Telepeer

Elizabeth Fenner, CA-37 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

May 5, 2026

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: Elizabeth Fenner

Current job title: Library Technician

Political party affiliation: Democratic

Age: 61

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: None

City where you reside: Los Angeles

Campaign website or social media: elizabethfenner.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.)

The three big problems that will get worse until we fix them are polarization, global warming, and homelessness.

Polarization has created widespread damage to our ability to find solutions to important issues. I will engage with any colleague working in good faith to pass laws good for constituents and the security of our democracy. I will communicate with all colleagues respectfully and congenially. I will vote to return Congress to regular order, a practice that will empower legislators and committees by promoting bipartisanship, increasing transparency, and allowing in-depth deliberation.

Global warming is a catastrophe, and the deadly, costly storms, floods, heatwaves and fires will keep coming until we deal with it. I will work with scientists, economists, farmers, families and others to craft legislation that reduces greenhouse gas pollution while safeguarding our economy. A stable environment is as necessary as a stable economy; in fact, they are linked. We can have both.

Finally, homelessness hurts Los Angeles acutely, from neighbors and communities to businesses and infrastructure, as well as to the individuals experiencing homelessness. The federal government can help states address poverty, unemployment, health care and mental illness; I will support legislation that helps people. But encampments often degrade and endanger communities, and there needs to be an end date. I will step up to make the federal government prioritize compassionate solutions to homelessness and make reasonable options available. I believe, however, that homeless encampments should not be an option on our city streets.

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.)

Multiple studies have shown that U.S. elections are trustworthy and accurate. The federal government has an interest in upholding voting rights as well as voting accuracy, which are pillars of our democracy. The role the federal government can play? Support voting freedom and ensure accuracy. The high proof-of-identity requirements proposed by the Save Act will restrict many citizens’ right to vote, and be therefore a form of voter intimidation. Voter ID requirements are not the purview of the executive branch, but that of states and of Congress under the Elections Clause, and ID requirements may be an issue Congress raises in the future to ensure fair and accurate elections. For now, the House and Senate are right to hold fast and prevent the SAVE Act from threatening citizens’ ability to cast their votes in 2026.

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.)

I believe the federal government should pass comprehensive immigration reform at the beginning of the 120th Congress, and it is time the Congress asserted its right and ability to pass such legislation. I will prioritize creating a path to citizenship for immigrants and their families who have been part of the labor force, especially those with over 10 years of employment.

The status of Dreamers is a top priority – we owe a pathway of opportunity to young people brought to the States as children who have worked through many challenges and built skills, abilities and character in their time here.

Resolving the status of undocumented long-term residents is my top priority, but other immigration issues also need attention. Our borders must be secure. State, local, and federal law enforcement must address cross-border lawlessness and crime, especially drug and human trafficking and gang violence. I also support more cooperation with Mexico and Central America, and I would look to provide assistance where it is requested and possible, to help people avoid migration on account of fear of violence or poverty.

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.)

In this case of clear discrimination and revenge politics, I support California’s right to sue to recover such funding.

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta is doing just that, suing the Trump Administration to reinstate over $1 billion in funding heretofore provided for disaster prevention. Aside from using our judicial watchdogs to help us collect needed and mandated funding, other sources came forward. Donors in Los Angeles and around the world, including celebrities and athletes, stepped up with nearly $1 billion in donations that went to area non-profits, mostly to aid fire victims and the destroyed communities.

A side note that I think is important: California, while rightly proud of its status as the world’s 4th largest economy, still reported a $12 billion deficit in 2025, which led to a reduced budget, delayed payments and tapping of state reserves. With a topography and agriculture industry vulnerable to the effects of global warming, it would be in the state’s best interest to rebuild reserves and safeguard infrastructure, to ensure we are ready for whatever nature or the Trump administration hits us with.

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.)

I wholeheartedly support a ban on selling individual stocks, agreed to by congressional lawmakers, their families and staff. I will work to include the president and the judicial branch in that ban. It is crucial that legislators and all public servants work with a singular focus on the needs and best interests of their constituents. Trading in individual stocks unavoidably clouds that focus. Legislators and in fact the president should not be able to profit from political connections and insider knowledge of business and industry. Without the assurance of a legal ban, public service pivots away from public trust and toward public exploitation.

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.)

We are addicted to fossil fuels – and we have long known the cost of our addiction, in pollution and respiratory illness, dependence, wars, and military action to protect access to oil. Now more than ever we can see the devastating damage and tragic death from storms, floods, fires and heat waves, and the severity of our dependence when the price of gas climbs.

I will argue vigorously in Congress to prioritize this issue, as the effects get more severe, and we see that a country’s dependence on oil and gas infrastructure has a crippling effect when oil and gas become unavailable. Global warming is a problem best solved collectively, and I look forward to the innovations that even fossil-fuel companies can offer, given the right incentives. Right now, in fact, major oil companies are rapidly developing geothermal energy, which is natural for an industry skilled at drilling deep holes. I will also argue to end the protectionist tariffs against Chinese electric cars, known to be high quality, energy efficient and inexpensive. Have you seen Los Angeles on a clear day? If these cars can give Angelenos an affordable, dependable ride as well as a clear view of the mountains, I want the freedom to buy one.

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 strongly disagree with the current military action against Iran, most especially the absence of communication and consultation with Congress. The cause was just, acting against a brutal regime killing an estimated 30,000 Iranian citizens protesting for their civil rights; the implementation has been short-sighted and reactionary. I support specific military spending, such as re-stocking munitions and repairing equipment in order to maintain defensive readiness.

