Ahead of the November general election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below.
Read more PEN America: Nearly 12,000 school book bans in a year, a record high
Name: Michael E. Gates
Age: 51
Current job title: Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice
Political party affiliation: Republican Party
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: Former City Attorney of Huntington Beach
City where you reside: Huntington Beach
Campaign website or social media: Gates4AG.com
Should the attorney general’s office sue the Trump administration over its active deportation of people living in the U.S. with expired visas — but who have pending applications to renew them or to gain more permanent residency status? Explain your position. (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
The attorney general should not sue any administration simply because we disagree politically. The question must always be whether the federal government is acting within the law.
Immigration law is primarily a federal responsibility. If an individual’s legal status has expired, the federal government has broad authority to enforce federal immigration law. At the same time, individuals are entitled to whatever due process and legal protections federal law provides while an application is pending.
As attorney general, I would evaluate the law and facts of any federal action. If the federal government violates the Constitution or federal law, California has every right to challenge it. If the federal government is lawfully exercising authority granted to it by Congress, California’s attorney general should not spend taxpayer dollars filing politically motivated lawsuits simply because Sacramento disagrees with federal policy.
My standard would be the law, not who occupies the White House.
In instances where federal immigration enforcement clashes with California’s own policies or requests for state data, what legal criteria should the attorney general utilize to determine when the state complies or challenges? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
The attorney general’s responsibility is to the Constitution and the law, not to a political party or administration.
I would determine whether the federal government has lawful authority to make the request, whether federal law preempts conflicting state law, whether compliance would violate constitutional protections or California’s lawful obligations, and whether appropriate due process and privacy protections have been observed.
If federal authorities are acting within their constitutional and statutory authority, California should comply with the law. If they exceed that authority, the attorney general should challenge them.
That should be true regardless of who is president.
I have fought Sacramento when I believed state government exceeded its lawful authority, and I would apply exactly the same standard to Washington. The attorney general should not engage in political “resistance,” nor should the office blindly defer to a federal administration. The job is to defend the rule of law.
California has been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism and heat from the Trump administration recently over alleged fraud schemes, from real estate to healthcare and hospice care. How can the office target these schemes on its own, not only to bring justice for victims but also to alleviate pressure from the federal government? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
California should not need Washington to tell us to protect California taxpayers.
Fraud, waste, and abuse will be a major priority of my administration. The Department of Justice has significant investigative and prosecutorial resources that can be used to identify organized fraud involving healthcare, hospice care, real estate, homelessness programs, and taxpayer-funded benefits.
I would strengthen coordination among DOJ investigators, local district attorneys, state agencies, and auditors; aggressively pursue sophisticated fraud rings; follow the money; recover stolen taxpayer dollars wherever possible; and prosecute those responsible.
We also need better data sharing and earlier identification of suspicious patterns. Waiting until billions of dollars have gone out the door and then asking what happened is not accountability.
Whether the fraud involves a private company, nonprofit, government contractor, or politically connected organization should make no difference.
California taxpayers deserve an attorney general who treats stealing public money like what it is: stealing from them.
When it comes to addressing homelessness, how do you believe local governments can balance getting people off the streets while not criminalizing poverty? What is the attorney general’s role in helping local governments address homelessness? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Being homeless is not a crime. But homelessness cannot mean that every other law stops being enforced.
My approach is firmness coupled with compassion. In Huntington Beach, we paired enforcement of laws governing conduct in public spaces with outreach, shelter, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, legal assistance, and family reunification. The objective wasn’t to put homeless people in jail. It was to get people off the street and onto a path toward stability.
There is nothing compassionate about allowing someone suffering from severe mental illness or addiction to deteriorate on a sidewalk.
The attorney general should help local governments enforce lawful ordinances, provide legal guidance following court decisions, target criminal activity that preys upon homeless populations, and coordinate with local prosecutors and law enforcement.
But Sacramento should not impose one solution on every community. Local governments understand their streets and populations better than state bureaucrats. The state’s role should be to provide tools, enforce the law, and measure outcomes, not micromanage cities.
