Ahead of the June primary election, the Southern California News Group compiled a list of questions to pose to the candidates who wish to represent you. You can find the full questionnaire below. Questionnaires may have been edited for spelling, grammar, length and, in some instances, to remove hate speech and offensive language.
Name: Chris Duncan
Current job title: Tariff and Customs Of Counsel, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Political party affiliation: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: San Clemente City Council Member; Mayor of San Clemente; U.S. Marine Corps Liaison; Board Member, Orange County Fire Authority; Board Member, Orange County Assessment Appeals Board
City where you reside: San Clemente
Campaign website or social media: votechrisduncan.com
Do you believe balancing the state budget should rely more on spending cuts, new revenue streams or a combination? Tell us how you would propose tackling California’s projected budget deficit. (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
A combination.
California cannot cut its way to fiscal health without gutting services that families depend on, and it cannot tax its way out of structural problems without driving away businesses and workers.
My approach starts with accountability. We should eliminate ineffective corporate tax credits that cost billions without delivering promised economic benefits. Every credit should be evaluated for results, and those that fail should be redirected to priorities that actually work. We should close loopholes that allow multinational corporations to shift California profits out of state to avoid taxes. And we should ask the wealthiest Californians to pay their fair share, particularly as the federal government shifts costs onto states.
On the spending side, I support streamlining state government where genuine inefficiencies exist, consolidating duplicative programs, and demanding better outcomes from every dollar spent. But I will not support cuts to public education, healthcare, public safety, or the safety net programs that keep families afloat.
Long term, California needs to build a more resilient revenue base that is less dependent on capital gains volatility, so we do not swing wildly from surplus to debt. That means growing the economy by investing in housing, infrastructure, workforce development, and industries that create good-paying jobs. A stronger all-around economy generates more revenue for California families without raising rates.
For you, what’s a non-starter when talking about budget cuts? Why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Cutting public education funding below the Proposition 98 guarantee is a non-starter. Our schools are the foundation of everything: economic competitiveness, housing equity, upward mobility, strong communities. California already ranks far too low in per-pupil spending compared to other large states. Cutting school funding to close a deficit created in part by corporate tax loopholes would be unconscionable.
Similarly, I will not support cuts to Medi-Cal or safety net programs at the exact moment the federal government is slashing Medicaid and shifting healthcare costs onto states. Millions of Californians depend on these programs, and the workers who deliver those services, from home healthcare aides to clinic staff, are already stretched thin. Cutting their funding would hurt the most vulnerable people in our state and destabilize the workforce that serves them.
Public safety funding is also off the table. Our communities deserve well-staffed, well-resourced, and well-trained law enforcement and fire protection services. You cannot ask residents to feel safe while defunding the heroes who keep them safe.
What are the top three most pressing issues facing the state, and what would you propose, as a state legislator, to address them? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
First, the cost of living. Housing, childcare, healthcare, and everyday expenses are crushing working families. I will fight to expand affordable housing production with strong labor standards, protect tenants, invest in childcare, and hold utility companies accountable for rate increases that burden ratepayers.
Second, defending California from federal overreach into our lives and livelihoods. The Trump administration is attacking healthcare funding, immigrant communities, reproductive freedom, and environmental protections. My opponent supports all these attacks on our individual freedoms. California needs independent, tested leaders like me who will use every tool available to protect residents from these assaults, from funding backstops to legal challenges to neighborhood protections.
Third, public safety and accountability. Wildfires and other climate disasters have ravaged California’s communities. Violent crime is declining statistically, but residents still feel unsafe, and property crime, fentanyl trafficking, and retail theft remain real concerns. I support smart investments in firefighting and fire mitigation, law enforcement and prevention, expanding mental health crisis response, cracking down on organized retail theft, and ensuring Proposition 36 treatment programs are funded and effective.
What specific policy would you champion in the statehouse to improve the cost of living for residents? Would you see this having an immediate impact on Californians or would it take some time? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I would champion legislation to hold investor-owned utilities accountable for excessive rate increases. Californians, especially in Senate District 36, are paying the highest electricity rates in the country while utility companies report record profits and pay massive executive compensation. My opponent talks a big game about costs but has done nothing to reduce utility costs for us residents. We need stronger regulatory oversight, caps on rate increases tied to actual infrastructure investment rather than shareholder returns, and expanded Community Choice Energy options that give ratepayers cleaner and cheaper alternatives. This would have a near-term positive impact by lowering our constituents’ costs immediately, not months or years from now, like most proposals we hear about.
Utility costs are one of the fastest-growing expenses for California families, and unlike housing, which requires years of construction to meaningfully affect prices, rate reform and expanded energy choice can begin lowering bills within a legislative cycle. I championed Community Choice Energy as mayor of San Clemente to give residents exactly this kind of choice: cleaner power at competitive rates, outside the monopoly utility model. I would bring that same approach, in which we trust our constituents to make their own choices instead of bossing them around, to the State Senate, and push to scale it statewide.
There have been numerous efforts made in the state legislature to curtail federal immigration enforcement in California, from prohibitions on agents wearing masks to banning federal officers from future employment in a public agency. Do you see any area where the state could better protect its residents from the federal government’s widespread immigration crackdown? Would you prefer the state work more hand-in-hand with the federal government on immigration? Where does the role as a state legislator fall into your beliefs here? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I spent my career in the Department of Homeland Security working with law enforcement officers and national security professionals to secure our borders and protect our country from terrorist attacks. I resigned from a leadership position in DHS in 2019 because I refused to defend the Trump administration’s child separation policy, which conversely hurt, instead of protecting, vulnerable children. So I understand federal immigration enforcement from the inside out. My experience in DHS taught me that when the federal government abuses its power, states and state legislators have a responsibility to stand up and fight back to protect their residents.
Local law enforcement should focus on the public safety of their residents, not acting as immigration agents. Communities are safer when residents can report crimes and access services without fear of deportation. I support protecting sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, and courthouses from enforcement operations, expanding legal services for immigrant workers, and ensuring that state agencies do not share data with federal immigration authorities in ways that put families at risk. The state should work to stop ICE from conducting mass, indiscriminate raids on non-criminals, separating children from their parents, and targeting people in hospitals, churches, and schools. This is something I think we can all agree on.
When the federal government returns to rational, humane immigration policy, partnership makes sense. Until then, California must be a firewall. That said, I respect the rule of law. I worked for 16 years as a Homeland Security Prosecutor to secure our border and keep dangerous criminals out. It is about protecting people from an administration that is abusing immigration enforcement as a political weapon, not a public safety tool.
Health care costs — like in many other areas — are continuing to rise. What policies, specifically, would you support or like to champion that could lower premiums or out-of-pocket expenses? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I support the Office of Health Care Affordability’s work to set cost targets for hospitals and health systems. Transparency and accountability are essential to reigning in prices. I would strengthen that office’s enforcement authority so cost targets have real teeth. I would also fight to regulate pharmaceutical pricing more aggressively at the state level, including supporting bulk purchasing through Medi-Cal and CalPERS to drive down drug costs, and requiring transparency in how drug companies set prices. Hospital consolidation is driving up costs, and I would support stronger antitrust scrutiny of mergers and acquisitions in the healthcare sector, particularly by private equity firms. For working families, I support expanding subsidies for marketplace insurance plans and reducing cost-sharing requirements in Medi-Cal. I also support moving California toward a single-payer system over time, because the administrative overhead of our current multi-payer system wastes billions that should be spent on actual care.
Would you support expanding state health care programs to ensure more residents — including those who are not citizens — are covered? How would you propose the state fund such an expansion? Or, how would you propose the people who cannot afford health care still get the necessary care they need without expanding state programs? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
California has already taken significant steps to expand Medi-Cal to all income-eligible residents, and I support continuing that commitment. When people lack access to basic healthcare, they end up in emergency rooms at far greater cost to taxpayers, and preventable conditions become expensive crises. Expanding coverage is both the right thing to do and the fiscally responsible thing to do.
Funding should come from a combination of sources: closing corporate tax loopholes, implementing employer responsibility fees on large corporations whose workers rely on public healthcare programs, and, where necessary, asking the wealthiest Californians to contribute more. If the federal government cuts Medicaid funding through H.R. 1 or other measures, California must backfill those losses rather than abandoning patients. For people who do not qualify for state programs, I support strengthening community health centers and county safety-net systems so that no one is turned away from basic care.
