Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gonzalez is looking to hold onto his corner of California in Assembly District 36, which includes Imperial Valley and parts of Riverside County. Although he earned the most votes (44.6%) during the June primary, he’s now trailing Democrat Ida Obeso-Martinez by 8 percentage points according to a recent poll.
The Marine Corps veteran and evangelical pastor surprised the political establishment in 2024 when he was able to flip the historically democratic district, defeating Coachella School Board Trustee Joey Acuña.
As he did in 2024, Gonzalez continues to campaign on addressing the high cost of living and promises to put results over politics. Speaking to Gonzalez gave the impression that he is willing to cross party lines. As we’ll see, sometimes that’s for the better and sometimes for the worse (I also spoke to Ida Obeso-Martinez if you’d like to check that out).
Helping the most vulnerable
Among his first-term accomplishments, Gonzalez told me that he’s most proud of his work to oppose the state’s proposed cuts to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), which provides assistance to people with disabilities and the elderly. Gonzalez was a vocal opponent of Governor Newsom’s proposal to cut $700 million from IHSS, arguing that cuts would devastate the most vulnerable.
“I’m a dad of a special needs son with cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia. So In-Home Supportive Services is near and dear to my heart,” said Gonzalez.
IHSS was also subject to federal funding deferrals amounting to $1.7 billion earlier this year. I asked Gonzalez if he agreed with the Trump administration’s reasoning that the cuts were necessary because of rampant fraud within IHSS.
“Do I believe that there is potentially some fraud in there? Yes. Do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? No,” he answered.” We don’t stop everything in order to, if you will, stop fraud. What we do is try and find it, root it out – we don’t stop their funding or their services in order to prove a point.”
Working to protect services for the elderly and people with disabilities seems as worthwhile as any fight and Gonzalez’s response demonstrated that he really does put that cause above politics.
Bipartisan to a fault
As a Republican legislator who flipped a blue district, Gonzalez emphasizes his work across party lines to work towards bipartisan solutions.
While Gonzalez’s efforts on IHSS funding are an example of his bipartisanship achieving popular ends, he has also crossed party lines in ways that frustrate fiscal conservatives.
To wit, Gonzalez voted last month in favor of Assembly Bill 1383, a fiscally irresponsible boost to public safety pensions. AB 1383 is best understood as a favor for politically powerful public employee unions. After all, the billions in additional pension obligations means that local communities will have less to spend on road repair and other essential services.
As the party that fancies itself careful stewards of public funds, why would a Republican ever vote in favor of AB 1383?
I asked Gonzalez for his reasoning: “You know, I look at it from a system that unfortunately has not moved with the times. California is becoming less and less affordable. We know that. And we have to take care of those who are public employees who are taking care of us … So, yes, this is an added cost, but the reality of the situation is with cost of living increasing significantly, how do we take care of those people?”
AB 1383 is not about fair compensation for the downtrodden as Gonzalez makes it seem. As the Reason Foundation noted, the majority of the taxpayer burden will go to earlier retirements and higher payouts for employees already earning over $160,000. How does Gonzalez justify that?
“Well, you also have to take into account where they live, the job that they do. And we also have to take into account family situations … The average house in California is roughly $800,000. So $160,000 is pretty challenging to buy your own house, to live a middle income lifestyle, to take care of family, college, so on and so forth.”
AB 1383 is not a salary boost, it’s a pension increase. It does nothing for people in the middle of their careers who need to afford a home and only benefits retirees who earned hundreds of thousands per year for decades and who almost certainly already have homes.
Is the public really responsible for making sure that retirees can purchase homes on their pensions when they somehow neglected to purchase a home during their working years while earning much more than the median California household income?
With all of the affordability problems that Californians as a whole are facing, defending such policy seems to place outsized and unwarranted importance on the wellbeing of union workers compared to the rest of the population. Legislators like Gonzalez often talk about caring about affordability, but regular Californians are the ones who end up paying for their political favoritism.