How do you assess California’s approach to juvenile diversion? And what would you change, if anything, to reduce serious youth offending while keeping young people out of the criminal justice system when appropriate? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Diversion can be an effective tool when it is used for the right young person, the right offense, and with meaningful accountability.
Read more Ben Allen, California insurance commissioner candidate, 2026 election questionnaire
I don’t believe every mistake a teenager makes should follow that person for the rest of his or her life. For appropriate first-time and lower-level offenses, diversion can address underlying problems while keeping young people in school, connected to their families, and away from a criminal justice system that can sometimes make matters worse.
But diversion cannot become automatic, particularly for serious, violent, or repeat offenders. Public safety has to remain part of the equation.
I would support evidence-based diversion programs that establish clear requirements, involve parents or guardians when appropriate, provide mental health or substance abuse treatment where needed, and measure whether participants actually stop offending.
Successful diversion should mean more than avoiding prosecution. It should mean changing behavior.
Compassion and accountability aren’t opposites. A juvenile justice system can provide young people a genuine second chance while still making clear that serious conduct has serious consequences.
Describe for us your prosecutorial philosophy. (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
My prosecutorial philosophy is straightforward: enforce the law fairly, consistently, and without fear or favor.
Prosecutors possess enormous power, and that power comes with an obligation to exercise judgment. The goal isn’t to accumulate convictions. It is to protect the public, seek justice, respect constitutional rights, and hold people accountable.
As the Huntington Beach city attorney, I established a local criminal prosecution program because I saw quality-of-life crimes going unaddressed. We demonstrated that taking those offenses seriously could improve public safety without pretending incarceration is the appropriate answer in every case.
I believe violent criminals and repeat offenders must face meaningful consequences. At the same time, prosecutors should recognize circumstances where treatment, diversion, or another intervention produces a better outcome.
Politics should never determine who gets prosecuted or who receives a pass.
Whether you’re powerful or powerless, Republican or Democrat, a government official or private citizen, the same law should apply to you. That is how prosecutors earn public trust.
What specifically do you think this office could do better to be transparent about its lawsuits? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Californians should know why their attorney general is taking them into court, what the office hopes to accomplish, and what those lawsuits are costing taxpayers.
I would establish a publicly accessible litigation transparency portal providing basic information about significant affirmative lawsuits filed by the attorney general, including the legal basis for the action, relief being sought, major developments in the case, outside counsel when applicable, and meaningful information about costs and attorneys’ fees.
The office should also do a better job distinguishing between litigation necessary to protect Californians and litigation advancing the political priorities of whoever occupies the attorney general’s office.
There will obviously be information that cannot legally or ethically be disclosed while litigation is pending. Those limitations should be respected.
But “ongoing litigation” should not become a blanket excuse to avoid accountability.
The attorney general represents the people of California. They are the client, they are paying the legal bills, and they deserve meaningful information about how their Department of Justice is using its authority and resources.
Tell us about a time you’ve changed your mind on a political position. What was it, and what changed your mind? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I believed that providing housing was enough to help someone escape homelessness. I’ve come to believe that, for people struggling with addiction or serious mental illness, housing alone cannot solve the underlying problem.
Sometimes compassion requires tough love. That means doing the hard work of getting someone into treatment, helping them stay with it and holding them accountable while providing the support they need to recover. Simply putting someone under a roof without addressing their addiction or mental health needs can leave them in the same crisis behind a different door.
I believe housing must be part of the solution, alongside treatment and a real path toward stability. Our responsibility goes beyond finding someone a place to stay. We should help them rebuild their lives, regain their independence and reconnect with their families. To me, that is what compassionate government should work to achieve.
Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.
The best book I read this year was “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. What stayed with me was Lincoln’s willingness to surround himself with capable people who challenged him, including people who had opposed him politically. That takes confidence and humility. It reminded me that leadership requires listening carefully, testing your assumptions and putting the public’s interests ahead of personal pride. Those are qualities I believe matter enormously in an attorney general.
Read more Jane Kim, California insurance commissioner candidate, 2026 election questionnaire