The Race for California Governor: Meet the candidates participating in a debate

California is set to elect a new governor this year and a large slate of candidates is running to replace Gavin Newsom, who is unable to run due to term limits. 

KTVU FOX 2 and FOX 11 will host a televised gubernatorial debate, giving voters an opportunity to hear directly from the candidates on the top issues affecting the state. Candidates participating in the debate include Steve Hilton, Tom Steyer, Eric Swalwell, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Betty Yee.

The debate comes ahead of the Primary Election which is June 2, 2026. The top two vote-getters in the primary, regardless of party preference, will move on to the General Election in November. 

How to watch the debate 

The debate will air live on February 3 at 5:30 p.m. You can watch on FOX 11, KTVU FOX 2, and on the FOX LOCAL app.

Moderators include KTVU's Greg Lee, Andre Senior and FOX 11's Marla Tellez.

RELATED: California Governor Debate: Submit your questions for the candidates

Viewers can have their voices heard and help shape the conversation by submitting questions directly to the candidates. Select questions will be answered live on air during the debate.

Meet the candidates participating in the debate

Steve Hilton (R) 

Steve Hilton is a Republican podcaster and former Fox News commentator. 

Hilton's campaign theme is "Golden Again: Great Jobs, Great Homes, Great Kids." He blamed the state's historically Democratic leaders for failing to make the state livable.

"The highest rate of poverty in the country. These people, they endlessly lecture us about compassion and social justice -- the highest rate of poverty," Hilton said. "One-third of Californians can't meet their basic needs. The highest unemployment they gave us. The highest taxes. The lowest income growth last year."

Hilton, 55, was born in the United Kingdom and was an adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron before moving to California's Silicon Valley in 2012, becoming a U.S. citizen and teaching at Stanford University. He hosted "The Next Revolution" on Fox News and has hosted a number of politically focused podcasts.

He is also the founder of Golden Together, a policy organization aimed at finding solutions to homelessness and other issues in an effort to "make California golden again."

Tom Steyer (D)

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer announced his campaign for governor on Nov. 19. 

His top priority is California's housing crisis, calling it the state's biggest problem. If elected, he said he plans to lower electricity bills by 25%, build one million homes in four years by expediting permitting and cutting unnecessary taxes and fees, and hold cities accountable for developing affordable housing.

Steyer, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, is the co-founder of Galvanize Climate Solutions and founder of the progressive advocacy group NextGen America.

Before turning his focus to politics and environmental issues, he founded the hedge fund Farallon Capital.

Eric Swalwell (D) 

Rep. Eric Swalwell officially launched his campaign on November 20. He explained that he is running for governor because "prices are too high and people are scared."

"I will be California's fighter and protector. Our state is under attack. The President has militarized our streets, canceled cancer research, zeroed out clean energy climate projects, and is chasing our immigrant friends and neighbors through their workplaces, kids' schools, and houses of worship," Swalwell wrote in a statement published online.

He was first elected in 2012 to represent California's 14th Congressional District. He was a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries before dropping out and endorsing Joe Biden.

Swalwell served eight years on the House Intelligence Committee where he was the chairman and ranking member overseeing the CIA. He currently serves on the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees.

Tony Thurmond (D)

Tony Thurmond currently serves as the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

"I'm running for Governor to be a voice for those who need one — because California may be working for millionaires and billionaires but for the rest of California — we need real change," he said on X when he announced his run. 

He said as governor he wants to address income inequality, ensure schools are better funded and speed up the state's transition to renewable energy.

Before Thurmond became the state's superintendent in 2019, he served on the West Contra Costa School Board, on the Richmond City Council and in the state Assembly.

Antonio Villaraigosa (D)

The former mayor of Los Angeles is now running for the state's top position. 

The 71-year-old ran for governor in 2018, ultimately losing to Gavin Newsom, who was then the lieutenant governor.

Villaraigosa served as Los Angeles mayor from 2005-2013. He previously served on the City Council and in the state Assembly from 1994-2000. He was Assembly Speaker from 1998-2000. He briefly considered a run for governor in 2010, but opted to remain mayor -- particularly with Jerry Brown grabbing top billing as a Democratic candidate. 

Most recently, he served as an infrastructure advisor for the state of California.

Betty Yee (D)

Betty Yee is the former state Controller. She was elected to the position in 2014. Piror to that, she served on the California State Board of Equalization in 2006 and served as the state’s budget director.

She said one of her main goals as governor is to make California affordable again. She also plans to bring accountability and transparency to Sacramento, and help address the state's climate crisis. 

"We have the power to make California add up for all of us again—for our youth, our families, our communities, for our democracy, and our planet," Yee stated on her website. 

Questions & answers with the candidates 

GOVERNING PHILOSOPHY & EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP

Q: California's next governor will inherit a structural deficit, federal volatility, and widening racial and regional inequities. Part A: What do you believe is the primary job of the Governor over the next four years? When values collide with fiscal reality, what principle guides your final decision? Part B: Describe a specific moment in your career when you had authority, limited resources, and pressure from allies. What decision did you make, who opposed it, and what lesson will shape how you govern? 

Tom Steyer:

I believe one of my primary jobs as Governor is to serve as a bulwark against federal hostility while restoring power and autonomy to working Californians. In the last 16 years, I have worked successfully on three separate ballot measures to raise tens of billions in revenue for the state without charging Californian Families a nickel. For decades, our state’s potential has been stifled by the chronic underfunding of schools and housing—a direct result of corporate interests starving the public good.

I reject the false choice of scarcity. Too often, "fiscal reality" is a polite excuse used to protect corporate tax loopholes. I will never balance the budget on the backs of working people. Instead, I will grow the pie by closing the commercial property and offshore "Water’s Edge" loopholes to generate $15–$20 billion in annual revenue.

My track record proves I do not wait for permission from the status quo. In 2017, I launched the Need to Impeach movement because I saw a lawless president who posed an urgent threat to our democracy. While the political establishment urged "patience," I chose to go directly to the people, mobilizing 8 million Americans to help compel Congress to act.

I have a 15-year history of taking on the "third rails" of politics and winning: I led the fight against Prop 23 to defeat Big Oil and save 500,000 clean energy jobs. I designed and passed Prop 39 to close corporate loopholes and deliver billions for school energy upgrades. I co-chaired Prop 56 to take on Big Tobacco and secured billions for healthcare since its passage. I personally contributed over $12.8 million to pass Prop 50, because democracy depends on fair maps and free elections—and when Trump and Republicans tried to tilt the playing field with redistricting, California stood up and fought back. Real change happens when you break the corporate stranglehold by mobilizing the people. If special interests in Sacramento block progress, I will use my record of winning at the ballot box to take those fights directly to the voters. You cannot wait for the status quo to fix itself; you have to lead.

Eric Swalwell: 

Part A: The primary job of the Governor is to make California affordable again and restore the state’s fiscal integrity. Rising costs are an existential threat, and fiscal instability endangers the essential services families rely on. My mandate is to end short-term fixes and build a stable economic foundation where the middle class can thrive.

When values collide with fiscal reality, my guiding principle is: Prioritize direct relief over administrative red tape.

We must protect the resources that directly lower costs for residents. In a deficit environment, we will defend our values by focusing on the impact of government delivery, ensuring that funding goes to people rather than administrative complexity. If a choice must be made, I will always choose to support family budgets over inefficient systems.

Part B: 
One defining moment in my career came when Congress considered legislation to effectively ban TikTok. Many Democratic leaders supported the ban, and there was strong pressure to follow suit. But I was also hearing directly from small business owners—especially Black and Brown entrepreneurs—who relied on TikTok to reach customers, build brands, and grow income in ways traditional platforms never allowed.

For many of these entrepreneurs, TikTok wasn’t just entertainment; it was a vital economic tool. It helped overcome long-standing barriers to capital, marketing, and visibility. Some told me their businesses would not survive without it. I also believed the United States should not respond to challenges the way authoritarian governments do—by banning platforms instead of solving problems through transparency, accountability, and innovation.
The politically easier choice would have been to vote with leadership. But leadership requires judgment, not convenience. I voted against the ban because I believed we could protect national security without silencing millions of voices or harming economic opportunities for marginalized communities. Some allies disagreed, but my decision reflected that I believe in economic equity, free expression, and evidence-based policymaking.

The lesson I carry forward is simple: listening to the people most impacted matters more than political pressure. When you govern by centering communities that are often left out of the process, you make better, more just decisions. As Governor, I will apply that same approach to housing, public safety, education, and economic development—prioritizing real-world impacts over political optics and ensuring policies expand opportunity rather than restrict it.

Tony Thurmond:

Part A: My primary job as Governor over the next four years is to keep California stable and moving forward. That means protecting what families rely on, keeping the state on solid financial ground, and closing racial and regional gaps that hold people back. With federal volatility and a structural deficit, the Governor must make hard choices while still delivering results people can feel. I will balance budgets responsibly, be honest about tradeoffs, use one time funding for one time needs, and demand clear outcomes for every major investment.

