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: Josh Sautter
Current job title: Encino Neighborhood Council Vice President
Age: 42
Political party affiliation: Democratic
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: Encino Neighborhood Council President
City where you reside: Encino
Campaign website or social media: joshsautterforcongress.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.)
We have to rebuild the middle class and level the playing field for working people. In Congress, I will fight for policies that expand access to affordable housing, reduce health care costs and expand coverage, invest in education and job training, create jobs, broaden family leave, create universal childcare, and reform the tax code to make it more progressive.
1. Housing costs are driving young families out of Los Angeles. I will work to build more homes, lower rents, and knock down barriers to homeownership. The House and Senate passed different versions of a major housing bill, but enactment is in doubt. I will work to make sure the promise of the bill is realized and push for tax credits to develop more affordable low-income rental housing and to encourage rehabilitation of owner-occupied homes in low-income areas.
2. I will push to lower healthcare costs and expand coverage. First, I will work to restore the expired ACA subsidies that removed millions from healthcare coverage. I will promote adding a public option to the ACA, which would lower premiums and reduce overall healthcare costs. I will also work to create a single-payer health care system, which will include universal access to comprehensive care, a wider choice of doctors, and the ability to control overall medical costs through negotiation.
3. I will advocate for increased funding for public schools, universal pre-K, increased Pell grants, student debt relief, free community college, and school infrastructure, among many other important programs.
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.)
I strongly oppose federal laws, like the “SAVE Act,” which would make it harder for millions of people to vote.
“SAVE” is based on the myth cultivated by Republicans that voter fraud is epidemic and that federal voter ID laws are needed to keep fraud in check. Yet, numerous independent nonpartisan studies have concluded that in-person voter fraud and non-citizen voting are virtually nonexistent. In Congress, I will be a tireless advocate for voting rights and access to the polls.
The U.S. Constitution’s Election Clause gives Congress ultimate authority over federal elections. Federal election legislation over the past 70 years has been designed to enforce and expand voting rights. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), considered one of the finest achievements of American democracy, was passed to ensure states follow the 15th Amendment guarantee that the right to vote not be denied because of race. However, the VRA has been eviscerated by a conservative Supreme Court. The John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which I strongly support, aims to restore those invalidated provisions as well as voting rights undermined by state-level voting restrictions.
I also support federal laws that improve access to voting. The “Motor Voter” Act (1993) requires states to offer voter registration to any person who applies for a driver’s license or public assistance. Similarly, the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) guarantees access to the polls for disabled people. I enthusiastically support the proposed “For the People Act” which would expand voting rights, ban partisan gerrymandering, create new ethics rules, and reduce the influence of money in politics.
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 Trump administration’s violently aggressive and lawless style of immigration enforcement hands Democrats an opportunity to advance a more humane, orderly, and accessible system approach anchored with tough enforcement.
The only way to get past the chaotic immigration dysfunction currently dividing the country is by investing in smart border security and fixing the outdated and broken immigration system with common-sense reforms that grow the economy and expand legal avenues to citizenship for long-time residents.
Recent polling shows voters’ views are in line with Democratic priorities. For example, clear majorities of voters support creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for 10 or more years, are married to a citizen, were brought to the U.S. as children, and are farmworkers or other essential workers.
Reform proposals should include modernizing border infrastructure and surveillance with state-of-the-art technology to combat smuggling and other illegal activity; reform asylum to speed up decisions and bar misuse; expand legal immigration and green card availability; establish an earned pathway to citizenship for long-term undocumented and legal residents and those with U.S. citizen spousal or parental ties, as well as DACA recipients (i.e., pass the DREAM Act bill).
Immigration is popular when the benefits are visible to ordinary citizens. That means prioritizing skilled work, immediate family reunification, and structured humanitarian pathways to citizenship. It will also be more accepted when the administrative chaos and divisive enforcement tactics are removed from the process.
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.)
The short answer is that supplemental aid for the 2025 wildfires in Southern California has not been forthcoming because President Trump has blocked it. While some members of California’s congressional delegation, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed guarded optimism that federal aid will be authorized, the president and House Speaker Johnson are arguing for conditions attached to California’s supplemental aid.
