The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board interviewed the two candidates in the State Assembly District 77 race ahead of the March 3, 2020, primary election in which the top two vote-getters will advance to a runoff election in November. Below is the transcript of our Dec. 4, 2019, interview with Republican June Cutter, who is running to represent a district that includes Carmel Valley, Clairemont, Kearny Mesa, Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Penasquitos, Scripps Ranch and Poway. Her opponent is Democratic incumbent Brian Maienschein. This interview was transcribed using the digital transcription service Temi and checked for accuracy by a staffer. To call any errors to our attention or to ask any questions about our interviews, please email matthew.hall@sduniontribune.com with the subject line “election interviews.”
Union-Tribune: So thanks for coming in, June. Tell us why you decided to run.
June Cutter: Well, I decided to run because I felt like California and particularly my community and District 77 deserved better representation, someone with real-life, real-world experience and business acumen who really understood the consequences of legislation that comes down from Sacramento. And um, I felt like the people of California, everyday working families, especially in District 77, needed to be represented by somebody who was in the trenches, side-by-side with them with the same challenges and struggles that they have living their lives here in California. And somebody who understood where they’re coming from and who was invested in the community as much as they were. And I didn’t see that, so I felt like we had to do something about it. And I looked around to see who might be the person who could do that for us, and I didn’t see anyone who could do it better than me. So like with most things in my life, I said, all right, I’ll do it myself.
Meet the other candidate in this race below:
Brian Maienschein, incumbent Democratic candidate for State Assembly District 77, met with the San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board ahead of the 2020 primary election.
Q: And what in your life or real-world experience kind of prepares you for the Assembly? Obviously, I know you’ve been a lawyer and had some entrepreneurial experience, but what specifically stands out?
A: Yes. So I have been a practicing civil litigator for about 17 years, and for about the last decade I’ve focused on employment law. Um, and I also opened my own small business several years ago and have been running that here in the city of San Diego as well. Um, I’m PTA president at Del Sur Elementary School. I see the challenges that our public schools face on a daily basis. Um, and I’m a mom raising my two kids. Um, we’re a former military family. My husband was a Naval flight officer. I think that there are so many different, um, aspects of our community where my personal experience has touched on the same experiences as those community members and I understand where people are coming from and what they struggle with every day.
Q: Interesting approach, as a PTA president. Uh, schools, school reform is something that we’ve written about quite a bit. How can California schools improve? How should they improve?
A: Wow. It is such a big problem. I see it as one of the greatest challenges that legislators will need to face in Sacramento. And we spend so much money on our education system, but I unfortunately feel like our children are not receiving, um, the vast majority of that funding and it’s not going into the classroom where it needs to be spent. Um, personally as a PTA president, as someone who supports the administration and teachers at our local public elementary school, um, the lack of resources really impacts how the kids are able to learn and go about their day-to-day school activities. And we’re very fortunate in our neighborhood to be in a good school district in Poway Unified and to have, um, the parents come together to rally, to, um, supplement the funding at the school. But where that doesn’t take place, which is in the vast majority of schools in the state of California, the kids really are not fulfilling their potential. And I think that’s one of the major problems that we have to address as a state is how are we spending all this money on education and yet still failing our kids.
Q: Are there specific proposals you’d like to see done to improve scores?
A: I think that there are several areas we need to look at as to how schools are funded and um, transparency and accountability in, um, the curriculum as well. And we need to look at the different ways that we’re spending money in education. So whether that be facilities, um, and teacher salaries and obviously the pension issue and then the amount we’re actually spending on the kids directly in the classroom. And I think there needs to be a lot of reform, and I think there needs to be a lot of accountability placed upon, um, the schools and, um, the public school system in general.
Q: The idea that school quality is a function of school spending is vastly discounted by experts who say that, in fact, Texas and Florida have significantly better schools and spend far less money. And also within California, there was a Public Policy Institute of California report in 2007 that showed within California, some affluent school district areas do great — Poway. Some — Encinitas — do not. Some medium-income areas — La Mesa, Grossmont — don’t do well in schools. Some Sacramento suburbs do. So the idea that it’s just about adding resources. I heard you talk about reform, but I also heard you talk about resources. It’s a basic question as to whether adding money makes things better when California’s experience doesn’t show that to be true.