Part B: I have managed teams and budgets across different roles in public service, including statewide leadership as State Superintendent. One defining moment came when the Trump administration withheld nearly $811 million in K - 12 funds that supported teacher training, technology, and services for migrant children. Districts were counting on that money, and I faced pressure from allies to stay quiet or accept delays to avoid conflict. 

Antonio Villaraigosa:

The primary job of the Governor has to be to protect Californians from The Trump administration while delivering measurable progress on lowering the cost of living. That means finding any way we can resist federal threats to civil rights and public institutions, and ensure that we build housing, find ways to lower the costs of everyday goods, and start attracting businesses and people to our state again.

When values collide with fiscal reality, my guiding principle is this: budgets are moral documents. I will always prioritize people over profits, especially those who have historically been left out—people of color, working families, students, seniors, and people experiencing homelessness. Fiscal responsibility does not mean austerity for the vulnerable; it means accountability, fairness, and aligning spending with outcomes.

As Mayor of Los Angeles during the Great Recession, I faced collapsing revenues, rising unemployment, and intense pressure from political allies to preserve the status quo. With limited resources, I made the decision to protect core needs—public safety, housing, and education—while asking those with the most to contribute more and demanding reforms from city departments.

That decision drew opposition from powerful interests, including business groups and some political allies, but it prevented mass layoffs, preserved essential services in Black and Brown neighborhoods, and positioned the city for recovery. Leadership means making difficult choices early, telling people the truth, and refusing to balance budgets on the backs of those with the least power.

Betty Yee:

Part A: The primary job of the Governor over the next four years will be to protect Californians from a growing wealth gap that will increase the numbers of struggling families, the rapid development and deployment of artificial intelligence, and adverse actions by the federal government spanning from stripping rights and protections to deep funding cuts that will cause harm to communities and families. The growing wealth gap disproportionately affects Black and Brown families and likely will result in state budget pressures due to depressed revenue and a higher reliance on public services --- on top of state budget pressures from looming federal funding cuts to health care, food assistance, housing assistance, and education. The challenge for the Governor will be the fiscal reality of expenditures having exceeded revenues for some time now, resulting in a deep structural deficit. California will not be able to cut its way out of it or tax its way out of it; it will need to do both in ways that cause the least harm and grow the economy. The principle that guides my final decision is coming clean about California's fiscal reality (transparency) and inviting strict accountability over how well California is stabilizing its budget situation to meet the needs of the most vulnerable among us as well as growing our economy.

Part B: As the State Controller, I am the independent auditor of the State with authority to audit claims for payment and internal financial controls of state and local agencies. During the global health pandemic, I and my audit team had authority to audit contracts between third parties and the State of California that were executed under the state emergency declaration. My office had limited audit resources that were mostly directed to minimize any disruptions to disbursements (i.e., state employee payroll, retirees' pension payments, payments to local governments and school districts, tax refund checks, and vendor payments). However, my team and I asserted payments to pandemic-related contractors needed to be audited because of the volume of contracts and the magnitude of the claims for payment. Because the Administration's Department of General Services would not release the contracts, insisting instead that my office "true-up" the payments at a later time, I decided without seeing the specific scope of work in these contracts or the conditions for payment, to pay the claims and reconcile the payments at a later time. I subsequently learned some of these contracts did not protect the state's interest insofar as ensuring the completion of the scope of work after payment. The lesson that will shape how I govern is not only accountability of state government to the public, but within the same and across different levels of government. 

FISCAL GOVERNANCE AND STRUCTURAL DEFICIT (PART A) 20

Q: Do you support closing corporate tax loopholes or enacting new progressive revenue measures (where wealthiest residents and businesses pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes compared to others)? [multiple choice] 

Tom Steyer: 

Yes, support closing corporate tax loopholes AND new progressive revenue.

Eric Swalwell:

Yes, support closing corporate tax loopholes AND new progressive revenue.

Tony Thurmond:

Yes, support closing corporate tax loopholes AND new progressive revenue.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

Yes, support closing corporate tax loopholes.

Betty Yee:

Yes, support closing corporate tax loopholes AND new progressive revenue.

FISCAL GOVERNANCE AND STRUCTURAL DEFICIT (PART B)

Q: Explain your revenue strategy (if Yes to Part A, specify which measures; if No, explain alternative funding mechanisms). Identify one major program you would protect and one you would reconsider, and why.

Tom Steyer:

My strategy is centered on "growing the pie" by demanding accountability from those who have benefited most from our economy, rather than taxing working families. I will raise $15–$20 billion in annual recurring revenue by closing the commercial property tax loophole (Split Roll) and ending the "Water’s Edge" offshore tax loophole. Protect: Public Education. I will fiercely protect our public education system with the goal of making California a Top 10 state for education funding and performance. This includes implementing Universal Pre-K for all 3-year-olds and protecting defined benefit pensions for the educators who dedicate their lives to our children. We must treat education as a fundamental right and the smartest investment we can make in our collective prosperity. Break Utility Monopolies: I will dismantle our state’s over-reliance on investor-owned utility monopolies that prioritize shareholder dividends over safety and affordability. These "state-sanctioned monopolies" have driven electricity prices to double the national average while fueling deadly wildfires through negligence. I intend to break the power of these monopolies to introduce competition, unleash a wave of energy innovation, and slash electric rates by 25%. Furthermore, I have reversed my previous opposition to single-payer healthcare; I now believe it is the only way to lower costs, break the corporate stranglehold on our health care system, and treat care as a human right, not a profit opportunity.

Eric Swalwell:

To broaden the base and reduce volatility, the state should modernize the corporate tax code through three complementary measures that link tax rates to pay inequity and limit excessive tax breaks for profitable corporations.

Fair Pay Incentive: The state would replace the flat 8.84 percent corporate tax rate with a graduated scale based on the ratio of CEO compensation to the median worker’s pay. Companies with low disparity would receive a tax cut while those with high disparity would pay a surcharge. Unlike prior attempts that proposed punitive top rates of up to 15 percent, the tiers could be modified to be more strategic, balanced, and successful. (~$2.5 billion/year)

Closing Tax Haven Loophole (pending further development): The state would require the inclusion of affiliates located in identified tax haven jurisdictions (e.g., Bermuda, Cayman Islands). This prevents corporations from artificially shifting California profits to zero-tax shell companies while respecting legitimate operations in major trading partner nations. (~$2.0 billion/year)

Managing Tax Expenditures: Large corporations frequently use accumulated tax credits to reduce their state tax liability to the statutory minimum. Reinstating a permanent $5 million annual cap on credit usage, with certain exceptions, would ensure these entities contribute to the infrastructure they rely on each year by deferring, not eliminating, the credits entirely. (~$2.0 billion/year)

One Program to Reconsider: We must reconsider the blank check approach to homelessness administration. A recent state audit revealed that despite spending billions, the Interagency Council on Homelessness (Cal-ICH), did not track key data related to the effectiveness of its programs. We cannot solve a crisis by funding bureaucracies that refuse to measure results. Programs need to prove they are putting keys in hands, not just producing paperwork.

Tony Thurmond:

My revenue strategy is straightforward: I am the only candidate running for Governor with a clear plan to tax the super rich. I would ask Californians with extreme wealth, including those worth $100 million or more, to pay more so we can protect core public services and reduce the deficit without pushing the burden onto working families. I would also close tax loopholes that let large corporations avoid paying what they owe, strengthen tax enforcement so the law is followed.

If we have to make hard choices, I would protect public education and healthcare, along with other statewide essential services that keep people safe and stable. That includes school funding that supports mental health and learning recovery, Medi Cal and community health clinics, wildfire and emergency response, and support for seniors and people with disabilities. These are basic responsibilities of government and cutting them creates bigger costs later.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

My revenue strategy begins with closing corporate tax loopholes that allow profitable multinational corporations to avoid paying their fair share while working families shoulder the burden. This includes tightening enforcement of existing corporate tax laws, eliminating abuse of offshore profit-shifting, and reviewing tax expenditures that no longer deliver public benefit.

However, with a $18B deficit, there is no doubt in my mind that the state would have to make cuts. My priorities are protecting healthcare and education.

I would protect Medi-Cal, including provider reimbursement and community-based services. Cutting health care access during a deficit would worsen racial disparities, increase emergency room overcrowding, and be devastating to California communities, especially as federal cuts are hitting our state.

One area I would reconsider is duplicative or ineffective economic development subsidies that lack performance metrics or equity outcomes. Public dollars must produce public results-especially for Black and historically marginalized communities.

Betty Yee:

My revenue strategy is one that is grounded in the stability and certainty of revenue after considering the consequences of each measure as well as ensuring the constitutionality of the measure and  the tax burden is not borne by those who can least shoulder it. I believe closing the water's edge tax loophole for multinational corporations to be able to exclude profits from foreign subsidiaries for state income tax purposes as well as assessing commercial property in the same manner as residential property (eliminating the split roll) while ensuring small businesses are not harmed provide the stability and certainty of revenue and meet constitutional muster that some wealth tax proposals do not.