Among the conditions Trump has suggested be placed on California aid is changing the way the state handles water or forestry land management. He has also thrown out the idea of tying aid to new voter ID laws. Apparently responding to Trump, Senator Alex Padilla has introduced a bipartisan bill that would streamline wildfire mitigation projects, establish a new intelligence center to improve federal response to wildfires, and institute better forest management practices when weather events are anticipated.
While California lawmakers are hopeful the impasse will be broken, it may be that no federal action is likely until the politics change and it becomes easier for disaster relief legislation to proceed through Congress. In Congress, I will join with those on both sides of the aisle from disaster-torn regions to pass legislation and force the president to provide relief.
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.)
The American people deserve to know that their congressional representatives are working for them and not using the power of their office for personal gain. However, currently, there are far too many loopholes available for lawmakers to enrich themselves. Research has shown that reports of congressional stock trading significantly reduce Americans’ trust in Congress. A ban on stock trading would not only close loopholes but also help restore trust in Congress, whose standing is at an historic low.
When members of Congress trade stock while in office, they risk a conflict of interest in policymaking and insider trading. There is a risk they will write laws to benefit their private stock holdings rather than pursue what is best in the public interest. There is also a risk of insider trading. Lawmakers have access to nonpublic information that can be leveraged for personal profit or to make money for donors. No one should be able to profit from this private information, even if inadvertently.
I have advocated for a complete ban on members of Congress and their families from buying or selling stock. There are members of Congress who have become multimillionaires on a congressional salary, which at the very least gives the appearance that they are becoming wealthy from trading individual stocks in industries they oversee.
There are several proposals pending in the House that would eliminate the persistent appearance of insider trading among members of Congress. I favor those bills that would require sitting members, their spouses, and dependents to completely divest from their previously owned assets. I also support allowing the ethics office to impose and enforce harsh penalties for violations of the law. I would also add related provisions, such as banning members of Congress from becoming lobbyists after leaving office.
Public service should be serving your community, not becoming a multimillionaire or a stepping stone to becoming wealthy after leaving office.
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.)
Stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions are essential for protecting public health and preventing catastrophic climate change. Unfortunately, with the Trump administration proposing sweeping regulatory changes to roll back greenhouse gas emission standards and other air pollution limits for fossil fuel-fired power plants, the country faces drastic consequences for air quality and lung health.
Helping small businesses deal with stronger pollution standards requires a combination of technical assistance, financial incentives, and strategic operational adjustments. Both state and federal governmental agencies offer small business assistance in complying with environmental regulations, including financial help. The Small Business Environmental Assistance Program (SBEAP), for example, helps with basic environmental compliance and sustainable business information. There are also EPA-funded grants to small businesses to develop and commercialize novel environmental technologies.
Low-income households tend to spend more of their income on energy, making them more vulnerable to the rising costs associated with stricter regulations. Helping low-income families navigate stronger regulations, therefore, also involves steering them to targeted governmental financial assistance.
Regulation on pollution and carbon emissions may increase immediate costs but can drive long-term competitiveness through innovation and market shifts, fostering green technology innovation. At the same time, they can significantly impact small companies by requiring technology upgrades and increasing administrative upgrades. An attentive congressional representative can make sure small businesses and low-income families are given all the federal and state resources available to address these challenges.
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.)
Ensuring that military spending enhances rather than jeopardizes U.S. security is a function of prioritizing strategic efficiency over excess, reducing wasteful weapons systems, and aligning funding with specific threats. The Trump administration has been far from strategic and inherently wasteful in its approach to military spending.
The administration is not only seeking an additional $500 billion to add to the $1 trillion bloated defense budget, but it also wants $200 billion to fund a war that has not been adequately justified. The Pentagon does not need more spending. It needs spending discipline. A smart, targeted Pentagon budget can save tens of billions of dollars by, for example, cancelling or reducing spending on dysfunctional or unnecessary weapons systems and unnecessary missions.
As a member of Congress, I will focus on eliminating expensive, wasteful programs. For example, the Golden Dome is a national defense system that is an unachievable, wasteful project that promises to defend the U.S. from intercontinental ballistic missile threats. No system to date has demonstrated that capability. Estimates of the potential cost of deploying it indicate it could cost taxpayers $3.6 trillion over the next 20 years or $4.4 trillion adjusted for inflation. Another possible target for waste elimination is the Golden Fleet battleships, which will cost roughly $20 billion per ship. Other ways to cut Pentagon spending include reducing bureaucracy and cutting excess basing infrastructure.