But I will reject additional funding without Congress getting a seat at the table – demanding consultation and participation at all levels with the president and upper cabinet officials regarding goals, strategies and methods, both short and long term. The cause is too important, the stakes too high to walk away from the ancient country we have now all but broken. The men, women, and children of Iran yearn for freedom from the Iranian regime and the brutal Islamic Revolutionary Guard. The practice of the Trump administration to isolate, ignore, and act around Congress has been a sore disappointment to Congress members of both parties, and I will work closely with all my colleagues to change that, to make forward progress possible and our actions toward people in the world positive and meaningful.

Under what specific circumstances do you believe the U.S. should engage in a war? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I believe the U.S. should engage in war or military action when many conditions have been satisfied: when analysts and intelligence have studied, leaders and legislators concur, and when the military can successfully engage and complete the mission. The specific circumstances that justify war include supporting allies being attacked, stopping or preventing terrorism or murderous criminal behavior, or protecting innocent people from brutal, genocidal dominance or aggression.

War may change the way it looks in this new world of military capability and complexity with drones, electronic warfare, and AI. Ultra-precise striking capability may render certain actions justifiable when intelligence and technology provide greater certainty of a successful outcome. But war’s chaos and unpredictability remain a constant, and military action or war should be avoided if possible, or entered into with deep understanding and sobriety, and a clear and justified outcome and the probability of success.

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.)

Presidents as far back as Harry Truman have used military action without explicit congressional approval – with mixed results. To avert and prevent future increase in un-approved use of military force, Congress must strengthen its role of oversight, to reduce or eliminate the decidedly rogue actions like those used in Venezuela and Iran, which seems to have commenced with no ally agreement, no Congressional communication, no preparation to the American people). I believe that in some very limited circumstances, an immediate threat can be addressed with military action without congressional approval, but solely to save Americans from harm or stop a group from completing an action with clear imminent harm to American lives and the lives of our allies. For now, Congress must enforce and update the 1973 War Powers Resolution, clearly define “hostilities” and “imminent threats” and use their funding power to curb unbridled executive overreach and illegal acts.

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.)

No, I do not believe either Republican-led or Democratic-led Congress has fulfilled that obligation, nor used all the tools available to return the branch to its full authority and accountability to the American people.

The House of Representatives was founded to represent the will of the people, and it was prioritized in the Constitution by being first in the discussion. The people–their rights, their freedoms–come first. Over the past 20 years, Congress has increasingly divested itself from accountability, and has instead purchased incumbent safety.

The U.S. has engaged in military actions every administration, but Congress declined to call that military action a war, in order to dodge accountability for the deaths, costs, and destruction. It has also become a custom to prioritize party and party leadership over constituents, and the attendant consolidation of power keeps incumbents safe, but traps them into an inside-the-beltway game that neglects constituent freedoms, interests and safety.

It must stop. Send me to Congress and I will work tirelessly to actually do what representatives are supposed to do, including acting as a check on the executive branch.

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.)

As a parent and an educator working in an elementary school, I am staunchly committed to protecting children so that they can have a childhood of wonder, exploration and learning, free of exposure to mature, inappropriate and especially dangerous elements in our society.

I support a ban on social media accounts for children under the age of 16. I have followed the recent Australian law with interest, in their effort to reduce social media harm to children. Anxiety, depression, peer pressure, addictive behavior, and predation were all reduced as a result of the ban, and sleep quality, in-person social skills, and enjoyment of hobbies increased. There are many ways besides social media children can fulfill their need to be social, where they can connect and learn about mores, styles and popularity. We owe our children some protection in this rapidly changing world – a social media ban for children under 16 is a no-brainer.

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.)

I have lived in many parts of Los Angeles and visited most of it, and whether as a resident or a visitor, I have felt safe and welcome all over the city–on the bus, the metro, walking, and driving in neighborhoods such as Culver City, South LA, downtown LA, Jefferson Park.

My role in Congress is to know what my constituents want and need – and personal safety is fundamental. Residents must get the assistance of both local and federal officials when they feel unsafe in their communities. While police patrols are under local jurisdiction, a Congress member can certainly prioritize crime and safety with constituents and local government officials and colleagues in Congress.

There are other elements of a community that a Congress member can assist with. Particular elements on city streets can communicate – as they create– a sense of community safety. Open shops. Good lighting. Well maintained streets and sidewalks. Public presence as well as police presence can help create a feeling of safety. Federal funding can be used to improve lighting, sidewalks, and boost commercial building use by small businesses, restaurants and shops. Good lighting and open shops can inspire more residents walking, which makes a neighborhood feel safer, and itself improve business, neighborhood cohesion, and further reduce crime. I absolutely see my role in Congress as doing whatever I can to help create safe and thriving communities throughout the district. I can’t wait to start.

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.)

The founders set elections for every two years – and that means they wanted the role to be active and dynamic. Such a tone has not been present in Congress for a while, as Congress members seem to act like their election was a lifetime appointment. I will work to bring back the dynamism of the House, end party and donor dominance with publicly funded elections, overturn Citizens’ United, scrutinize political action committees, diminish or eliminate the power of special interests, and end Super PACs.

I don’t support term limits, because term limits will not get money or polarization out of politics – and these are the issues that need our focus and energy in the near term. Corporate and special interest donations are our real problem. Congressional influence should come from well-crafted policy that colleagues will cosponsor because it makes good sense for their constituents too.

What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I am a middle child! A natural negotiator, diplomat and peacemaker. I don’t hold on to anger, or hold grudges. I learned the skills and qualities of balance, compromise and partnership as a middle child – and as a moderate in a super-majority-liberal state, the daughter of an artist and an engineer – talents that have served me well. Because it’s true: You can’t fight hate with hate: Only love can do that – with lots of communication, patience, resilience and perseverance.

Orange County Register

News Details

Elizabeth Fenner, CA-37 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS