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: Joe Kerr
Current job title: Retired Firefighter Captain
Age: 56
Political party affiliation: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: CA Water Quality Control Board; CA Workforce Development Board
City where you reside: Coto de Caza
Campaign website or social media: joekerrforcongress.com
From voter ID to war powers and from immigration to tariffs, Congress has tackled many issues over the past year. What do you, though, see as the top three issues impacting Californians, and what specifically could you do as a lawmaker to address these issues? (Please answer in 250 words or less, and keep your response to future proposals.)
Californians are facing three challenges: affordability, protecting our democracy, and wildfire mitigation and disaster resilience.
First, affordability. Families are being squeezed by the rising cost of housing, groceries, gas, insurance, and health care. In Congress, I would support increasing the supply of affordable and workforce housing by cutting federal red tape that slows construction, incentivizing local production, and expanding financing tools to build housing at scale. I would also allow Medicare to negotiate more drug prices, cap out-of-pocket prescription costs, and crack down on price gouging in food and energy markets and corporate consolidation that drive up everyday costs. In addition, I’d work to stabilize insurance markets so homeowners are not priced out of coverage.
Second, protecting our democracy. Voting rights are being actively rolled back through new restrictions on mail voting, early voting, and burdensome documentation requirements. In Congress, I would restore the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, including federal pre-clearance, establish national standards for early voting and vote by mail, and oppose proof-of-citizenship requirements that disenfranchise eligible voters. I’d also strengthen enforcement to protect voters from discrimination and intimidation.
Third, wildfire mitigation and disaster resilience. I would secure federal funding for early detection systems like wildfire cameras, promote new fire suppression technologies, expand hazardous fuels reduction and vegetation management, and fully fund FEMA pre-disaster mitigation grants to help harden homes and infrastructure before disasters strike. I’d also work to streamline federal permitting for prevention projects so we can move faster to reduce risk and protect communities.
Speaking of voter ID, the president has implored Congress to approve legislation that would require people to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. What role do you believe the federal government plays in telling states how to conduct their own elections, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, but it also gives Congress clear authority to set national standards to protect the right to vote. That balance is important. States run elections, but the federal government has a responsibility to ensure elections are fair, accessible, and free from discrimination.
I support that federal role, particularly when it comes to enforcing and strengthening laws like the Voting Rights Act. Congress should act when voters are being denied equal access to the ballot or when basic standards of fairness are at risk.
At the same time, I don’t support federal mandates that create unnecessary barriers for eligible voters. Requiring proof of citizenship to vote sounds reasonable, but in practice, it would disenfranchise millions of Americans who don’t have easy access to documents like passports or birth certificates. We shouldn’t be making it harder for eligible citizens to participate in our democracy.
We can protect election integrity and expand access at the same time, and we should do both. That means maintaining secure voter registration systems, improving voter roll accuracy, and protecting vote-by-mail, early voting, and equal access for every eligible voter. Our goal should be simple: make it easy to vote and hard to cheat, while upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of every American.
What, in your opinion, should the federal government focus on when it comes to immigration policy? For example, do you place a priority on border security, visas for high-skilled workers, refuge for asylum seekers, etc., and why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The federal government’s responsibility on immigration is to ensure a system that’s secure, orderly, and consistent with our values. Border security is essential, and Congress should invest in modern technology, improve coordination between agencies, and ensure officers have the training and the resources to do their jobs safely and professionally.
At the same time, what we’re seeing today makes clear that enforcement alone isn’t a strategy. Aggressive tactics without clear standards or accountability can undermine public trust and harm our communities without fixing the underlying problems. Congress needs to provide stronger oversight, set clear use-of-force and due process standards, and ensure federal agencies are operating within the law. Congress can’t continue to fund enforcement without also requiring responsible, lawful practices.
We also need to fix our outdated legal immigration system. We also have a legal and moral obligation to asylum seekers, and that means creating a fair, efficient process that reduces backlogs and prevents abuse. I also support expanding and modernizing visa programs for high-skilled and essential workers so businesses can fill critical workforce gaps.
Finally, Congress should provide a path to legal status for long-term, law-abiding residents, paired with smart enforcement that focuses on serious threats, not families. We need a balanced approach that secures the border, restores accountability, and fixes a system that’s been broken for decades.
It’s been over a year since Gov. Gavin Newsom asked the federal government for supplemental disaster aid to help Southern California communities rebuild after the devastating Palisades and Eaton wildfires, but neither President Donald Trump nor Congress has acted. What would you do to push for the funding, besides writing letters to the Trump administration or the leaders of Congress? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
When communities are waiting on disaster aid, Congress can’t afford to be passive. Writing letters isn’t enough. This requires direct engagement, negotiation, and results. In Congress, I’d work to build bipartisan support to move supplemental disaster funding through the appropriations process, using every available tool, including building coalitions with members from other disaster-affected regions, public pressure, and direct negotiation with leadership. I’d also push to attach disaster funding to must-pass legislation when necessary to ensure communities aren’t left waiting.