One major program I would protect is Medi-Cal for all Californians regardless of immigration status as I believe without this safety net for health care for low-income persons, their access point for more costly care is our emergency rooms.  A program I would reconsider is the need to have a State Board of Equalization with elected members who have limited duties and have demonstrated its lack of capacity to assume complex tax policy issues that would be better resolved with tax experts in the state's other tax agencies. 

HEALTHCARE SYSTEM STRATEGY

Q: Where do you place your healthcare approach on this spectrum: State-run single payer, major Medi-Cal/ACA reform, incremental efficiency improvements. Explain how your approach improves real access to care for Black and low-income communities.

Tom Steyer:

I am fully committed to a state-run single-payer system. I reject incremental reforms that leave millions vulnerable to corporate profit motives. Healthcare is a fundamental human right, and my administration will treat it as such. For Black and low-income communities, this approach fundamentally transforms access to care by removing all financial barriers. Second, it decouples care from employment. Especially for people who are making a living through "gig" work or dealing with underemployment, a state-run system provides a permanent safety net that doesn't disappear with a job change.

When I co-chaired California’s Task Force on Business and Jobs Recovery for Governor Newsom in 2020, I helped make equity a core principle from day one, starting with the adoption of an equity statement. Please see the statement here. 

My revenue strategy—generating $15–$20 billion each year – will enable the state to prioritize staffing, enforcing safe nurse-to-patient ratios so the quality of care in marginalized neighborhoods matches the best in the state. By shifting power from insurance giants back to the people, we ensure that every Californian—regardless of race or zip code—receives the dignity of high-quality, comprehensive care.

Eric Swalwell:

Major Medi-Cal/ACA Reform. At the state level, I support a public option for a Medicare for All-style plan, which would ensure every Californian has access to affordable, high-quality care without crushing financial barriers or gaps in coverage.

Tony Thurmond:

I support a state run single payer system, and I will take immediate steps now to strengthen Medi Cal and the ACA while we build the path to single payer. Californians should be able to get primary care, mental health care, and prescriptions without fear of surprise bills, long waits, or losing coverage when jobs change.

Throughout my career in public service, I have kept our diverse communities at the forefront of everything I do, whether sponsoring legislation or advancing my own to protect Black, low income, and historically disenfranchised communities. My healthcare approach improves real access by keeping people covered, expanding providers and clinics in underserved areas, and holding the system accountable for fair treatment, language access, and culturally competent care.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

In a deficit year with major federal cuts, my priority is preserving access to care.

I will protect Medi-Cal eligibility, provider networks, and behavioral health services, because cutting access increases emergency room use, worsens outcomes, and disproportionately harms Black communities.

Where savings are necessary, I will focus on:
- Administrative efficiencies
- Better coordination between state agencies
- Reducing duplicative contracting

Healthcare cuts that reduce access are false savings—and I will not pursue them.

Betty Yee:

 Although I support a state-run single payer health care system, the State currently is ill-equipped to assume this responsibility and likely would not be successful in securing the necessary federal waivers to implement the state-run system. California may be compelled to enact major Medi-Cal/ACA reform due to the federal budget cuts and the uncertainty of the ACS subsidies. Such reform I believe provides the best opportunity to improve access for Black and low-income communities, especially if California looks to grow the health care workforce as part of how the state builds long-term economic resilience.

BLACK MATERNAL HEALTH

Q: Black women in California are three times more likely than White women to die from pregnancy-related causes. * Will you commit to permanent, state-funded baseline support for Black maternal health programs such as Black Infant Health? [Yes/No] * How will you insulate these programs from federal funding volatility? Define measurable outcomes for your first term.

Tom Steyer: 

The fact that Black women in California are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes is a moral failure. I am not just promising to find the money; I am the only candidate with a 15-year track record of beating corporate special interests to fund public health. In 2016, I stood up to Big Tobacco to help pass Proposition 56, securing billions for Medi-Cal. I also led the fight for Proposition 39, closing corporate tax loopholes to restore billions to our schools. As Governor, I will move beyond "awareness" toward intentional structural action. We have to raise the money so we can commit to permanent, state-funded baseline support for programs like Black Infant Health (BIH). I co-chaired the task force that laid part of the groundwork that led to California’s Racial Equity Commission, which is now charged with dismantling systemic racism across all state programs. To insulate these programs from federal volatility, I will create a "federal-proof" funding stream. By closing the commercial loophole and the "Water’s Edge" offshore loophole, we will generate $15–$20 billion in annual recurring revenue. This financial autonomy ensures that even if the federal government freezes funds or attacks social services, California’s commitment to Black mothers remains unshakable.

Eric Swalwell:

Yes, black maternal health is a public health and racial justice priority, and California must provide permanent, state-funded baseline support for programs like Black Infant Health (BIH). The disparity between black and white women dying from pregnancy-related causes reflects systemic failures in care, access, and accountability. Programs led by and for Black communities have a proven track record of improving outcomes, building trust, and saving lives.

As Governor, I would insulate Black maternal health programs from federal funding volatility by establishing dedicated state funding streams through the annual budget, multi-year appropriations, and protected public health allocations. These programs should not be vulnerable to shifting federal priorities or political changes. Stable funding allows providers to retain staff, expand services, and deliver consistent, culturally competent care.

In my first term, measurable outcomes would include: Reducing the Black maternal mortality rate statewide. Expanding access to Black-led prenatal and postpartum care programs in high-need regions. Increasing the percentage of Black mothers receiving early and continuous prenatal care. Improving patient satisfaction and trust in the healthcare system through community-based care models.

I have consistently supported policies that strengthen maternal health, expand healthcare access, and address racial disparities, including opposing cuts to Medicaid and supporting investments in community health programs. California can and must lead the nation in ensuring that Black mothers survive and thrive.

Tony Thurmond:

I will commit to permanent, state funded baseline support for Black maternal health programs, including Black Infant Health. As Governor, I will be a close partner to the California Department of Public Health to strengthen and expand BIH, a health equity program that provides individual support and group support to pregnant and postpartum partum Black mothers and birthing people. BIH exists because anti-Black racism, social and economic stressors, and neighborhood conditions drive worse birth outcomes, and we have a responsibility to confront those realities directly.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

 Even in a deficit, Black maternal health is a priority. Maternal mortality is both a moral failure and a cost driver. Preventive, culturally competent care saves lives and reduces downstream health expenditures.

If cuts are required elsewhere, I will prioritize protecting programs with clear, life-saving outcomes, including maternal and infant health initiatives.

Betty Yee:

Yes, I would commit to permanent, state-funded baseline support for Black maternal health programs such as Black Infant health. The best way to insulate these programs from federal funding volatility is to enact them as state-only funded programs. Measurable outcomes for these programs must include improvements in infant health and maternal health and well-being when comparing culturally-appropriate health care environments against traditional health care environments.

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH WORKFORCE

Q: One in seven California adults live with a mental illness, and one in twenty-six has a serious mental illness. More than half of Californians who tried to schedule a mental health appointment report difficulty of finding a provider who accepts their insurance. A proven resource to expand capacity and efficacy of the states behavioral healthcare system is the Peer Support Specialist role, yet California has not fully integrated the 8,102 Certified Medi-Cal Support Specialists (CMPSSs) into Medi-Cal Managed Care Plan programs.

Please share your top three priorities to expand the behavioral health workforce, and patient access.

What is your commitment to exploring policy options to make Peer Support Services a covered Medi-Call benefit?

Tom Steyer:

As Governor, I will end the era of chronic underfunding in our mental healthcare system by holding corporate interests accountable. My top three priorities to expand the behavioral health workforce and patient access are: 1. Dedicated Recurring Funding: I will close the "Water’s Edge" offshore tax loopholes and commercial property tax loophole to ensure corporate property owners pay their fair share. This will generate $15–$20 billion annually to provide stable, long-term funding for healthcare, schools, and counties. 2. Slashing Administrative Red Tape: High-quality outcomes require a provider’s full attention, yet current systems force clinicians to waste hours on redundant paperwork. I will make sure that health care providers can focus on patients rather than insurance company requirements.  3. Single-Payer Bedrock: I am committed to a single-payer system where mental healthcare is a non-negotiable benefit. By establishing the state as the primary payer, we eliminate the "insurance-not-accepted" barrier, ensuring every Californian can access a provider regardless of income. I recognize Peer Support Services as a transformative resource for achieving health equity. Building on my work chairing the task force that established California’s Racial Equity Commission, I will strengthen peer support and look at how we can integrate it further into the overall state health care system.

Eric Swalwell:

California’s mental health crisis demands urgent action. First, I will invest in workforce recruitment, training, and retention. That includes expanding scholarship and loan-forgiveness programs for behavioral health professionals, strengthening career pipelines through community colleges and universities, and improving wages and working conditions so providers can stay in the field. We cannot meet demand without making these careers sustainable.

Second, I will expand the use of community-based and culturally competent care models. This means supporting providers who reflect the communities they serve, integrating mental health services into primary care settings, and using telehealth to reach rural and underserved areas.

Third, I will streamline licensing, credentialing, and reimbursement processes so qualified providers can begin serving patients faster. Administrative delays reduce capacity and discourage providers from accepting Medi-Cal patients. A more efficient system means more appointments and shorter wait times.

Peer Support Specialists are a proven, underutilized resource in California’s behavioral health system. Certified Medi-Cal Peer Support Specialists bring lived experience, trust, and effectiveness to care delivery, especially for people navigating serious mental illness and substance use recovery. Yet too many Managed Care Plans fail to fully integrate them into service networks. As Governor, I commit to exploring and advancing policy options to make Peer Support Services a clearly defined, consistently reimbursed Medi-Cal benefit. That includes standardizing coverage requirements across Managed Care Plans, ensuring fair reimbursement rates, and expanding training and certification pathways.

Tony Thurmond:

As a former social worker, I have seen how hard it is for people to get timely mental health care, and how often the system fails families when they are in crisis. My top three priorities to expand the behavioral health workforce and improve access are: (1) grow and keep the workforce by increasing pay and loan repayment for clinicians in high need areas, speeding up licensing, and expanding training slots; (2) expand community based care by investing in school based mental health, community clinics, and mobile crisis teams so people can get help before problems become emergencies; and (3) make Medi Cal work better for patients by strengthening provider networks, enforcing timely appointment standards, reducing paperwork, and using telehealth to reach rural and underserved communities.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

Given fiscal constraints, my priorities are:

Preserve existing behavioral health workforce capacity
Protect Medi-Cal reimbursement for peer support and community-based services
Delay non-essential administrative expansions

I will focus on making existing dollars work better before launching new initiatives. Workforce collapse would cost more than maintaining current services.

Betty Yee:

My top three priorities to expand the behavioral health workforce are:
-- Enforcing the state's mental health parity laws so health plans pay providers appropriately and build robust provider networks
-- Focusing on the unique attributes of the diverse regions of California in understanding a one-size-fits-all approach to expanding the workforce will not deliver the services most responsive to the regional/local needs
-- Implementing care teams in underserved areas

I am very committed to making Peer Support Services a covered Medi-Cal benefit.

SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESS OWNERSHIP & CLOSING THE CREDIT GAP

Q: Will you commit to meeting or exceeding the state's 25% Small Business and 5% Microbusiness procurement participation goals across all state contracting? [Yes/No]

Beyond procurement, identify TWO specific policy actions to increase business ownership by historically marginalized populations and address the credit access gap. For each, specify: (i) Whether you will expand, reform, or replace existing programs [CalCAP, IBank, etc.](ii) Dollar amounts and funding sources(iii) How you'll measure wealth creation - not just participation

Tom Steyer:

I have proven for 40 years that investment is the catalyst for growth. I founded Beneficial State Bank—a $1.9 billion institution—to prove a bank’s mission should be the public good. It is a community development bank where 100% of economic rights are owned by non-profits, specifically designed for the underserved communities Wall Street abandoned.

To close the credit gap, we must work with communities and nonprofits to break down barriers that prevent people from accessing credit. The current system rewards existing wealth, locking out Black entrepreneurs from building intergenerational assets. That needs to change, and I will look at all options to do this as governor. I will also explore partnership equity mortgage models to solve the racial homeownership gap. The state could provide upfront capital for down payments in exchange for a share of the home’s future appreciation. Unlike traditional loans, there are no monthly interest payments and no compounding debt; the state recovers its investment when the home is eventually sold or refinanced. This eliminates the "down payment barrier" that prevents so many families from entering the market, turning mortgages from a debt trap into a powerful, stable wealth-building engine for the next generation.

Eric Swalwell: 

Meeting and exceeding California’s 25% Small Business and 5% Microbusiness procurement goals is essential to building an inclusive economy. State contracting should reflect the diversity of California, and as Governor I will hold agencies accountable for reaching these benchmarks through transparent reporting, stronger enforcement, and technical assistance that helps Black-owned and other historically marginalized businesses compete successfully.

Beyond procurement, I would advance two targeted policy actions to expand business ownership and close the credit access gap:

1. Reform and Expand CalCAP for Community-Based Lending
I would reform CalCAP to prioritize partnerships with Black-led CDFIs and community lenders that already serve underserved entrepreneurs. This includes dedicating funding annually from the General Fund and federal small business allocations to loan guarantees for first-time business owners and early-stage firms. Success will be measured by increases in business survival rates, revenue growth, job creation, and multi-year profitability among participating Black-owned businesses.

2. Expand the IBank Small Business Finance Center with Equity Targets
I would expand IBank’s direct lending and credit-building programs with a capital infusion from state economic development funds and bond financing. A portion would be reserved for entrepreneurs facing systemic barriers, with streamlined underwriting and technical assistance. We will track long-term asset growth, business equity accumulation, and access to follow-on private financing—not just loan volume.

Wealth creation requires more than participation—it requires ownership, stability, and scale. My administration will focus on outcomes that grow Black business assets, expand intergenerational wealth, and ensure California’s economic recovery reaches every community.

Tony Thurmond:

I will meet or exceed the state’s 25% Small Business and 5% Microbusiness procurement goals across all state contracting, with clear accountability and public reporting so we know which agencies are delivering and which are not. Procurement helps, but it will not close the credit gap by itself. Small business owners also need resources they can actually use, including loan and grant assistance, trusted technical help, and a simple way to navigate state programs.

Beyond procurement, I would take two actions. First, I would reform and expand CalCAP and the IBank Small Business Finance Center so more lenders participate, approvals move faster, and more loans reach Black and other historically marginalized entrepreneurs, including through stronger partnerships with CDFIs and community-based lenders. Second, I would strengthen and expand technical assistance programs and revive proven local partnerships, so entrepreneurs get hands-on help with bookkeeping, credit building, loan applications, and procurement readiness. I will measure wealth creation by tracking business survival, revenue and profit growth, jobs created with wage levels, better loan terms and approval rates, and increases in owner assets and equity, not just how many people enroll in a program.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

Yes, I remain committed to meeting the state’s small and microbusiness procurement goals—but in a deficit, execution matters more than expansion.

Rather than launching new programs, I will:
- Re-target existing capital programs toward Black-owned businesses
- Strengthen partnerships with CDFIs
- Pause programs that lack uptake or measurable impact

This approach preserves opportunity while respecting fiscal reality.

Betty Yee:

Yes, I will commit to exceeding the state's Small Business and Microbusiness procurement participation goals. I did so for the State Controller's Office during my tenure. I propose to increase ownership by historically marginalized populations and address the credit access gap by establishing insurance risk pools  that offer benefit structures that meet the needs of various types of businesses and strengthening Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) from a technology and human talent perspective to build their capacity to service historically marginalized populations. I would want to examine the issues of dollar amounts and funding sources further. Measuring wealth creation must entail criteria beyond participation and should include increases in income and assets, number of jobs created, and equity and savings levels.

REPARATIONS & ECONOMIC JUSTICE

Q: California has established the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery, while several restitution bills were vetoed due to legal risk. Are you willing to support legislation that tests current interpretations of Proposition 209? [Yes/No]

What tangible economic outcomes should the Bureau deliver within four years? Name at least two concrete policy actions. When legal counsel advises that a policy may face constitutional or statutory challenge, where is your line between caution and moral obligation?

Tom Steyer:

I am on record supporting this and I will review these measures when I am in office. I look forward to working together with BAA to determine the best ways for California to act to advance the cause.

Eric Swalwell:

California has a responsibility to confront the lasting economic harm caused by slavery and systemic racism. While Proposition 209 has shaped how equity policies are implemented, I am willing to support legislation that responsibly tests current interpretations of the law in pursuit of justice, opportunity, and fairness. The goal is not to undermine equal protection, but to ensure that our policies meaningfully address historic and ongoing inequities.

The Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery should deliver measurable, tangible economic outcomes—not just reports. Two concrete priorities include:

First, targeted wealth-building initiatives. The Bureau should help design and implement programs that expand access to capital, homeownership, and business ownership for eligible families. This could include down-payment assistance, low-interest loans, and credit-building tools tied to long-term asset growth, not just short-term participation.

Second, workforce and education pathways. The Bureau should partner with community colleges, apprenticeship programs, and employers to create career pipelines into high-wage sectors, ensuring descendants of American slavery have access to credentials, stable employment, and upward mobility.