As part of combating homelessness, elected officials often talk about the need to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place. What policies or programs should the state adopt to make housing more affordable for renters and homeowners? What do you propose the state do to incentivize housing development and expedite such projects? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
California needs to build significantly more housing at every income level. I support streamlining the permitting and inspection process to reduce timelines and costs for builders. I support expanding by-right approvals for projects that meet local zoning and affordability requirements, so developers spend less time and money fighting for entitlements and more time building.
For renters, I support strengthening tenant protections and lowering the statewide rent cap to prevent displacement. For homeowners and aspiring buyers, I support down payment assistance programs and first-time homebuyer incentives. I also support taxing vacant properties and discouraging speculative purchases by corporate investors that drive up prices for families.
On homelessness prevention specifically, keeping people housed is far cheaper than rehousing them after they lose their homes. I support expanding emergency rental assistance, right-to-counsel programs for tenants facing eviction, and increasing funding for supportive services that help people maintain stable housing.
All new housing built with public investment should use skilled and trained labor under prevailing wage standards.
We should also expand workforce housing for teachers, nurses, and other important members of our communities.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2023 authorizing state energy regulators to penalize oil companies making excessive profits. But the California Energy Commission put off imposing the penalties last year after two oil refineries, which represent nearly a fifth of California’s refining capacity, said they would shut down operations. Those announcements prompted many to be concerned about soaring gas prices. What do you think of the commission’s decision? And how would you, as a state legislator, propose balancing California’s climate goals with protecting consumers from high gas prices at the pump? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I understand the Commission’s concern about refinery closures, but I am skeptical of letting oil companies use the threat of shutdowns to avoid accountability for excessive profits. We need to hold big businesses accountable for ripping off our residents. These companies made record profits while Californians paid some of the highest gas prices in the country. My opponent had done nothing to hold the billionaires and big businesses who support his campaigns in check. As a former prosecutor, I will enforce the law, close loopholes, and penalize corporations for taking advantage of the system. The penalty mechanism was designed to prevent exactly that kind of profiteering, and backing down under industry pressure undermines the law voters and legislators put in place.
That said, the transition away from fossil fuels must be managed carefully to protect consumers. We cannot let the clean energy transition become a cost burden on working families. I support accelerating the deployment of electric vehicles with strong incentives for low- and middle-income buyers, expanding public transit, and investing in charging infrastructure so families have real alternatives to high gas prices. I also support ensuring that as refineries close, the transition is orderly, workers are protected with retraining and job placement, and contaminated sites are cleaned up by the companies that profited from them. Climate goals and consumer protection are not in conflict. Smart climate policy lowers costs over time. But the transition has to be managed with working families in mind, not just corporate balance sheets.
In 2024, voters approved Proposition 36 to increase penalties for certain drug and retail theft crimes and make available a drug treatment option for some who plead guilty to felony drug possession. Would you, as a legislator, demand that more funding for behavioral health treatments be included in the budget? How would you ensure that money is used properly? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes. As a former federal prosecutor, I will fully fund Proposition 36, including the treatment pathway it created. A pathway without funded treatment at the end of it is an empty promise. If we are going to hold people accountable through the criminal justice system, which we must to protect our residents, and offer treatment as an alternative to incarceration, we must actually invest in the treatment infrastructure to make that work.
I would push for dedicated behavioral health funding in the budget, with strong accountability measures: clear outcome metrics, regular audits, and transparency requirements so taxpayers and legislators can see whether programs are actually reducing recidivism and getting people into recovery. I also support expanding community-based mental health services, substance abuse treatment beds, and co-occurring disorder programs that address the root causes of both addiction and criminal behavior.
Having prosecuted violent criminals and drug traffickers in DHS, I believe in accountability and have a track record of getting criminals off our streets. But I also know that locking people up without addressing underlying behavioral health issues just means they cycle back through the system, which costs us taxpayers money. Treatment works when it is funded, efficient, and well-managed. I will ensure this system works, keep our communities safe, and save taxpayers’ money in the process.