A: Well, I don’t think about adding money. I don’t think about growing the amount of money that we’re spending on education, but are we spending it wisely? And with regards to reform, are we making sure that teachers are being held accountable? That really the ways we are spending taxpayer money on education, is it doing a good job and when it’s not doing a good job, what are the consequences?
Q: Shirley Weber, who would be your colleague if you were elected, has for years tried to change teacher tenure rules, and also to make sure the Local Control Funding Formula, the dollars actually go to help English language learners. She can’t get much help from her Democratic colleagues. Would you be an ally?
A: Um, I’d definitely be open discussing the issues with her and anyone else who is in Sacramento or all throughout the state. Willing to discuss how we can make schools better because the children are our future. It’s one of the most important things that we can focus on. It’s one of the areas where we spend the most of our taxpayer money. If it’s failing, we need to do something to fix it.
Q: What was your position on, on teacher tenure?
A: On teacher tenure? Well, I guess I think in all aspects, in all industries, accountability is so important that if a teacher is not doing, um, a great, a good job for our kids or if there is a problem, then tenure shouldn’t be holding their place in the school.
Q: The California Republican Party is at low ebb. According to stats we were quoted the other day, only 11% of the voters register Republican Party. And yet people like Tony Kvaric and the state Republican Party chairman are doing things like pursuing recalls of Newsom. What is your thoughts about the state of the California Republican party and what can it do to restore relevance?
A: Well, one of my personal goals, um, is to, um, I don’t know if I can single-handedly do it, but revamp the Republican Party. Make being Republican, um, if not cool, acceptable once again in the state of California. And I think that, um, for me being Republican means believing in a limited government in a free-market economy, and not all of the other noise that gets associated with the Republican Party, unfortunately. And I think that that message is a good one, but there’s a problem with um, messaging and messengers and um, I think that’s something that the party is working on, um, and needs to continue to work on and make sure that we are getting the right message across and what our priorities are. Um, not all Republicans are built the same and not all Democrats are built the same. But if we can focus on the issues that unite our communities rather than divide them, I think that’s where we will make the most progress.
“I believe that immigration is what this country was founded on. The opportunity come to come here and build the American dream.”
— June Cutter
Q: The main focus of California Republicans, increasingly, their overwhelming focus is on immigration and on this idea that immigration is a bad thing, they’re joining Trump. What is your take on it?
A: Well, because I am the child of immigrants and because I was raised within the immigrant experience, I think my perspective is unique and um, not necessarily what is portrayed as the Republican Party’s message on immigration, um, to the masses. But, um, I believe that immigration is what this country was founded on. The opportunity come to come here and build the American dream. Um, immigration comes in so many different shapes and forms and from so many different places all across the globe. And without immigration, um, I think we would do ourselves a great disservice by limiting our skilled workforce by, um, you know, not having people come to this country who really want to contribute to our economy, to our innovation, to our growth and our progress. But, um, with that said, I think we need to be pragmatic about immigration and make sure that, um, you know, our neighbors here who, um, have troubles and challenges are also taken care of and how are we using our resources in terms of immigration? It’s definitely not an easy problem to solve, but I think the general thought that immigration in general as an overarching concept is bad, I do not agree with that.
Q: What about the sanctuary state legislation that so inflamed Republicans? Do you think that was wise?
A: Um, I think it’s been sensationalized on both sides. I think that if you talk to most people, they kind of find the common-sense middle ground of it all. And I think it’s such a shame that it’s turned into this kind of, um, divisive argument because I think most people would agree that immigration is the backbone of American society, but also that, um, there’s limited resources and we need to be smart about how we spend them. So who do we prioritize when we’re talking about the spending of tax dollars? And it doesn’t really need to be that fiery, um, divisive argument that it’s turned into.
Q: Back to the experience question, uh, what in your background, would inform voters as to the type of leader you would be in this position? Do you have a particular project or particular effort that you led, uh, that had positive outcomes?