Success should be measured by increases in homeownership rates, business equity, income growth, and intergenerational asset stability—not simply program enrollment numbers.
When legal counsel raises concerns about constitutional or statutory risk, I believe leadership requires both caution and courage. We must respect the rule of law, but we cannot allow fear of litigation to paralyze progress on moral imperatives. My line is this: policies should be carefully crafted to withstand legal scrutiny, but they should never abandon the goal of repairing harm and expanding opportunity for communities that have been systematically excluded.

Tony Thurmond:

I am willing to support legislation that responsibly tests current interpretations of Proposition 209 - and I have actually challenged Prop 209. This work is not new for me: I have supported the broader California reparations movement, backed the work of the California Reparations Task Force, and advanced educational equity as part of reparative justice through African American Studies and efforts to increase male educators of color in our schools.

Within four years, the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery should deliver measurable economic outcomes, not just reports. That includes helping descendants use reparative resources to launch a business, buy a home through down payment assistance with strong consumer protections, and finance college education, while also identifying Fortune 100 companies whose success is directly tied to slavery and creating a transparent process to match those companies with Californians who are descendants of enslaved people as part of a broader accountability and repair strategy.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

In a deficit, reparations policy must be phased, targeted, and legally durable.
I support advancing reparative policies that focus on:
- Homeownership access
- Workforce development
- Small business capital

Large, unfunded commitments without implementation plans risk failure. My approach is to start with policies that can survive legal scrutiny and deliver tangible outcomes, even under fiscal constraint.

Betty Yee:

Yes, I support legislation that tests current interpretations of Proposition 209. The Bureau should deliver within four years, the magnitude of the population of eligible recipients for economic compensation and benefits; and potential federal, state, local, and private sources of funding for economic benefits.

When I am advised by legal counsel that a policy may face constitutional or statutory challenge, I proceed more cautiously with potential constitutional challenges as they may affect other areas of statutory law and constitutional amendments are more difficult to enact (either through voter approval or judicial rulings). I look at statutory challenges as an invitation and a moral obligation to amend the statute to the furthest extent permitted by the constitution. 

STATE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CLOSING THE EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT GAP

Q: Despite laws intended to limit exclusionary discipline in early childhood education, Black children are expelled at rates 3.6 times higher than other K-12th graders. These early disparities have long-term consequences. Despite rising graduation rates, Black students continue to experience the lowest academic proficiency statewide.

Do you support a state-level accountability dashboard measuring Sacramento's effectiveness, not just district performance? [Yes/No] How will you ensure state investments translate to measurable academic gains for Black students? Identify one strategy you would expand and one you would end.

Tom Steyer:

California is the world’s fourth-largest economy, yet we rank 31st in per-pupil funding when adjusted for regional labor costs. The current loophole for corporate property taxes in our system has resulted in a volatile funding model that starves schools in Black and Brown neighborhoods of the stable resources needed for success. My "Revenue Pledge" to close the commercial and "Water’s Edge" loopholes will generate $15–$20 billion annually to finally move us into the Top 10. I have already delivered results for our students. I led Proposition 39 to close corporate tax loopholes for billions in school energy upgrades and Proposition 56 to take on Big Tobacco for healthcare.  My "California Food for California Kids" program proved that we can provide fresh, farm-to-table meals to every student, helping lead the way for universal school meals statewide. As Governor, I will use this new revenue to fund Universal Pre-K for all 3-year-olds and ensure schools in Black and Brown communities are fully staffed with well-paid union educators and counselors. Regarding an accountability dashboard: I am interested in learning more and partnering with the right leaders and unions to develop what is most effective. I was judged by numbers every day as a businessman and climate advocate. I will hold our state services to that same standard, partnering with educators to ensure every dollar translates into measurable gains for the students we’ve ignored for too long.

Eric Swalwell:

California should hold itself accountable for outcomes, not just measure district performance. A state-level accountability dashboard that tracks Sacramento’s effectiveness—across funding, policy implementation, and student outcomes—is essential to ensure our investments are actually improving educational equity for Black students.

To ensure state investments translate into measurable academic gains, I would expand evidence-based, culturally responsive early intervention programs. This includes strengthening early literacy, mental health supports, and family engagement initiatives in preschool and the early grades, where disparities first emerge. Programs that center Black students’ cultural identity, provide trauma-informed care, and support educators with training in implicit bias and inclusive instruction have been shown to improve both academic proficiency and school climate. Early, sustained support is critical to closing achievement gaps before they widen.

At the same time, I would end overreliance on exclusionary and punitive discipline approaches, even when they are framed as "behavior management." Despite existing laws, Black children—especially in early childhood settings—are still disproportionately disciplined and pushed out of learning environments. These practices undermine trust, harm academic progress, and contribute to long-term disparities. State resources should be redirected toward restorative practices, behavioral health supports, and educator training that keep students engaged in school rather than removing them.

As Governor, I would require clear, publicly reported benchmarks tied to state-funded initiatives, including improvements in reading and math proficiency, reductions in exclusionary discipline, and increased access to early academic and mental health supports for Black students.

Tony Thurmond:

As State Superintendent, I have focused my leadership on closing the achievement gap by expanding Community Schools, pushing universal preschool and universal school meals, and launching major literacy work. I have helped secure historic funding for Community Schools so schools can offer integrated supports like health care, mental health services, and family resources that remove barriers to learning. I also recently announced the Literacy Moonshot, the most expansive effort in California history to achieve reading by third grade, because early literacy is where we can change life outcomes. Going forward, I would expand Community Schools and the reading by third grade strategy with strong coaching and proven materials, and I would measure progress publicly. One strategy I would end is exclusionary discipline and "push out" practices in early grades that fall hardest on Black children. I would replace that with clear limits, required reporting, and supports for restorative practices, trauma informed care, and implicit bias training. Success will be fewer expulsions and suspensions, higher reading and math proficiency, improved attendance, and a smaller gap year over year.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

I absolutely support accountability dashboards to measure government effectiveness. I was proud to have several dashboards running as Mayor of Los Angeles.

With limited resources, I will prioritize:
- Career Technical Education Programs
- Shrinking the achievement gap
- Tackling the affordability crisis for families and

I generally oppose cuts that increase class sizes or eliminate student support services, as those deepen the achievement gap and increase long-term costs.

Betty Yee:

Yes, I support a state-level accountability dashboard that measure's Sacramento's effectiveness. To ensure state investments translate to measurable academic gains for Black students, the state must allow for targeted investments as slower progress in academic gains may be due to a host of factors --- from the lack of a healthy and safe learning environment to disparities in discipline. Here, I believe Black students have a voice with respect to their assessment of what is impeding academic gains. One strategy I would expand is community schools. One strategy I would end is funding models that assume all Black students have the same needs. 

PUBLIC SAFETY, JUSTICE & PROP 36

Q: Proposition 36 increases penalties for repeat offenses while mandating treatment alternatives. What investments will ensure treatment mandates function as intended rather than defaulting to prison? Include fiscal commitments. How will you implement Prop 36 without recreating racially disproportionate mass incarceration? 

Tom Steyer:

Prop 36 is now the law of the land, but we cannot "mandate treatment" that doesn’t exist in a state that has historically starved its public safety net. I am the only candidate with the independence to fund this. By closing the commercial property tax loophole and ending the "Water’s Edge" offshore tax dodge, we will generate the $15–20 billion in annual recurring revenue necessary to build a world-class recovery system. The most effective way to expand treatment instead of fueling mass incarceration is to guarantee healthcare as a human right through a single-payer system. By removing profit-driven insurance barriers and "denial of care" models, we ensure that every Californian has immediate, baseline access to mental health and addiction services regardless of their interaction with the justice system. But it is also clear that California has a delivery problem. We pay too much and get back too little. As governor, I will be focused on results. We will treat the lack of shelter and treatment beds as the emergency it is and hold cities accountable for making them available.

Eric Swalwell:

Proposition 36 will only succeed if treatment alternatives are fully funded, accessible, and prioritized over incarceration. Without the right investments, mandates risk becoming unfunded directives that default back to prison rather than delivering rehabilitation.
First, I would commit funding annually in ongoing state funding to expand substance use disorder treatment, mental health services, and community-based recovery programs. This includes residential treatment beds, outpatient care, medication-assisted treatment, and peer support services—especially in counties with high arrest rates but limited treatment capacity.

Second, I would invest funding annually in supportive housing and reentry services tied to Prop 36 referrals. Stable housing is essential to successful treatment completion, and without it, individuals are far more likely to cycle back into the justice system.
Third, I would provide dedicated funding for workforce development, including incentives to recruit and retain clinicians, counselors, and peer support specialists. Treatment mandates only work if providers exist to deliver care.

To prevent Prop 36 from recreating racially disproportionate incarceration, implementation must be guided by equity, transparency, and accountability. I would require counties to publicly report data on arrests, treatment referrals, incarceration outcomes, and racial disparities tied to Prop 36 enforcement. This dashboard would allow the state to intervene where enforcement patterns are unequal or where treatment access is failing.
I would also prioritize pre-arrest diversion, ensuring law enforcement and prosecutors have clear guidance and incentives to route people to treatment before charges escalate. Community-based organizations, especially those rooted in Black and Brown communities, must be funded as frontline partners in delivering care—not sidelined.