What role should the state play in ensuring hospitals and doctors are providing gender-affirming care to LGBTQ+ residents? Similarly, what role do you believe the state could play should other states adopt policies that restrict that care? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The state should ensure that gender-affirming care is available and free from discrimination. This is medically supported, evidence-based healthcare, and decisions about it belong to patients, their families, and their doctors, not politicians. I support protecting providers from retaliation or legal threats for delivering this care. And I support ensuring that state-funded healthcare institutions provide the full scope of care, including gender-affirming services, without religious or ideological exemptions that deny patients access. As other states adopt bans and restrictions on gender-affirming care, California has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and offer families a choice. I support legislation protecting patients and providers who come to California for care from prosecution by other states.
Governments around the world are increasingly considering an age ban or other restrictions on social media use among young people, citing mental health and other concerns. Do you believe it’s the state’s responsibility to regulate social media use? Why or why not? And what specific restrictions or safeguards would you propose as a state lawmaker? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes, I believe the state has a role in protecting children from the well-documented harms of social media, including anxiety, depression, sleep disruption, and exposure to predatory content, as laid out in Jonathan Haidt’s excellent book “The Anxious Generation,” a sobering must-read for every parent. Social media companies have designed their platforms to be addictive, and children are not equipped to resist those designs.
I support age verification requirements for social media platforms, restrictions on algorithmic targeting of minors, and data privacy protections that prevent companies from collecting and monetizing children’s personal information. I also support requiring platforms to provide parents with meaningful tools to manage their children’s usage. But any regulation must be carefully crafted to avoid cutting off young people, including LGBTQ+ youth, from online communities and resources that provide essential support. The goal is to protect kids from exploitation and addiction, not to isolate them. I would support measures that focus on platform design and corporate accountability rather than blanket bans that could do more harm than good.
Artificial intelligence has become a ubiquitous part of our lives. Yet public concerns remain that there aren’t enough regulations governing when or how AI should be used, and that the technology would replace jobs and leave too many Californians unemployed. How specifically would you balance such concerns with the desire to foster innovation and have California remain a leader in this space? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
California must lead on both innovation and regulation. They are not in conflict. The companies that build trustworthy, transparent, and fair AI systems will win in the long run, and strong guardrails give consumers and workers confidence in the technology.
I support requiring transparency in how AI systems make decisions that affect employment, housing, lending, healthcare, and criminal justice. I support prohibiting the use of AI for hiring or firing decisions without human oversight and accountability. I support protecting workers whose jobs are displaced by AI through retraining programs, transition support, and ensuring workers have a voice in how AI is deployed in their workplaces. I also support strong data privacy protections so AI companies cannot train their systems on Californians’ personal information without consent.
The key is to regulate the application of AI, not the research. California should remain the global hub for AI development, but we must ensure the technology is deployed in ways that benefit people rather than replacing them or undermining their rights.
Statistically, violent crime rates in California is on the decline, but still, residents are not feeling safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in the state legislature in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The gap between statistics and perception is real, and it matters. People feel unsafe because of visible disorder: property crime, retail theft, encampments, untreated mental illness on the streets, and a sense that the system is not working. They also see corrupt businesses and politicians getting away with things they know they would be prosecuted for. Those concerns are legitimate. As a former federal prosecutor, I take public safety and the rule of law seriously.
I support fully funding law enforcement so departments can recruit, train, and retain qualified officers. I support cracking down on organized retail theft rings and holding repeat offenders accountable. And I support ensuring Proposition 36 treatment programs are funded so the drug-crime cycle is actually broken.
But enforcement alone is not enough. It is not fair to our law enforcement officers to handle all our societal ills and perform mental health services in addition to taking down criminals. We need to invest in the upstream interventions that prevent crime in the first place: mental health crisis response teams, substance abuse treatment, youth intervention programs, and economic opportunity. Communities are safest when law enforcement is strong and trusted, and when people have alternatives to desperation. My role as our state senator is to ensure local agencies have the resources and tools they need, hold state programs accountable for results, and resist both the impulse to incarcerate our way out of problems that require smarter solutions.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I know my way around a grill and make a mean Santa Maria-style tri-tip, usually served up with baked beans and garlic bread. My wife, Haley and kids, Brooklyn, Olivia, and Rico, are probably the toughest critics in the district, and I have earned their approval. Beyond the kitchen, I was once a decent surfer, though I can now be found pushing my son Rico into many more waves than I catch on my own.