I’ve done this before. When all 28 national FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Teams lost federal funding after 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, I worked across party lines and with the U.S. Congressional Appropriations Committee to secure a legislative solution that has delivered over $560 million in funding to date. That experience taught me that results come from persistence, relationships, and a willingness to do the hard work behind the scenes.I would take the same approach here, advocating directly with federal agencies, working with local leaders to document need and urgency, and ensuring that Southern California communities aren’t overlooked. Disaster recovery isn’t a partisan issue. When families lose their homes, they shouldn’t have to wait on Washington to act.
Do you support a ban or restriction on congressional lawmakers and their families from buying or selling individual stocks? Why or why not? And what would you propose to ensure lawmakers aren’t using their positions to engage in insider trading? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes, I support a ban on members of Congress and their immediate families trading individual stocks. Public service should be about serving the public, not profiting from inside information. Even the appearance of a conflict of interest undermines trust, and too many Americans believe the system is rigged in favor of those in power.
In Congress, I would support legislation requiring members and their families to divest from individual stocks and invest only in broadly diversified funds. That ensures decisions are made based on what’s best for the country, not personal financial gain. I’d also support stronger disclosure requirements, real-time transparency, and meaningful penalties for violations. If a member of Congress uses non-public information to benefit financially, there should be real consequences.
After decades of insider dealing and self-enrichment in Washington, it’s time to raise the standard. The American people deserve to know their elected officials are working for them, not for their own portfolios.
Do you support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions? If so, how would you ensure those regulations aren’t overly burdensome on small businesses or lower-income families? And if not, how do you propose lawmakers protect the environment and curtail the impacts of climate change? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes, I support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions, but they need to be practical, enforceable, and designed so working families and small businesses aren’t left carrying the burden. I’ve worked on these issues firsthand. On the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, we held polluters accountable and protected local water supplies. I’ve also worked on wildfire prevention, where the impacts of climate change are already being felt.
Wildfires are now a major and growing source of carbon emissions in our state, which means preventing them isn’t just about public safety; it’s also critical climate policy.
In Congress, I’d support clear, science-based standards to reduce pollution, while also investing in the technology, infrastructure, and domestic energy production needed to keep costs down and reliability up. I’d also push for federal investment in wildfire prevention, including early detection systems, vegetation management, and hardening homes and infrastructure before disaster strikes.
We don’t have to choose between protecting the environment and protecting working people. If we do this right, we can hold polluters accountable, reduce emissions, lower long-term costs, and make our communities safer and more resilient.
President Donald Trump has significantly increased spending for the U.S. Department of Defense. Would you, as a member of Congress, approve additional dollars for the military if the president were to ask for more funding? How would you ensure that any military spending does not end up putting the American people or national security in harm’s way? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I will always support funding that ensures our military is prepared, our troops are protected, and our national security is strong. But I don’t believe Congress should provide blank checks for additional spending without clear strategy, accountability, and results. More money doesn’t automatically make us safer. What matters is how those resources are used. In Congress, I would evaluate any request based on whether it strengthens readiness, supports our service members, and aligns with a clear, achievable mission.
We also need much stronger oversight. The Department of Defense manages one of the largest budgets in the world, and there are well-documented issues with waste, cost overruns, and lack of transparency. Congress has a responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are being used effectively and that funding decisions are driven by national security priorities, not politics or defense contractor interests.
My approach comes from a lifetime in public safety. You don’t commit resources without a plan, and you don’t put people in harm’s way without a clear objective. The same principle applies here. I will support a strong military, but I will also insist on accountability, discipline, and responsible decision-making to ensure we are truly protecting both our troops and the American people.
Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The United States should only engage in war as a last resort, when there’s a clear and compelling threat to our national security or to our allies, and when all other options have been exhausted. War should never be open-ended. Before committing American lives, there has to be a defined objective, a realistic strategy, and a clear understanding of the risks and consequences. There also has to be a plan for how we bring it to a responsible end. We owe that to our service members and their families.
I also believe strongly in the role of Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war for a reason. That process ensures accountability, debate, and clarity of purpose before we send any Americans into harm’s way.
My approach is shaped by a lifetime in public safety. When you’re responsible for people’s lives, you don’t act without a clear mission, a plan, and an understanding of the risks. The stakes are even higher when it comes to war, and our decisions should reflect that level of discipline and responsibility.