A: Well, um, I guess one of the places where I’ve put most of my focus in the last several years is the California Women’s Leadership Association. And I’m currently serving as the PAC chair, but, um, I will no longer be the PAC chair starting January of 2020. But, um, I’ll remain on the executive board where I’ve served for several years. And for me, um, it’s kind of the catalyst for how I got involved in community service and in politics, but it promotes fiscally conservative women being put into elected office in places of leadership in government. And it’s founded on the idea that social issues may drive people apart, but fiscal issues can bring communities together. And I’ve been really focused on my work with that group and I hope it shows a great example to people of what, um, fiscally conservative women here in California, um, stand for, what they are accomplishing and how we are uniting communities instead of dividing them in this particular climate.
Q: So fiscally conservative, would that mean you’d be for lowering taxes in California? The biggest complaint we get is that the taxes are too high.
A: Um, I’m definitely not going to support higher taxes. Um, I think that there really needs to be an examination of how money is spent and why, why the need for more taxes if people are going to propose them. I truly believe that one of our greatest problems in government is that legislators are acting for themselves when they should be acting as stewards of the taxpayer’s money, when they should be concerned about the needs of their constituents and the desires of their constituents, fiscally speaking, and in so many other ways. But, um, that’s not happening. And I think that when ... it’s not Monopoly money, it’s real money. It’s the taxpayer’s money that they’ve entrusted to the government to spend wisely. And I think that losing sight of that is one of our greatest problems.
Q: The unfunded liabilities of CalPERS, CALSTERS and UC is conservatively estimated atabout $400 billion by the agencies themselves, and put at more than a trillion by Stanford professor Joe Nation who says that they’re using unrealistic expectations of returns on investments. So what can a Republican do? Can a Republican, by herself, you know, try to bring some rationality to this? Because a correct way to look at all new tax hikes going forward is they’re all pension tax hikes, right? And yet I don’t think that’s really sunk in with folks.
A: No, I think that it’s something that we definitely need to talk about more educate voters more. Um, it’s a huge problem. It’s one that I believe is very difficult to solve because, one, where are we going to get all that money? It’s unfunded. I mean we don’t have the money. And the second problem is, is that we have, um, on the flip side, um, people who have worked hard their whole lives thinking that there was this pension that they could rely on, um, in their later years. And how do we kind of put those two things side by side and come up with a reasonable solution? I mean, it’s a huge undertaking, but it’s something that people really need to think about when they vote for their state legislators because hopefully they’ll be the ones solving the problem. And I think that people need to come to the table with reasonable common sense ideas, not just fighting it from an ideological place on either side.
Q: Which brings me back to immigration. Wouldn’t Republicans be better served if they backed a state initiative that said pensions for new employees can be no more than triple the amount of maximum Social Security or something like that, as opposed to focusing on immigration? Because it seems to me like the only way Republicans get things done is through state initiatives. They managed to get lots of stuff passed over the years. Prop 13, Prop 226, different ones lowering taxes. So I just don’t get, I looked at the GOP and what it does with its time and I don’t get it.
A: Um, well I think that all of those things are items we need, need to consider. Um, and no idea is a bad idea. I can just be a starting place for where you start to find and form your solutions. And, um, you know, I’m a fresh face. I’m, um, a first-time candidate. I think that, as a lifelong Republican, I am loyal to my party. But really you can’t just say that all Republican candidates are one-size-fits-all, nor can you say that about Democrats. And I really hope that I’m able to bring a fresh perspective to, um, this race, to San Diego and to the state of California.
“I’m a fresh face. I’m a first-time candidate ... As a lifelong Republican, I am loyal to my party.”
— June Cutter
Q: We met Maienschein yesterday and talked to him and he said that, uh, “What I did was not a betrayal. I reject Donald Trump and the party that he stands for, and I could no longer affiliate myself with Donald Trump.” He also said that if anybody had been paying attention to him, he’d evolved over the years. What is your take on his decision and do you think it was pure opportunism or do you think the Trump factor is fair to consider?
