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 Tri Ta, Assembly District 70 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire
Name: Paula Swift
Age: 57
Current job title: Small Business Owner
Political party affiliation: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: N/A
City where you reside: Seal Beach
Campaign website or social media: votepaulaswift.com
Fuel costs for Californians are higher than anywhere else in the country. What specific policy would you support to ease the burden drivers feel at the pump? And how would you measure whether that policy was actually successful? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Californians deserve relief at the pump, and I support increasing transparency and oversight of oil refiners’ pricing practices, including stronger enforcement against unexplained price spikes that don’t track with actual supply costs. I would also support expanding the state’s ability to investigate and penalize price gouging in real time.
I think it’s important to make state tracking refiner profit margins public to increase transparency and accountability. Comparing California’s price gap with neighboring states with similar taxes and regulations will help us distinguish necessary costs from unjustified profit.
Affordability at the pump has to be paired with investment in transportation alternatives, so working families aren’t entirely dependent on gas prices to get to work, school, and healthcare. Relief shouldn’t come at the expense of our climate goals; it should come from holding the industry accountable for pricing practices that hurt Californians without a clear justification.
How can state lawmakers ease barriers for those wishing to become homeowners and unburden renters with high rental costs, or is this an issue beyond the scope of Sacramento? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Housing, homeownership, and pathways to ownership are all within Sacramento’s scope and should be a priority. Expanding down payment assistance programs and streamlining approval processes so more affordable housing gets built are two essential components that deserve lawmakers’ focus. Beyond homeownership, I support strengthening tenant protections against unfair rent increases and evictions without cause.
As a social worker, I’ve seen what housing instability does to a family; it affects health, education, and economic stability all at once. I will fight for policies that expand pathways to homeownership and protect renters at the same time, because families need both. Sacramento absolutely has a role here, and I intend to make housing affordability one of my top priorities in the Assembly.
Elected officials often talk about the need to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place as part of combating homelessness, but California has more people living on the street than any other state. How would you work with colleagues in Sacramento to get people off the streets and into stable housing situations? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
We have to focus on prevention and mitigation at the same time. Prioritizing funding for permanent supportive housing paired with substantive wraparound services, including mental health care, addiction treatment, and job support, takes a more permanent and long-term approach to a complex issue. Temporary shelter alone doesn’t address the root causes keeping people on the street.
As a social worker who has spent over two decades working with vulnerable families, including those experiencing housing instability, I understand that this crisis is rarely about one factor alone. It’s housing costs, mental health, addiction, and economic hardship compounding on each other. State funding that reflects that complexity proves we’re ready and willing to bring relief to communities and Californians in need.
California has the highest grocery prices of any mainland state in the U.S. What’s one specific policy Sacramento could support to bring down food prices for individuals and families struggling to make ends meet? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Increasing transparency in grocery, food supply pricing, or anywhere along the supply chain that raises costs and pricing is a first step. Stronger state oversight of price gouging and anti-competitive practices among large grocery chains and food distributors is a great place to start as well. Too often, there’s very little correlation between the price a consumer pays and the actual supply chain costs. Pricing seems to reflect consolidated market power with little competition to keep prices in check.
I support expanding state investment in local and regional food systems, farmers markets, and food assistance programs, so families have more affordable options and less dependence on the small number of dominant retailers. Strengthening CalFresh and other food assistance programs matters too, especially as federal cuts threaten to leave more families without support.
I know that grocery costs are one of the most immediate, unavoidable pressures families feel every week. Bringing prices down requires competition, transparency, and a state government willing to hold dominant players accountable when pricing patterns don’t reflect honest market conditions.
California’s budget approved by officials this summer included $300 million to offset healthcare costs expected with the expiration of federal subsidies. Do you support this effort by state lawmakers? Also, what would you do to protect Californians’ access to healthcare in light of federal changes that have restricted benefits to various groups? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Yes, I support this effort. As federal subsidies expire and threaten to leave more Californians without affordable coverage, the state has a responsibility to step in and protect access to care, and $300 million to offset those costs is a necessary investment.
