not up in 2026 (held by republican); 2024 president D+3Washington Senate 27: not up in 2026 (held by democrat); 2024 president D+29Washington Senate 30: chance of a Democratic win 97%Washington Senate 47: chance of a Democratic win 93%Washington Senate 5: not up in 2026 (held by democrat)Washington Senate District 31: Forecast (lines redrawn; start rebuilt from 2024 votes)274725521531
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 31 leans Republican. Of its 7 neighbouring districts, 4 favour Democrats, 3 favour Republicans.

StatusForecast (lines redrawn; start rebuilt from 2024 votes)
Chance of a Democratic win15%
Likely margin (80% range)R+35 to D+4, middle R+16
CandidatesPhil Fortunato (R), Tamara Stramel (D)
Candidate list fromwikipedia
Current memberPhil Fortunato
Linesredrawn since the last election; Census figures below are on the earlier lines

Initial version. This model was tested on every state legislative election from 1994 to 2024 before publication, forecasting each as if it had not happened. It beat the simple rule “the party that holds the seat keeps it”, and its chamber seat counts were off by 2.9 seats on average (target: under 3). Districts with no two-party race last time are read from their own presidential vote, a change tested in advance that cut their average error from 17 to 13 points. It missed one of its five accuracy targets: in 2024, the calmest year on record, its ranges were wider than they needed to be (92% of results fell inside its 80% ranges; target: at most 88%). Treat the ranges as cautious. The full test record and code.