A: Um, I think that’s an easy talking point for someone in his position to say and use. Um, I think that the, um, his stance on having evolved is disingenuous because if you look at how he was voting, um, immediately, immediately before the 2018 election and how he voted immediately thereafter, after switching parties, it’s a stark contrast. It’s not a slow evolution of someone who has grown or changed in their beliefs. He went from being a moderate Republican to voting to the left of 13 other Democrats in the assembly overnight. I mean, it’s, it’s not an evolution. It was a switch that I think was calculated. Um, I can’t read his mind. I don’t know his true feelings or reasons behind it, but for me, it seemed, um, like a political opportunity had presented itself and he took it for self-serving reasons, and that’s how I interpret it as one of his constituents. And seeing that happen in my own assembly district definitely spurred me to examine what’s wrong in Sacramento, what’s wrong in our state government and how we need to change things. Um, if he was really thinking about the people that he represented, he couldn’t be so completely different from who the voters placed into office in November of 2018. The voters relied on him to be a Republican, albeit a moderate one. Um, the people in District 77 did not vote for somebody who is sitting in the assembly voting the way he does on bills right now. And I think that that is, you know, going to be something that he needs to explain because the proof is in the pudding. The votes don’t lie. And it’s not an evolution. It was a stark overnight change.
Q: He told us that only five people asked for their donations back and used that as evidence that the party apparatus is, uh, more upset than the electorate, which he says knows him from his days helping after the fires in 2003 in 2007.
A: Well, um, I think a lot of the reason that only five people asked for their money back is because most of his money comes from corporations and lobbyists up in Sacramento. If you look at his financial reporting, he doesn’t have that many individual donors, and the machine up in Sacramento runs the way that it runs. And of course they’re not gonna ask for their money back. He’s an incumbent and that’s what matters.
Q: What’s your strategy to beat him given the sizable fundraising advantages? I think he has you 10-to-1. He’s collected money over the years. He hasn’t really had a competitive race until the last one.
A: Well, um, I think that the last race really shows, um, how he spends his money and whether, you know, having all that money means winning power. He won by 607 votes against a Democrat who wasn’t supported by local party leadership. And I think that, you know, I always say he’s always going to have more money than me. There’s no doubt about that. I just need enough to beat him. And I think my message is better. I think my likability is higher. I think that honesty shows, um, and that people will see it and trustworthiness shows and people will see it. And I think that I just need enough money to get my name out there and get people to recognize me as a candidate when they come to the polls. And yeah, he could have $1 million over me. But time and time again, he hasn’t used it.
Q: He’s not the only one switching parties though. Obviously, as Chris pointed out, the new registrations for Republicans is way off. The registrations for “decline to state,” essentially, uh, way up. And uh, Republicans are losing seats all up and down the state. Um, so he’s obviously not alone in making this switch. So I’m wondering if you think your district still has, um, Republicans in their, in their, uh, back seat, ready to go and vote, get out there and vote.
A: So District 77 has a very high percentage of no-party-preference voters. It’s actually the top registration in that district. And I think a lot of it, based upon anecdotal experience and just me being out in the community, has to do with the fact that the divisive nature of politics in our state and in our country has kind of turned people off on picking a party. But at the end of the day, we’re all, um, suburban families trying to raise our kids and do the best that we can for them. And we all want common-sense solutions. So regardless of whether I’m running as a Republican or a Democrat, whether my priorities align with the voters of the district I think are the most important. And because I don’t have any personal political aspirations or ambitions, and because I’ve never really thought in my adult life that I’d be running for public office, I’m not choosing a party affiliation based upon what I think would be better to run on. I’m choosing a party affiliation because at the core principle of it all — when you take away all the noise and the divisiveness — because I fundamentally believe that, um, it’s better for the future of our state to have, um, lower taxes and reduce regulations and a free market economy and individual liberty. And those things are what I personally believe in. But I think that we can all find common ground regardless of the letter behind somebody’s name.
Q: Where’s the evidence of that? Seriously, where’s the evidence of that? The Legislature has not adopted a Republican initiative, to my knowledge, in like seven years. And that was a technical one on worker’s comp reform. So ...
A: I mean, I wish more people could see it my way. I really do. And um, I am not naive to the fact that it is, it’s not even a super majority up in Sacramento anymore. Right? It’s like a mega majority. But, um, you have to start somewhere. You have to start with one person who’s willing to stick their neck out and stand up for what they think is right and willing to engage in difficult conversations to try to affect meaningful change in the state. If no one’s going to try, if we all like throw our hands up and give up, then I mean what would happen? Somebody has to say that the time has come. I will make the personal sacrifice. I will do what I think is the right thing to do and I wish more people would run for office with that kind of mindset. Um, I’m hopeful that there are good people out there with the same intentions on both sides, from both parties and um, that us as candidates don’t give up on fighting the good fight because we believe in what’s right.