Finally, I would expand implicit bias training, establish statewide standards for treatment eligibility, and ensure that people are not excluded from services due to income, housing status, or prior convictions.

Public safety and racial justice are not in conflict. With the right investments, Prop 36 can reduce recidivism, improve health outcomes, and avoid repeating the harms of mass incarceration. 

Tony Thurmond: 

I voted against Prop 36 because I do not believe we can prosecute our way out of addiction, mental illness, and poverty. If treatment is mandated, it has to be funded so it is real. I would invest ongoing state dollars in more treatment slots, recovery housing, and clinics that take Medi Cal, plus the workforce to staff them, including clinicians and peer support specialists. I would also expand diversion and crisis response so people can get connected to care quickly instead of cycling through jail.

To avoid racially disproportionate incarceration, treatment must be the default, with clear statewide standards across counties. We also need public data by race and zip code on charging, diversion access, and sentencing. If disparities rise, the state must intervene with policy changes and targeted resources. 

Antonio Villaraigosa:

Prop 36 was never meant to be a method to increase incarceration substantially; rather, it was to increase treatment and ensure that Californian businesses are safe from retail crime. As Governor, I will keep a close eye on any potential racial disparities in Prop 36 implementation to stop inequitable outcomes before they start. 

Betty Yee:

Investments that ensure treatment mandates do not default to prison include unique individual treatment plans with support that can be completed so the charges may be dismissed. I will implement Proposition 36 calling for unique treatment plans that include ongoing monitoring for progress and mental health and physical health support so the goal is recovery, not re-incarceration.

HOUSING, HOMELESSNESS & SHELTER CRISIS (Part A)

Q: Identify your top three priorities for addressing homelessness. [Check all that apply.]

Tom Steyer: 

Expand emergency shelter capacity and interim housing, Accelerate production of permanent supportive housing with wraparound services, Increase rental subsidies and homelessness prevention programs.

Eric Swalwell:

Expand emergency shelter capacity and interim housing, Increase rental subsidies and homelessness prevention programs, Reform zoning and permitting to reduce housing production costs.

Tony Thurmond:

Expand emergency shelter capacity and interim housing, Accelerate production of permanent supportive housing with wraparound services, Increase rental subsidies and homelessness prevention programs.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

Expand emergency shelter capacity and interim housing, Accelerate production of permanent supportive housing with wraparound services, Reform zoning and permitting to reduce housing production costs.

Betty Yee: 

Expand emergency shelter capacity and interim housing, Accelerate production of permanent supportive housing with wraparound services, Increase rental subsidies and homelessness prevention programs.

HOUSING, HOMELESSNESS & SHELTER CRISIS (Part B)

Q: What specific actions will you take to reduce per-unit costs while maintaining quality and accessibility? Include at least one politically difficult decision you're willing to make (e.g., override local zoning, challenge labor agreements, reform CEQA, restrict design requirements) Identify two interventions to prevent and rapidly rehouse Black Californians experiencing homelessness, with specific funding sources and measurable outcomes.

Tom Steyer:

I will build 1M homes by 2030. We cannot solve a 21st-century crisis using 19th-century methods. To drive per-unit costs below $700,000, I will make California the global leader in modular and manufactured housing.  I will launch a State "Buyers Club" to leverage bulk-purchasing power for materials and cap the local developer fees that currently drive up costs before a shovel hits the ground. Not only will I focus on how we build, but also on how fast we are allowed to build. I am on record supporting CEQA reform and permitting streamlining to reduce unnecessary delays and cost escalation for infill housing that meets strong environmental standards. I have also publicly supported SB 79, a state action to increase transit-oriented housing, recognizing that exclusionary local zoning near transit drives up costs and limits supply. I will lead the fight for a "split roll" initiative with much of the proceeds available for building housing and reducing homelessness. Intervention 1: I will use the powers of my office to crack down on Wall Street buying homes in vulnerable zip codes. Intervention 2: The Modular Rapid Rehousing Pipeline. Using advance market commitments, the state will guarantee the purchase of high-quality, union-made modular units to make rapid progress on the housing crisis.

Eric Swalwell:

My administration would focus on speed, standardization, and accountability to lower costs while preserving safety and accessibility.

First, I would override restrictive local zoning for affordable and supportive housing near transit, jobs, and services. Cities that block projects through discretionary reviews or excessive parking and design mandates would lose access to state housing funds. This is a politically difficult step, but necessary to reduce delays that drive up costs.

Second, I would pursue CEQA streamlining for infill and supportive housing, limiting lawsuits that stall projects for years without improving environmental outcomes. Time is money, and prolonged litigation makes housing unaffordable.

Third, I would expand modular, standardized construction and bulk state purchasing for materials to reduce costs by 20–30%. Projects receiving state funds would be required to use cost-efficient designs rather than luxury finishes that inflate budgets.

To prevent and rapidly rehouse Black Californians experiencing homelessness, I would prioritize:

Targeted Rental Stabilization & Eviction Prevention: Invest funding annually from the General Fund and Housing Trust Fund into emergency rental assistance, legal defense, and mediation in high-displacement Black communities.

Culturally-Responsive Rapid Rehousing: Dedicate funding from HHAP and Homekey for rapid rehousing paired with job placement and behavioral health services, delivered through trusted Black-led community organizations. 

Tony Thurmond: 

To reduce per unit costs and keep quality and accessibility, I will standardize and speed up how we build. That means using pre-approved, accessible designs, reducing expensive local add-ons and requiring full transparency on land, design, and consultant fees. We also need innovative, lower-cost sites. School districts across California have surplus land that can be used for housing, including housing for educators and families, and in many cases it can be faster and less expensive while boosting supply. A politically difficult decision I am willing to make is overriding local barriers. If a city blocks supportive or interim housing that meets state standards, the state should step in to approve it and redirect state housing dollars away from places that refuse to build.

To prevent and rapidly rehouse Black Californians, I will focus on two interventions. First, targeted eviction prevention in high risk areas, including emergency rent help and legal aid, funded through a set aside within existing state homelessness and housing funds. Second, rapid rehousing with housing navigators, landlord incentives, and short-term rental support, funded through HHAP and flexible state housing dollars. 

Antonio Villaraigosa:

My first priority will be homelessness prevention, including rental assistance and rapid rehousing programs that keep families from losing housing in the first place. These interventions are among the most cost-effective tools the state has and prevent far more expensive emergency and health system costs down the line.

Second, I will prioritize interim shelter and supportive services, ensuring people have safe, dignified places to go while permanent housing is developed. This includes behavioral health services, case management, and pathways to stability.

Third, I will focus on completing permanent supportive housing projects already in the pipeline. In a deficit year, it is fiscally irresponsible to abandon projects midstream. My administration will work to reduce per-unit costs, streamline approvals, and enforce accountability so existing investments deliver results.

To balance the budget responsibly, I will delay or restructure new grant programs and shift focus toward efficiency, outcomes, and local accountability - while protecting programs that demonstrably reduce homelessness and housing instability.

Betty Yee:

Specific actions I will take to reduce per-unit costs while maintaining quality and, I must also say, safety, are faster approval processes and reducing construction time (such as by using modular housing).

Two interventions to prevent and rapidly rehouse Black Californians experiencing homelessness are getting these individuals into the CalAIM program in which Medi-Cal provides housing-related community support services; and intensive case management so other needs may be addressed. Measurable outcomes could include housing retention rates, hospitalization rates, and rates of job placement and employment.

THE TRANSIT FISCAL CLIFF

Q: Bay Area transit agencies face a combined $800M annual deficit beginning in FY 2027‑28 and Bay Area voters will consider a regional sales tax measure to address this deficit. Do you support the SB 63 regional sales tax measure for Bay Area transit agencies? [Yes/No] If voters reject it, what specific state‑level intervention will you pursue?

Tom Steyer:

Bay Area public transit is the economic and social backbone of the region, and preserving a functioning mass transit system is essential for our climate goals and regional stability. I support measures to stabilize funding for the Bay Area’s transit systems so that service does not get cut. I will pursue additional interventions anchored in expanding revenue from those who have profited most from our state: Split Roll Reform: By closing the commercial property tax loophole for large corporations, we will provide agencies with stable revenue independent of consumer spending volatility. Closing the "Water’s Edge" Loophole: Ending the practice of multinational corporations shielding offshore profits would generate an additional $3-4 billion annually—more than enough to permanently close transit deficits and expand service statewide. The Polluters Pay Act: I support holding fossil fuel companies accountable for the climate damage they’ve caused, recovering billions to fund the zero-emission transit systems necessary for an abundant future. California doesn’t have a scarcity of funds; we have a scarcity of political courage to take on the special interests that have avoided paying their fair share for decades. We will ensure our transit systems are funded by the corporations that benefit most from our infrastructure, not the workers who rely on it.