I would go further by expanding access to community health clinics and preventive care services, especially in underserved areas, so families aren’t forced to delay care until it becomes a costly emergency. I will also fight to protect Medi-Cal from further loss, since it’s a lifeline for so many working families, seniors, and children.
Protecting healthcare access is about making sure no family has to choose between their health and their financial stability, especially as federal policy continues to threaten that basic security.
California’s high-speed rail project has been beset by delays, ballooning costs and federal funding cuts. Should the state continue with this project? Why or why not? If you support moving forward with the project, how do you propose the state pay for it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I believe California should continue investing in high-speed rail. Abandoning the project now would waste the billions already invested without delivering any of the long-term benefits, reduced congestion, lower emissions, and economic opportunity along the rail corridor.
That said, continuing forward can’t mean accepting the same pattern of ballooning costs without consequence. I support strengthened oversight and regular public reporting on the project’s budget and timeline, so Californians can hold the state accountable for delivering on its promises. I support pursuing a mix of state cap-and-trade revenue, federal partnerships where available, and public-private partnerships that don’t shift excessive risk onto taxpayers. The state has a responsibility to see major projects like this through, diligently and honestly. Leaving taxpayers waiting is not only a mismanagement of trust and funds. It stalls our environmental progress and leaves Californians without a reliable alternative to driving.
Increasingly, we’re seeing communities push back on data centers opening in or near their neighborhoods. Environmentalists complain about the amount of water and energy that data centers need to operate. Residents complain about relentless noise pollution. And others worry about losing agricultural land to these centers. On the other hand, the tech industry emphasizes the role of data centers in supporting cloud computing and artificial intelligence. As a policymaker, how would you balance the concerns of critics with desires to ensure that California remains a leader in innovation? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Balancing innovation with community concerns requires a lot of honesty. Innovation can move quickly, and oftentimes we don’t know the consequences or impact until well after newer technology has integrated into our communities. However, once we understand the impact, we should be honest with how we intend to move forward. I support requiring data centers to disclose their water and energy usage publicly and meet strict efficiency standards, so communities aren’t left absorbing the environmental cost of an industry’s footprint.
I also believe local communities deserve a genuine voice in whether and where these facilities are built, including protections against locating data centers near agricultural land or residential areas without community input first.
I recognize California’s economic future is tied to remaining a leader in technology and innovation, and I don’t believe we have to choose between that leadership and protecting our communities. Clear guardrails and standards on environmental and community impact, mixed with community engagement built in from the start, allow growth, innovation, and community well-being to move forward in tandem.
Read more JJ Galvez, Assembly District 71 candidate, 2026 election questionnaire
Do you support Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire’s tax that would impose a one-time, 5% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth of more than $1 billion? Revenues from the tax would primarily go to fund healthcare-related programs, including Medi-Cal, though a small portion would also be used to fund food assistance and education-related programs. Explain why you do or do not support this measure. If you don’t, what alternative solution do you propose so that the state has money to pay for the types of services this tax is intended to fund? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Yes, I support Proposition 40. Californians earning a living paycheck to paycheck already contribute their fair share, while those with over $1 billion in net worth have not been asked to meet that same standard. A one-time 5% tax on individuals and trusts worth over $1 billion is a reasonable ask, especially when the revenue funds healthcare programs like Medi-Cal that so many working families depend on.
I’ve spent my career supporting families who rely on programs like Medi-Cal, and I’ve seen what happens when that safety net is underfunded. This measure asks the people best able to contribute to help sustain programs serving those who need them most.
I don’t believe we should balance our state’s healthcare and food assistance needs by cutting services or placing more burden on working families. Proposition 40 reflects the principle that has guided my entire career: those with the most should contribute the most, especially when it protects the most vulnerable among us.