Q: What are your constituents saying are their top priorities when you go out in the community and talk to them?
A: Um, I definitely think that um, they are saying cost of living, affordability, traffic is a big issue. Um, we’re a suburban district and most people commute. And education. Education is something that we talk about a lot.
Q: What are your thoughts then on housing and homelessness, which is a bigger problem than it’s ever been?
A: With regards to homelessness? I think that housing is only a piece of the problem. There are, um, different reasons for, um, different, um, people being homeless. One size does not fit all. You’re not going to just build a bunch of housing and say, OK, we solved the homeless crisis. We have to really go to the root of the problem and why people are living on the streets. And it’s not always the same. There’s definitely the group of people who have come upon hard times and housing and affordability are the issues for their homelessness. But we have, um, drug use is a problem and mental health issues is a problem that we can’t just stick a Band-Aid on that with some temporary housing and think that it’s going to solve itself. We really need to be mindful of the root causes of homelessness and be willing to address those issues. Um, and with regards to housing, I know that’s like such a huge issue here in California. And even though, um, I am staunchly a supporter of limited government and local control, I think housing has gotten to a point where we really need to start talking about it on a state level and say, OK, how are we going to get more housing built in California? And I would, you know, I would say I’m more of a, um, YIMBY than I am a NIMBY, but, um, there ... like everything else, it isn’t one size fits all. A solution that fits into one community isn’t going to fit into all communities necessarily. But people have to be willing and open-minded to think about housing and the fact that people are, um, people want to live here and we have to find places for them to live.
Q: So on the one hand, you said there’s gotta be some kind of local control. But on the other hand, you said you’re open to the state edicts, so what would you say about things like Senate bill 50, which were required local communities to accept four- to five-story condo buildings in areas near mass transit and workplace centers?
A: Right. In general, I, um, you know, believe that if we could, housing should stay a local issue. SB 50, I understand why it was proposed, what the reasoning behind it is, but I think it’s one of those things that is an idea that needs to be kind of hashed out and, um, discussed further and amended because as it stands now, it’s not the right fit for the housing problem. But it really is about, um, kind of coming to a more compromised solution to local control versus when is local control so restrictive that it’s impacting the whole state on the housing issue?
Q: Why isn’t that idea of building more housing near transit and building out near transit a viable option?
A: I think it is a viable option. It just think that it needs to be worked through more to make sure that, um, all of the concerns are being addressed in a reasonable manner and that we are making sure that it’s done in, uh, in the right way. I just think just blanketly saying, “OK, there’s housing near transit, everybody go,” isn’t, isn’t gonna work without, you know, the proper, um, exceptions and guidelines. And all those things that we really need to think about because one size doesn’t fit all.
Q: What would make it more appetizing to you, that concept specifically?
A: I think that there are certain areas where it wouldn’t work and we have to discuss how we identify the areas where it is going to work and where it’s not. Because in general as a concept, um, housing near transit is not something that I’m necessarily opposed to. But I hear the voices of concern from various communities and I, I mean, just based upon like my own observations, I can see where it works and where I can see where it doesn’t and how do we as a state statewide make those determinations in a piece of legislation. It’s going to take a lot more work than Senate Bill 50 is at right now.
Q: But last year, early last year, state housing officials said 97% of the cities in California were not compliant with state guidelines on how much housing to build. So to say, we can work this out if we’re reasonable. Once again, where’s evidence?
A: So pessimistic. Um, I’m looking at this definitely through a lens of optimism. I think that people need to be willing to kind of be more malleable to ideas and, um, hopefully with the right encouragement, people will be willing to come to the table and compromise rather than being staunchly stuck in one position. Um, I know that it’s not simple. I know that there are a lot of outside factors that influence how legislators vote, but I remain hopeful that we can continue to find pragmatic solutions, um, that work for communities across the state.
Q: One note of optimism I’ll offer here: The northwest corner of Mira Mesa Boulevard and Interstate 15, just north of the Best Buy. I’ve watched the fascination as that massive apartment complex has gone up there. It’s like eight buildings now. And I used to live in the PQ and I knew people there who were terrified and thought, oh, it’s going to have a horrible impact. But they’re not complaining anymore. So it almost feels like that’s an example of, you know, a thousand units, 2,000 units or more being added without negative effects. So that seems to offer a promise. Do you know the place I’m talking about?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: [Crosstalk] Just off the freeway. It used to be an empty lot and now it’s massive.