A mixed record on taxes
As one would expect from a Republican, Gonzalez told me about all of the different tax cuts he wants to fight for – he wants to repeal the gas tax, agricultural sales and use taxes, and pass a veteran retirement income tax exemption.
But here too, his bipartisanship led him to aid a Democratic-led tax measure.
In May he voted in favor of Assembly Bill 1768, which exempted Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties from the state’s sales tax limit. He was one of only a few Republicans who joined the Democratic supermajority to pass the bill. Following the passage of AB 1768, Los Angeles County went on to approve Measure ER in June, raising the sales tax in the county to 10.25%.
Measure ER amounts to a $1 billion tax increase per year for LA County residents and anyone who purchases taxable goods there.
Gonzalez previously explained to this newspaper that he supports allowing localities sort decide these things for themselves, but his vote was a curious choice for a Republican.
In lockstep to the bottom
Wasteful spending and increased taxes aren’t the only ways in which Democrats and Republicans in the state are joining forces for the worse.
Last month I noted that both candidates running for AD 70, Democrat Paula Swift and Republican Tri Ta, told me that they were in favor of local control over housing construction and against state mandates that encourage development.
While Obeso-Martinez refused to give me a straight answer, Gonzalez was forthright about his opposition to the state overruling local objections to housing construction.
“I’ve got concerns about the broader trend of Sacramento taking more authority away from local communities over zoning and development … It’s not just let’s build more houses. It also includes regulations associated with the building of houses. Before you even put a shovel in the ground, the extra $100,000 that goes to it.”
Gonzalez cited the need for deregulation, but there is no better source of anti-housing regulation than local municipalities imposing their zoning and permitting requirements.
During the interview, Gonzalez seemed to attempt to deflect the blame away from local opposition, stating that it was working out “across California.” In a follow-up email, Gonzalez clarified that, “Local zoning and permitting regulations can absolutely be a barrier to building housing, and that’s why I’ve been clear that we need to cut unnecessary regulations and streamline the permitting process.”
Gonzalez also told me that he wants to make sure that communities have a “meaningful voice.” More candidates should stop and ask themselves whether someone should have enough of a voice to stop their neighbor from building a house or an apartment building.
In the follow-up email, he also clarified, “I also don’t believe a neighbor should be able to indefinitely stop a property owner from making a lawful use of their property simply because they don’t like the project.”
As a state legislator, it’s unclear what exactly he thinks should happen. He stated that he is against state mandates, yet acknowledges that local regulations stifle construction, all while believing that local communities should have a “voice” but not a “veto.”
Should we just continue to leave local communities to their own devices and hope that they organize themselves in such a way that they express dissent while not actually holding up construction? What does it mean to have a “voice” if that power doesn’t come with a veto? Is that like when your girlfriend asks you which of her outfits you prefer and then completely ignores your suggestion?
State mandates are imperfect, but without encouragement from Sacramento, cities have a bias towards becoming less development-friendly. The current system certainly isn’t working as evidenced by the fact that California is building housing at a snail’s pace.
What to expect?
Either way, for voters who are concerned about California’s high taxes and the fiscal health of the state, Gonzalez has not carried out a predictable agenda to latch onto. He has proposed tax cuts such as a property tax exemption for disabled veterans but then turned around to vote to facilitate tax increases and saddle taxpayers with unreasonable public employee pensions.
Gonzalez’s justification for voting for AB 1383 seemed like he was grasping at straws – as expected given that he was attempting to justify even greater benefits for workers who are already doing very well. After further questioning, he even told me to direct my questions at the bill’s author, Tina McKinnor, D-Inglewood.
As bad as that is, Gonzalez enjoys the enviable position of running against Obeso-Martinez, who demonstrated during our talk that she was not informed enough to even discuss AB 1383 or other important matters in the state.
With all of his faults, it would be difficult to argue that someone like Obeso-Martinez is preferable.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. Write to him at rafaelperezocregister@gmail.com