National security is assured by efficient, targeted military spending and by eliminating waste while putting an end to unnecessary military engagements.
Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
The U.S. should only engage in war for self-defense, such as when attacked on American soil; to protect vital national interests, such as preventing existential attacks; to maintain international security, as when an ally is attacked; or to intervene to prevent mass atrocities, e.g., the war in Bosnia in the 1990s.
Generally speaking, war is justified only if all realistic nonviolent options have been exhausted. Also, military actions must be limited to achieving specific, necessary objectives, with efforts made to keep damage and casualties proportionate to the military advantage, minimizing civilian harm. The probability of success should be factored. If there is not a realistic chance of achieving defined objectives, lives will be lost in a futile effort.
It is not clear that the U.S.’s war against Iran meets these traditional requirements for engaging in war. At first, President Trump stated that he launched a war against Iran to guarantee the end of its nuclear program and to topple its hardline regime. Subsequently, the president claimed that the strikes would have prevented an imminent threat that would have caused American casualties. None of these claims holds up. While the U.S. and Israel have substantially degraded Iran’s military capability, a weakened Iran may be a more dangerous Iran if the regime believes it is fighting for its existence.
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.)
Except when addressing an immediate and verifiable security threat, in which time is of the essence, the president should always seek congressional approval for military action.
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, a provision designed to limit executive power. The Constitution provides the president with inherent powers to use military force without congressional authorization for defensive purposes. This power, however, is limited.
Since World War II, the U.S. has engaged in a series of military operations that were clearly war but have proceeded pursuant to “authorizations” rather than from a declaration of war. President Trump initiated a war against Iran without either a declaration of war or congressional authorization.
Congress must reclaim war powers to uphold the Constitution and restore democratic oversight over executive overreach. While the president has limited authority to use military force to respond to an actual or imminent attack on the U.S., presidents have defied this limit to their power to launch wars of choice without the support of the American people or authorization of Congress. This is precisely what the founders sought to prohibit by explicitly giving Congress sole authority to decide if our country goes to war. Decisions on matters of war and peace must be made democratically and transparently.
Congress should reclaim its war powers to require debate and approval on any possible war. Relying on congressional approval serves as a brake on potential executive overreach and prevents long-term unauthorized military engagements
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.)
Congressional oversight during the Biden and Trump presidencies has at times been vigorous, at times lax, and almost always driven by partisan politics. The increasing politicization of oversight investigations and partisan tone have altered oversight investigations to the point that members of Congress seem more interested in how investigations can affect their party than in holding other branches of government accountable. However, much of the conflict between the congressional and executive branches has been triggered by blatant presidential non-cooperation, especially during the Trump administrations.
A critical aspect of a member of Congress’s job is to conduct oversight. Congress engages in oversight through review, monitoring, and supervision of the implementation of policy and spending to ensure compliance with legislative intent. It is executed through hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and the power of the purse.
Congressional oversight of the two Trump administrations, especially during the final two years of his first term, has been defined by intense conflict, with the administration often refusing to cooperate with many of the subpoenas and oversight requests from the House Democratic majority, leading to court challenges over the limits of executive privilege. In his first term, President Trump and his administration refused to provide information sought by Congress in over 100 congressional investigations and inquiries. These actions have often been largely successful in frustrating congressional oversight.
During the first two years of the Biden administration, House Democrats focused the largest portion of their oversight on the COVID pandemic, though there was also substantial inquiry into the Capitol invasion by supporters of Trump. During the final two years, the House Republican majority focused on alleged wrongdoing by the president and members of his family.
One important first step in improving oversight would be to incentivize a bipartisan approach. When oversight starts off partisan, the odds of a productive result increase significantly. In addition, Congress should strengthen the tools it has to force executive cooperation by codifying the rules of law principles.
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.)
The question over whether Congress should restrict social media use by young people runs directly into First Amendment and privacy concerns. Legal experts argue that banning youth from using social media violates freedom of speech rights. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh described Mississippi’s age-verification law as “likely unconstitutional.” Laws in some states, including in California, have been blocked by the courts, although the California General Assembly is currently considering another bill.
It is undeniable that social media is having a deleterious impact on youth by fostering anxiety, depression, body image issues, and cyberbullying. Researchers have found that young people using social media more than three times a day predicted poor mental health and well-being.