A: Yup. Um, I would agree with you and, um, I’m glad it’s there providing housing for the community.
Q: The exact opposite are the housing complexes that are sticking out in the back country, the big complaint being that they’re in fire-hazard zones and they’re too far from the freeway. Is that the kind of housing you would support?
A: No, but um, you know, I think that there’s valid concerns out there, but also you can’t just say, OK, so it’s not going to work, in the whole back country we shouldn’t build anymore. I think we can talk about why it’s not working, how we can make it work better, how we can, um, use that area to create housing options, um, which are good for the county as a whole. And I mean, not everywhere are we going to go and find that perfect parcel of land right next to the freeway that’s empty. That doesn’t have anything else around it where we can build like a thousand-unit apartment building. Um, if only it were that easy. Right? And it’s not an easy solution, but I don’t think we should just immediately say, no, that’s not going to work. Let’s talk through how we can make that work. Because especially here in San Diego, we have a huge house housing shortage. We have people, you know, with horrible commute times and, um, we have police officers who drive two hours to work because they can’t have, they can’t find affordable housing any closer. Um, those are real issues affecting working families and we have to be willing to have an open mind about finding a solution for them.
Q: On transit. Um, experts say that there’s little evidence that Americans will use mass transit at a scale that advocates of transit say. They say that, uh, we’ve got ... we’ve had stories in the Times and the U-T that says ridership is down in 17 of the 20 largest cities in America. So on the one hand we have climate change, we’ve gotta do something about that. On the other hand, we have this need to get people to and from work and play. What do you think of the state’s approach on transit and locally the conviction of San Diego that we can make people take bikes, we can get them onto the bus. Where’s the evidence? [Crosstalk]
A: Definitely not riding your bike to work today. Um, but I think that the major problem I see is that people aren’t using transit right now and yet we’re trying to create a system based upon a much greater percentage of usage and we’re trying to like kind of take this blanket solution and put it over the whole entire county with the hopes that it’s going to work. The more pragmatic, reasonable approach would be to try to grow transit slowly and encourage use of transit as it grows. We can’t just drop a transit system in a region that’s not used to taking transit, with a reluctancy to use transit, and spend all those resources on doing it with the hope — fingers crossed — that it’s going to work. Um, I mean, I just don’t think that that would happen. As you know, a private sector, real-life kind of real-world business solution, and we shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars on a hope and you know, fingers crossed that it’s going to work eventually, and spend all these resources on something that’s never going to be used. I would love to encourage people to use transit and reduce their commute times and make their lives a little easier in getting to and from work, but it’s not an overnight process. It’s not like an immediate snap-your-fingers solution. And I think that growing the mentality of transit along with a transit system is probably a better idea.
Q: One of the reasons behind the push for transit is that in a lot of these cities and counties there’s a legally enforceable climate action plans that require government agencies to beat their benchmarks, which require you to get cars off the road. So what, what’s your thought on climate change and how do you do see that as a, as a threat and how would you, if so, how would you correct it?
A: Well, um, climate change is definitely something that the vast majority of Californians are concerned with. And I think that the vast majority of California residents are willing to work towards, um, making things better. Everybody wants clean air, everybody wants clean water. Everyone wants a great future for their kids and grandkids and future generations. Um, my problem with it is, is that when you burden people with regulations rather than, um, giving people incentives to do better, I don’t think it works as well. I definitely, with regards to, um, the environment and climate change and the issues related to that topic, I believe that the carrot works a lot better than the stick. I mean, we have solar at our house. My husband drives an electric car and it’s because we were incentivized to do so on top of the fact that we care about our environment. And I think that’s a much better way to go about solving the problem than to do something like, um, mandating solar on every new build. So the cost of housing in an already dire housing crisis goes up. Um, it kind of seems like an idea is thrown out and it seems good to somebody at first, but then the next 10 steps that trickle down from that idea haven’t been considered. And I think that has to do with a lot of, you know, people who haven’t worked in the private sector or people who like don’t really think about the economic consequences that come after legislative decisions are made. And yeah, it’d be great if every house had solar. How are we gonna make that happen by forcing people to pay more for their houses? It, it really is, in my opinion, better driven by incentives than it is by regulations.
Q: An example of what you’re talking about is now the folding all across the state with natural gas. City councils banning the use of natural gas in construction without any consideration of the cost or the fact that natural gas isn’t nearly as bad as oil. So what would you say, what would you say to ... there’s actually proposals to take this to the Legislature and make this the new norm for California, that homes can’t be built if they’re hooked up to fossil fuels.
A: Well, um, like you said, you know, it’s not necessarily better and it’s definitely more costly. And what is more important to the average Californian? The fact that we’re not using fossil fuels or the fact that they can afford a house? And I think that there has to be a little bit of give and take a little bit of prioritization and it’s not a perfect world. Sometimes you have to choose. And at this point, I think that most Californians would choose to put a roof over their neighbor’s heads.
Q: The governor had a very busy agenda and he’s been shooting in a lot of different directions. Uh, what do you think of, uh, the decisions he’s made so far? Uh, some of the major ones.
A: Um, well I would have to say that I don’t agree with most of his decisions. Um, I think that he has, um, aimed much more progressively than, um, he talked about during his campaign. And I think that a lot of times the decisions he’s made has gone against the will of the voters. And, um, he’s kind of ruling Sacramento like an oligarch, you know, with his small ruling party. And I don’t think that that is what, um, is good for California.
Q: Can you name one particular issue that you disagree with the most and maybe one that would agree with?
A: Um, I guess my personal beliefs aside, the voters, um, wanted to keep the death penalty and he put a moratorium on it single-handedly. And regardless of how I feel about it, it is the will of the voters versus the will of the governor. And I don’t think he’s put there to make decisions for the voters. He’s put there to effectuate what the voters want. Um, I think similarly, um, he’s done the same thing with, um, a lot of other policies he’s implemented. And I think that the legislature oftentimes does the same thing, too. For me it just seems wrong that the voters of California would say what their will is and for one person to completely contradict that based upon his own personal beliefs.
Q: What do you think about the recall and that the state GOP is just kinda like in support of that? Is that something that you think is a good idea?
A: Not necessarily, but I mean I understand where the state party is coming from. But I think that with a lot of things, um, it creates more noise than it does good. And elections are there for a reason and if you don’t like him, vote him out next time.
Q: The editorial board supported the increased gas tax, but not for the necessarily the reasons anybody else did. One of our main reasons was, well, at least they’re committed to using roads. And I still think that’s an interesting perspective, as opposed to, oh, we just badly needed it for our infrastructure because we’ve siphoned away the gas tax once in the past. What was your take on the gas-tax vote that ended up costing a Democratic state senator his job in Orange County?
A: Um, well I personally oppose the gas tax. But that’s because I am fearful that all taxes do get diverted to pay off this huge pension liability that looms over the heads of, um, the government in Sacramento. Um, I don’t support any new taxes because I am so, I guess, suspicious of the purpose. Um, and I think another example of the governor, um, and decisions that he’s made that I don’t support is pretty much siphoning away taxes that are constitutionally designated for the repair of roads and not necessarily using it for the purpose that it was intended. So if Sacramento is demonstrating to us that they aren’t going to keep their word about where those tax dollars are going to be spent, then how can taxpayers agree to an increase in any kind of tax?
“I don’t support any new taxes because I am so, I guess, suspicious of the purpose.”
— June Cutter
Q: Do you have a position on split rolls?
A: I am against split roll. I think the preservation of Prop 13 is one of the things that holds up our state’s economy. And if we start taking stabs at it like that, then it’s just a downward spiral.
Q: As a minority candidate, I’d be interested get your take on the proposals to have diversity taught as some kind of formal class in school. Because the initial recommendations were wildly controversial and were immediately withdrawn. But honestly, in a kind of a zero-sum society where if you praise one group, the other group says, that’s bad. How can we ever come up with something that pleases everybody?