The state has ambitious goals to transition away from heavy reliance on fossil fuel. Meanwhile, oil refineries in California that shut down in the past year said they did so in part because of the state’s costly regulatory requirements and decreasing consumer demand for traditional gasoline. But the closure of these refineries have drivers concerned about the price of gas going up – especially at a time when affordability remains the No. 1 concern for many Californians. How would you balance the state’s clean energy goals with desires to prevent Californians from further pain at the pump? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
California’s clean energy transition is making the oil industry’s business model obsolete, and our state has chosen that direction for good reason. That transition, however, must be managed responsibly, not treated as an excuse for fear-mongering about prices. As refineries close, the state needs to hold steady to our transition plan, invest in cleaner alternatives, and direct relief to drivers who don’t yet have affordable options to switch away from gas.
I support expanding access to affordable EV options and charging infrastructure, particularly in underserved communities, so the transition doesn’t become something only wealthier Californians can afford. I also support requiring greater transparency from the remaining refineries about pricing, so closures aren’t used to justify unjustified price increases elsewhere in the market.
California’s clean energy goals are the right goals, and the path there has to protect working families who depend on their cars today. That means pairing our climate commitments with real, immediate affordability measures, not asking families to bear the full cost of a transition they don’t yet have the tools to make.
Similarly, the Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand offshore oil drilling and production in California. Explain why you do or do not support this move. If not, do you believe California state leaders have the legal authority to stop or restrict it? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
I do not support the Trump administration’s push to expand offshore oil drilling in California. Our coastline is one of this state’s most valuable natural and economic resources, and expanding drilling risks environmental disasters that would harm our communities, our fishing industries, and our tourism economy for generations.
California has the legal tools to push back, including our own coastal protection laws and permitting authority over state waters and coastal infrastructure needed to support offshore development. I support California using every legal tool available to challenge unlawful federal overreach that threatens our coastline.
Protecting our coast isn’t a partisan issue; it’s about protecting an economic and environmental resource that touches nearly every community in this state, and I will stand firmly against efforts to put that at risk for the benefit of oil companies.
A law signed in 2024 establishes statewide standards for new, large warehouses in California, including distance buffers separating warehouses from schools, homes and other so-called “sensitive receptors.” Do you support Sacramento having a role in local land-use decisions when it comes to logistics? Why or why not? Is there anything else state government should do when it comes to regulating warehouses? (Please answer in 200 words or less.)
Yes, I support Sacramento having a role here. Warehouse development directly affects public health through truck traffic, diesel emissions, and noise, and families living near these facilities shouldn’t have to rely on inconsistent local protections that vary by city. A statewide baseline standard ensures every community has some level of protection, regardless of local political pressure from developers.
I also believe the state should go further by requiring stronger environmental review specifically focused on health impacts to nearby residents, not just traffic and land use, and by ensuring enforcement mechanisms have real authority and resources needed to act on violations.
Local communities should still have input into decisions that affect their own neighborhoods. Still, a statewide floor protects families in communities with less political power to demand these protections on their own.
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 used to think attendance-based school funding made sense. It seemed fair on paper: pay for the kids who actually show up.
But the more I looked at why kids miss school, the more that logic fell apart. Kids are absent because of things that have nothing to do with the classroom: unstable housing, a parent working multiple jobs, illness, unreliable transportation, family crisis. These are home environment issues, not school issues.
Cutting funding when attendance drops doesn’t fix any of that. It does the opposite. It strips resources from the very schools that need more support, not less, to address what’s showing up on their campuses because of what’s happening at home. Counselors, nurses, and intervention programs get harder to fund exactly when they’re needed most.
That’s what changed my mind. Enrollment-based funding means schools can build the support systems that actually help get kids back in the classroom, instead of punishing schools for problems they didn’t create. I’d rather fund the solution than defund the symptom.
Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.
Full disclosure: I basically stopped reading actual books once I started my doctorate. I made a deal with myself that anything not directly tied to my research didn’t count, so for years my “reading” was strictly academic articles, with Audible as my one guilty pleasure while working or driving.
So this year’s answer is “Yesteryear” by Caro Claire Burke. It follows a social media influencer who wakes up in 1855, and I loved watching her try to survive in a world where none of her usual tools work anymore. No followers, no filters, no shortcuts, just her figuring out who she actually is underneath all of it. It’s a fun premise, but it says something real about how much of modern life is performance versus substance.
Read more Rafael Marquez in search of first win as Mexico national team faces Chile