The First Amendment imposes a high but arguably not insurmountable hurdle to overcome in regulating minors’ social media. Some experts argue that legislation could pass First Amendment muster by focusing on content-neutral limits, such as restricting addictive algorithms, implementing parental consent for certain uses, or setting default privacy settings rather than banning content.
Congress is currently considering whether to impose restrictions on social media, the “Kids Off Social Media Act.” The bipartisan bill aims to ban children under 13 from social media, restricts algorithmic feed for users under 17, and requires school social media blocking. It is unclear whether this bill will survive a court challenge, and it is certain to face one.
Social media is here to stay. Finding ways to protect children that don’t unconstitutionally restrict speech is the challenge. In Congress, I will work with both parental groups and free speech advocates to find a solution.
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.)
While violent crime is down in Southern California, many residents do feel insecure, in large part because dramatic events triggering fear belie the statistics. Angelenos have faced assault from out-of-control federal agents. Wildfires have destroyed hundreds of LA-area homes. And home break-ins by international theft rings and petty criminals rattle the residents in our neighborhoods. In addition, the proliferation of social media and 24-hour news gives high-profile crime stories excessive exposure, exacerbating fears.
I have made restoring safety and security one of the centerpieces of my congressional campaign. As president of the Encino Neighborhood Council, I have organized neighborhood crime watch groups and worked with the LAPD to help keep neighborhoods safe from both random and organized theft. My experience has taught me that bringing neighbors together is the most effective, proactive strategy for crime prevention. A connected community builds “collective efficacy,” the shared commitment to support one another by monitoring pubic spaces.
While neighborhoods united to fight crime have been shown to significantly reduce crime rates and improve safety, there is no substitute for an effective police force working directly with neighborhoods. I have proposed restoring millions of dollars cut by Republicans to federal programs with a record of improving crime prevention, including community-based violence prevention programs, victim services, and opioid addiction intervention efforts. I have also advocated investing in after-school programs to keep kids off the streets and lower juvenile crime and violence.
Cuts to federal crime-fighting programs, particularly those targeting community violence intervention, impair the ability of local groups and police to reduce both crime and fear of crime.
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.)
Americans overwhelmingly support term limits. In a recent poll, 83% of Americans supported term limits. Despite Congress’ low approval rating, 97% of incumbents are reelected, some despite serious scandals and ethics violations. That is because of the numerous advantages incumbents have over challengers, making it extremely hard to vote them out of office.
Term limits would make members of Congress more responsive to their constituents. Safe incumbents don’t need to be attentive to their constituents and increasingly lose touch with the people back home. Congress was designed to be a body representative of the people, so ensuring we have elected officials who truly understand what it is to work, raise a family and live in their home districts is essential. Some members, like our incumbent congressman who has been in office for 30 years, buy homes in Washington, D.C., and stay with their families there, only traveling back to the district occasionally. They conduct their town hall meetings by Zoom. I live with my wife and two young sons in the district. I have pledged, if elected, to return home every weekend and hold frequent in-person town hall meetings.
Term limits will help get special interest money out of politics. Fully 97% of corporate PAC money goes to incumbents. Term limits will help break the hold special interests have on members of Congress.
I have pledged to abide by California’s term limits for legislators because that is what 32nd District voters want. I support a 12-year limit for both representatives of the House and senators.
As a result of a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, congressional term limits may only be imposed via an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I support such an amendment.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
My hidden talent is patience. Not the calm, quiet kind you picture in a meditation class, but the real kind you learn in a busy house. I have a three-and-a-half-year-old, an 11-month-old, and a 190-pound English Mastiff named Gus. There’s always something happening.
What that’s taught me is how to actually listen. Little kids don’t always have the words yet. A dog definitely doesn’t. So you have to slow down and pay attention. What are they trying to tell me? What do they need? That takes patience, and it takes effort.
I don’t think listening comes naturally to most people. It’s something you practice. It means not jumping in, not getting frustrated, and not assuming you already know the answer. It also means keeping your sense of humor when things get chaotic, which they often do.
That’s the part I didn’t expect. Patience isn’t just about staying calm. It’s about finding a way to stay present and even enjoy the moment when things are a little messy.
I think that carries over directly to leadership. You can’t represent people if you’re not really hearing them. And you can’t hear them if you’re not willing to slow down and admit you don’t have all the answers.