A: Oh, I think it’s one of those situations where, as an attorney we walk into mediation and we say it’s a good result if both people walk out unhappy. Um, I don’t know how you will create something that is palatable to everyone on an issue such as diversity. Um, I don’t necessarily know, um, if it should be a part of required curriculum. It definitely shouldn’t be part of the required curriculum as it was presented this past legislative session. Um, and if there was a way that we could present diversity to our school children without putting a political spin on it, if it wasn’t biased, then I would be open to it. But right now that hasn’t happened. And really as what 47th in the nation in education, maybe we should talk to our kids about reading and writing and basic skills and then we can talk about diversity and all the additional things that I hope that parents are taking a hand in with their children regardless of government saying they have to or not.
Q: Yeah in 1996 Bill Clinton said that computer science should be in middle schools and 20 years later, California still doesn’t have it as a high school mandate.
A: Well, that’s a shame.
Q: Do you think of ... the recreational marijuana rollout, and what legislation would you support or ideas do you have to improve what’s been a pretty rocky roll-out?
A: Well, I’m afraid that we can’t un-ring the bell, so now we’re in a situation where we have to deal with, um, how do we make the best of the situation? And I think that it is an industry that for very long operated, um, kind of illegally or, you know, outside the law. And now we’re trying to bring this industry within the confines of the law. And I think there’s definite growing pains associated with that. Um, I have my concerns of where the cannabis industry is going and what we as a state government can do to ensure that, um, it doesn’t go haywire for the sake of, you know, the public and safety issues. But, um, I think it’s going to be a tough topic and I think it’s going to see some, um, ups and downs and we’re going to see some problems that we probably didn’t expect coming out of the cannabis industry, and we need to be prepared for all of those things. Um, but it’s so new and, um, I think the problems are still kind of probably in a development stage and um, we’ll have to see how it all transpires. But, um, I’m not blanket for or against it. It’s just seems like an unknown.
Q: So you think that problems will get worse then? You think that the situation is going to worsen?
A: Um, yeah, I mean I wouldn’t be surprised if it got worse before it got better.
Q: What does that look like? What does worse look like to you? What would happen?
A: Um, I think we have a big problem with um, regulating the industry, um, with people who are still operating illegally. Um, and with just the general sentiment of surrounding the use of cannabis. Um, as an employment attorney myself, I have personally seen my clients deal with um, cannabis being brought into the workplace. And how do you deal with that, and how do even ... you say your employees can’t come to work drunk, but now you have to deal with what are we going to do if our employees come to work under the influence of cannabis and how does that get proven? How does that get handled? I think there’s so many different things that are going to kind of trickle down from the legalization of cannabis that, gosh, we can’t anticipate at all at this point.
Q: I had a conversation with a bud taker at a casino while playing blackjack and he was joking about all the euphemisms that the industry uses. And they said that products that are called for day use, that’s a euphemism for products that they think you can use at work and get away with.
A: Oh fantastic.
Q: That’s kind of shocking. Like the industry is built, it’s predicated on the idea that we’re putting out these products that we’re — wink, wink — telling you you can use and you won’t get high enough that it’ll be noticeable at work. Pretty wild.
A: Right. And I mean, as I’m driving from North County to downtown San Diego, there’s a giant billboard for seltzer water that now has cannabis in it. But are you allowed to drink that at work? Do you drink it while, you know, you’re just hanging out during the middle of the day? In public? I mean you can’t drink in public. Can you drink seltzer water ...
Q: And there is no accurate tests that can readily determine THC intoxication for drivers.
A: Right. So how are we going to handle all of that? It’s, it’s definitely going to be major growing pains.
Q: Any other questions? Go ahead and give us your closing elevator pitch.
A: Well, I guess my closing elevator pitch would be that, um, I hope you keep a close eye on my race. I think it is interesting, not only because of the decisions of the incumbent and the changing demographics of the district, but because of who I am as a candidate. Somebody who doesn’t really, you know, never really thought that they would have a career in politics. Somebody who is a true outsider to the political world and someone who’s, you know, the “every mom” in District 77 who wants the best for her neighbors’ families, the families of California, as she does for her own family. And I think that fresh take on what’s right for the voters, um, will be interesting to watch. I’m hopeful that we make a tremendous impact, um, not only by winning the election in the district, but by taking a seat in Sacramento with someone who wants to be reasonable. And hopefully you all find it interesting, too.
Get Weekend Opinion on Sundays and Reader Opinion on Mondays
Editorials, commentary and more delivered Sunday morning, and Reader Reaction on Mondays.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.