Eric Swalwell:

I support this measure to prevent a transit death spiral that would cripple our economy, but that support is grounded in the measure’s accountability provisions to ensure tax dollars go directly to safety and service. If the measure is rejected by voters, my administration would look seriously at repurposing existing state resources, such as considering the redirection of cap-and-trade revenue. We must weigh whether these funds, originally meant for long-term climate goals, could better serve us by preventing the immediate climate setback of a transit failure. We would also need to further re-evaluate our governance. I would seek to link any state emergency assistance to a roadmap for consolidation and a path toward a more unified, efficient system that earns the public’s trust.

Tony Thurmond: 

I support SB 63 because reliable transit is essential for working people, for climate goals, and for the Bay Area economy. Any new revenue should come with clear accountability, service goals, and coordination across agencies, so riders see more frequent, safer, and more reliable service.

If voters reject it, I will pursue a state level solution that prevents deep service cuts. That includes a temporary bridge plan tied to reforms, using a mix of state transit funds and targeted one-time support while agencies consolidate back office functions, improve fare integration, and deliver measurable ridership and reliability gains. 

Antonio Villaraigosa:

BART is one of the major transit successes in this state. We need to save it - but any measure to raise taxes has to be coupled with accountability. We need measures to increase fare enforcement and ongoing audits of BART spending. Only then can we rebuild public trust and get BART to a sustainable solution.

Betty Yee: 

Yes, I support the SB 63 regional sales tax measure. If voters reject it, state-level intervention I would pursue are revenue-generating opportunities along the BART lines that can be financed with private capital, including that which may be incentivized by the SB 79 housing-near-transit bill. This would be a first step to look at BART's financial viability for the long-term before pursuing another funding measure.

THE WILDFIRE-RELATED INSURANCE CRISIS

Q: Wildfire risk and other natural disaster risk has driven insurance premiums up dramatically, destabilizing housing markets. Part A: Do you support restricting development in the wildland‑urban interface (WUI)? [Yes/No] Part B: How will you stabilize the insurance market?   Identify one politically difficult action you are prepared to take.

Tom Steyer:

My plan to build one million homes focuses on high-density infill and modular housing in existing urban centers. Homes built in places with additional wildfire risk at minimum ought to meet high standards for home hardening and defensible space, and I will work to expand such programs across the state to reduce the insurance risk and damage risk from catastrophic fires.  To stabilize the market, we must reduce the risk of fires in the first place (including by cracking down on negligent utility behavior), reduce the damage from fires by pushing for more home hardening and defensible space, and introduce reforms to the market so that insurers can rely on accurate, transparent data while making sure we maintain and expand protections that ensure access to insurance options for homeowners.

Eric Swalwell:

Part A: Yes. We must prioritize public safety and fiscal responsibility. While I support housing growth, we cannot continue expanding into extreme-risk zones without stricter zoning and rigorous, fire-resistant building codes. We must focus density in safer, urban infill areas rather than encouraging sprawl into hazardous terrain.

Part B: We need to reduce actual physical risk to bring premiums down. My plan focuses on regulatory certainty and verified mitigation. I will streamline the state’s rate approval process to reduce administrative overhead and mandate that insurers offer transparent, guaranteed discounts for homeowners who harden their properties, aligning premiums with actual safety improvements. To make more property insurable, I would consider state direct abatement authority to clear hazardous vegetation on private property when homeowners repeatedly ignore citations, and bill the owner for the cost. One negligent neighbor should not leave an entire community uninsurable.

Tony Thurmond:

Part A: I support restricting new development in the highest risk parts of the wildland urban interface, especially where evacuation routes, water supply, and fire protection cannot realistically keep up. We should focus growth in safer areas and require stronger standards for any building that does move forward in higher risk zones.

Part B: To stabilize the insurance market, I will reduce risk and increase transparency. That means faster home hardening and defensible space upgrades, stronger building and brush management standards, and clear public data so insurers and homeowners can see what mitigation has been done. I will also push for fair rules so insurers recognize mitigation with real premium discounts and keep coverage available for responsible homeowners. A politically difficult action I am prepared to take is setting firm limits on rebuilding and new construction in the most extreme risk areas unless communities meet strict safety and evacuation standards.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

The threat of fire to homes is a growing danger in California. We must stop building in high fire-risk areas and invest in risk mitigation strategies to save existing communities.

For fire insurance, we must first stabilize markets through risk pooling, support stronger mitigation requirements, and tackle reforming the industry, even if it is politically difficult.

Betty Yee:

I do support restricting development in wildland-urban interface, even with WUI codes and standards.

I would stabilize the insurance market by making sure California property owners are complying with all laws to protect their properties (defensible space, more resist building materials, water supply, etc.), and insurers and local governments and builders and first responders are moving to use on catastrophe modeling to more accurately identify, value, and price risk. One politically difficult action I am prepared to take is joining governors in other high disaster-prone states to advocate for a national reinsurance program to fortify the FAIR plans in states.

BUILDING AN INCLUSIVE INNOVATION ECONOMY

Q: California leads globally in artificial intelligence, large language models, autonomous transportation, and precision medicine—yet the economic gains are unevenly distributed.

Part A: What role should the state government play in shaping partnerships with major corporations in advanced technologies? How will you ensure equitable job creation, worker protections, and workforce pathways for marginalized communities?Part B: Where should California draw boundaries between innovation, regulation, and accountability? Identify one sector you'd aggressively invest in and one safeguard you'd impose.

Tom Steyer:

In 2007, my wife, Kat Taylor, and I co-founded Beneficial State Bank in Oakland, California, a nonprofit community development bank created to expand access to responsible lending and financial services for underserved communities, including small and medium-sized businesses and nonprofits. For California to bridge the gap between our technological dominance and our affordability crisis, the state must be an active architect of a shared-prosperity economy. My approach centers on reciprocity: if major corporations benefit from California’s infrastructure and talent, they must invest back into the workers who sustain them. We will close $15–$20 billion in annual corporate tax loopholes—including the "Water’s Edge" offshore gap—to revitalize job training programs within our public schools, creating direct pathways for marginalized communities into high-wage union jobs. 
By treating workforce development as infrastructure, we ensure the innovation revolution creates a broad middle class rather than a billionaire boom.  Simultaneously, we will aggressively launch a campaign to build 1M homes by 2030. This will turn California into a global hub for housing production, creating thousands of "green" manufacturing jobs while lowering costs for the one million homes we must build. We must draw clear boundaries where innovation serves the public interest, not just utility shareholders. By breaking the corporate utility monopolies, we will unleash investment in rooftop solar, batteries, and virtual power plants—slashing electric bills by 25%. This also transforms the grid from a bottleneck into a wealth-builder, ensuring the clean energy revolution reaches every zip code, and provides steady, high-wage work for the communities who have been historically left behind.

Eric Swalwell:

Part A: California should be an active market-shaper, not a passive bystander. The state should use its purchasing power, grants, tax incentives, and permitting authority to structure partnerships with major technology and life-science companies around clear public outcomes: good jobs, regional growth, and shared prosperity. That means conditioning state support on measurable commitments—apprenticeships and paid internships, local and diverse hiring, career ladders from community colleges, neutrality and labor standards where appropriate, and enforceable worker protections for safety, scheduling, and wage standards.

To ensure equitable job creation and pathways, I would focus on people historically locked out of innovation economies: Black and Latino Californians, women, formerly incarcerated people, rural communities, and low-income regions.

Part B: California should encourage innovation, but draw bright lines where technology can harm safety, civil rights, and human dignity. The boundary should be: innovation is welcome; unaccountable deployment is not. I would require risk-based standards for high-impact systems—especially those used in health care, housing, employment, education, and criminal legal contexts—so Californians know when decisions are being automated, can challenge errors, and are protected from discrimination and privacy abuse.
I would invest in AI-enabled health innovation and precision medicine—including clinical research infrastructure, interoperable health data standards with strong privacy protections, and workforce training—because it can improve outcomes and reduce long-term costs if implemented responsibly. One safeguard I would impose is a mandatory independent safety and bias audit for AI systems, paired with clear liability when harm occurs and prohibitions on using AI to replace required licensed clinical judgment or to make consequential decisions without meaningful human oversight.

Tony Thurmond:

Part A: The state should be an active partner and a tough negotiator. When California partners with major tech and life science companies, we should demand clear public benefits. That means job targets tied to public dollars, strong worker protections, and real pathways into good paying careers for people who have been left out. I would expand paid apprenticeships, community college and union training partnerships, and "earn and learn" programs in AI, clean transportation, and health tech, with requirements that hiring reaches Black, Latino, Native, rural, and low income communities.

Part B: California should welcome innovation, but we must set boundaries where safety, civil rights, and privacy are at stake. I would aggressively invest in clean transportation and grid modernization, including electric transit, charging, and advanced manufacturing, because it creates jobs across regions and helps meet climate goals. One safeguard I would impose is strong protections around AI and data use, including limits on surveillance, requirements for bias testing and transparency.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

California must lead the way in shaping innovation partnerships to guarantee labor standards, workforce pipelines, and shared prosperity.

I would aggressively invest in clean energy and health technology, while imposing limited safeguards on AI deployment that threaten workers’ rights or civil liberties.

Betty Yee:

Part A: State government can shape partnerships with major corporations in advanced technologies to ensure these technologies add value and benefit rather than cause harm. These technologies should be directed by workers, and a key outcome of these partnerships is the training and retraining of workers for the jobs that demand proficiency in these technologies; protecting workers and keeping them safe from inappropriate uses of these technologies (for surveillance, for example), and identifying workforce pathways for marginalized communities. These corporations would be expected to  pay a small percentage of their short-term profits to support a Workers First initiative.

California should draw boundaries between innovation, regulation, and accountability such that innovation is encouraged but must include protections for privacy and against cybersecurity; regulations that establish guardrails with the understanding they may have to be revisited to protect people as the technology continues to rapidly evolve; and accountability between AI companies and regulators, consumers, and business users in which there is disclosure of audits and assessments of AI tools, any potential harms, and data breaches.

One sector for aggressive investment is small-scale AI data and innovation centers powered by renewable energy sources and cited in under-resourced communities to accelerate economic activity. One safeguard I would impose is disclosure of energy and water consumption by AI firms and data centers.  

GOVERNING STYLE & FEDERAL RELATIONS (Choosing your battles)

Q: California frequently clashes with federal policy, often at fiscal risk. Part A: In your first 100 days, how will you decide when to litigate versus negotiate?

Part B: Under what circumstances would you compromise to protect funding for Medi‑Cal, housing, or infrastructure?   Name one line you will not cross and one you might.

Tom Steyer:

Donald Trump is a lawless bully - and the only thing a bully understands is strength. This is why, in spite of Democratic party leadership asking to give Trump patience and telling me to be quiet, I launched the nation’s largest impeachment movement in 2017 (Need to Impeach) and signed up 8 million Americans to give Congress the courage they lacked to actually impeach him. It’s also why I spent over $12 million on Proposition 50 in 2025 to fight back against Trump’s plan to rig the elections in Texas. As Governor, I can be counted on to continue to stand up to Trump with strength, integrity, and action. 

Eric Swalwell:

Part A: My default is litigation. Federal overreach requires a forceful check, not a handshake. In my first 100 days, the deciding factor is simple: Is the federal counterpart a "serious person" acting in good faith? If they are interested in solving problems, I will negotiate to protect California’s interests. However, if they are engaged in performative politics, obstruction, or bad-faith attacks on our state, we will sue immediately and aggressively. I will not waste time seeking consensus with those whose objective is to dismantle our progress.

Part B: I will only entertain compromise when the federal government demonstrates a genuine commitment to the fiscal integrity of our state and the solvency of critical programs like Medi‑Cal. I will never trade away the civil rights, dignity, or fundamental protections of Californians just to secure federal dollars. Our values are not for sale. I am willing to negotiate on technical implementation details or enhanced auditing requirements – provided they do not obstruct service delivery – if it guarantees the long-term stability of this funding.

Tony Thurmond:

Part A: In my first 100 days, If a federal action is clearly illegal, threatens Californians’ health, safety, civil rights, or school stability, and cannot be fixed through good faith talks, we will litigate quickly and build strong coalitions with other states. If we can protect Californians through negotiation without giving up our values or long term interests, we will negotiate, put terms in writing, and demand clear timelines and accountability.

Part B: I will compromise on process and implementation to protect funding for Medi Cal, housing, and infrastructure, but not on basic protections for people. One line I will not cross is trading away civil rights or equal protection, including policies that target immigrants, Black communities, or other vulnerable groups, or that weaken access to healthcare and due process. One line I might cross is accepting tougher reporting, performance requirements, or phased implementation if it keeps critical dollars flowing and does not harm patients, renters, or working families. 

Antonio Villaraigosa:

I will litigate when our core rights are threatened - as they have been with the ICE crackdown on our most vulnerable communities - but I will negotiate when it benefits Californians to do so.

I will never trade away civil rights or equity for short-term fiscal relief.

The way to really solve this issue is to work as hard as we can to elect a Democratic president and Congress in future years.

Betty Yee:

Part A: In my first 100 days, I will litigate when the federal administration attacks the fundamental rights and protections of communities and when federal funding is stripped without any legal authority for the administration to do so.

Part B: In compromising to protect funding for Medi-Cal, housing, or infrastructure, one line I will not cross is restricting coverage for immigrants (regardless of status). One line I might cross is if meaningful out-of-pocket limits for prescription drugs are set.

FINAL QUESTION: WHY YOU? WHY NOW?

Q: Why are you prepared to govern California at this moment—not just to win an election, but to manage fiscal constraint, unfinished justice, and public trust? -   Avoid campaign rhetoric. Be direct.

Tom Steyer:

I don’t just identify problems—I have a 15-year track record of beating the interests that cause them.  I am the only candidate with a revenue strategy, explicitly campaigning to close the glaringly corrupt commercial property loophole and "Water’s Edge" loopholes. This will generate $15–$20 billion annually for schools, cities, and counties, without taxing families. I’ve done this before: I passed Prop 39 to close corporate loopholes and Prop 56 to take on Big Tobacco. Justice requires breaking monopolies and limiting the stranglehold of corporate monopolies, specifically by introducing real competition to the energy grid to drive down our record high utility rates by 25% and stopping corporations from prioritizing shareholder dividends over affordable service for Californians. But I will go further: I will ban corporate contributions to candidates to limit corporate influence on our elected officials, helping to ensure they serve the people, not corporate interests. I am beholden to no corporate donors. My independence allowed me to lead the national movement against Donald Trump’s lawlessness and call for his impeachment when others in the Democratic Party hesitated and tried to appease Trump with patience. I have proven that I have the courage to take on the most powerful interests and I am ready to use that same independence to fight for California’s future.

Eric Swalwell:

I am prepared to govern because I have been tested in the arena. My tenure in Congress has been defined by unyielding opposition to the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle our institutions. I know exactly how to litigate against federal overreach, when to negotiate with serious actors, and how to hold the line against those acting in bad faith.

However, protecting California requires more than just fighting federal overreach; it requires fighting for Californians’ ability to live here. The affordability crisis is the single greatest threat to our state’s prosperity. I am ready to treat the skyrocketing cost of living not as a standard policy challenge, but as an operational emergency that demands immediate, aggressive intervention.

I will bring the same uncompromising intensity to Sacramento that I brought to Washington. We cannot legislate around the edges of this crisis. I am prepared to challenge entrenched interests and utilize every executive tool available to drive down costs. I offer leadership that is battle-hardened and focused on fighting on behalf of California and ensuring this state remains a home for working families.

Tony Thurmond:

I am prepared to govern California right now because I have spent my career running public systems, managing teams and budgets, and being accountable to the people we serve. I also know these challenges personally. I grew up with real struggles, so I do not treat poverty, housing instability, or lack of access to healthcare as abstract problems. I understand what it means when a budget decision hits a family’s kitchen table, and I know we can be both fiscally responsible and focused on fairness.

I am also alarmed by the backsliding we are seeing. Californians need a Governor who will protect them from federal instability, not amplify it. That means defending immigrant communities, protecting public schools, and safeguarding healthcare funding. It also means rebuilding public trust by being honest about tradeoffs, measuring results, and changing what is not working. I will govern with clear priorities, steady leadership, and a focus on outcomes, especially for communities that have been pushed aside for too long.

Antonio Villaraigosa:

California needs a proven problem solver who will take on Donald Trump and fight to bring down our cost of living. I am the candidate who has the experience to make this happen.

I governed the largest city in our state through a major economic crisis, I have made difficult decisions early, protected essential services, and refused to balance budgets on the backs of vulnerable communities. I know how to lead when there are no easy answers.

California has a $18 billion deficit makes hard choices unavoidable, and the real test of leadership is who is protected when resources are scarce.

This is a moment where It is a moment for steady, experienced leadership that can prioritize, protect, and rebuild. I am prepared to do that work now.

Betty Yee:

I am prepared to govern California at this moment because as a governance tactician, these times demand strong adherence with basic governance principles: civic participation, transparency, accountability, responsiveness, equity and inclusion, effectiveness and efficiency, and the rule of law that includes protecting the rights of vulnerable communities. I am unafraid to tackle this time of fiscal constraint, unfinished justice, and diminished public trust --- applying my deep fiscal, financial, investment, and executive experience along with my track record of progressive governance insisting on government and corporate accountability.  

Editor's Note: Steve Hilton's campaign team has yet to comply with the prerequisite of supplying answers to the questionnaire.