Do you believe a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas? Why, or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes, a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas, except in cases of immediate self-defense where there’s a clear and imminent threat. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war to ensure there’s accountability and a full public debate before American lives are put at risk. That balance has eroded over time, with presidents from both parties increasingly acting without meaningful input from Congress.
Congress needs to reassert its role, not to delay urgent action, but to ensure any sustained military engagement is grounded in a clear mission, defined objectives, and support from the American people. This is about responsibility. When we send service members into harm’s way, there has to be clarity of purpose and a plan for what comes next.
A president has to be able to act quickly to defend the country in an emergency. But beyond that, decisions about war shouldn’t be made alone. They should reflect the judgment of the American people through their elected representatives.
Congress, in theory, is supposed to serve as a check on the president through budgetary, legislative and oversight powers. Do you believe Congress has fulfilled that obligation during the past two administrations, with one being a Democrat and the other a Republican? Why or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Congress is supposed to serve as a coequal branch of government, providing oversight and acting as a check on the president. In recent years, it hasn’t consistently lived up to that responsibility, regardless of which party is in power. Too often, members of Congress defer to presidents from their own party instead of exercising independent judgment. That weakens accountability and undermines the balance the Constitution was designed to protect.
Congress has powerful tools, including oversight hearings, budget authority, and the ability to authorize or restrict executive action. Those tools should be used consistently, not selectively based on politics.
This isn’t about partisanship. It’s about responsibility. When Congress fails to act as a check, it shifts too much power to the executive branch and erodes public trust. If elected, I’ll take that responsibility seriously. I’ll support strong oversight no matter who’s in the White House, because that’s what the Constitution requires and what the American people deserve.
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. Should Congress adopt such restrictions? If so, what specific restrictions do you propose? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Social media has created real challenges for young people, especially when it comes to mental health, privacy, and exposure to harmful content. We can’t ignore those risks, but we also have to be careful about broad government bans that are difficult to enforce and could create unintended consequences. I don’t support a blanket federal ban on social media use. I believe parents should play the primary role in deciding what’s appropriate for their kids.
That said, Congress does have a responsibility to set clear rules to protect minors. I’d support stronger privacy protections for children, limits on data collection, and requirements for platforms to provide better transparency and parental controls. Companies should also be held accountable for how their algorithms promote harmful or addictive content to young users. We should also invest in digital literacy and mental health resources so families have the tools to navigate these platforms safely.
This issue is really about balance. We need to protect kids without overreaching and make sure tech companies are taking responsibility for the impact their products have on young people.
Statistically, violent crime rates in California are on the decline, yet residents still don’t feel safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in Congress in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Public safety isn’t just about statistics. Even if crime is down in some areas, when people don’t feel safe in their own neighborhoods, something’s not working. I’ve spent my career in public safety, and I’ve seen how quickly trust breaks down when people feel like there aren’t consequences or the system isn’t working.
In Congress, my role would be to support both enforcement and prevention. That means making sure law enforcement has the resources and training they need, while also investing in mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and programs that address the root causes of crime.
We also need better coordination between local, state, and federal agencies so repeat offenders and gaps in the system don’t put our communities at risk. At the federal level, we should be funding what works, supporting local communities, and focusing on real results, not politics. People deserve to feel safe where they live. That should always be the baseline.
There are term limits to serve in the California Legislature, but none to serve in Congress. Would you advocate for term limits for House members? Why or why not? If you support term limits, how many years maximum should a House member be allowed to serve? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Yes, I strongly support term limits for members of Congress. I believe no one should be in office indefinitely. Serving in Congress should be about contributing, getting results, and then making room for new leadership and ideas. Washington shouldn’t be a lifetime career.
I would support a 12-year limit for House members. That’s enough time to gain experience, take on leadership roles, and deliver meaningful results, but not so long that someone becomes disconnected from the people they represent.
I also believe it’s important to be honest with voters. Term limits would require a constitutional amendment, which means it won’t happen overnight. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push for it. In the meantime, accountability still matters. Strong ethics laws, transparency, and real consequences for misconduct are essential to restoring trust. At the end of the day, this is about making sure our government stays responsive, accountable, and connected to the people it serves.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
One thing people might not know about me is that I’m a long-distance runner. I’ve completed multiple marathons and half-marathons over the years. It started as a personal challenge, and somehow I just kept signing up to do it again. I’m still not convinced I actually enjoy running 26 miles, but I keep doing it anyway.
There’s something about getting out early, putting in the miles, and clearing your head that keeps me grounded. And it definitely teaches you discipline. You learn how to keep going even when you’d rather stop, which turns out to be pretty useful in life and in public service.