Telepeer

Kristina Irwin, SD-24 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

May 6, 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: Kristina Irwin

Current job title: Real Estate Agent

Political party affiliation: Republican

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: None

City where you reside: Los Angeles

Campaign website or social media: kristinairwin.com

Do you believe balancing the state budget should rely more on spending cuts, new revenue streams or a combination? Tell us how you would propose tackling California’s projected budget deficit. (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Californians already pay too much in taxes to be facing ongoing budget deficits. The problem is not a lack of revenue; it is a lack of accountability in how those dollars are spent. Our state should be focused on core responsibilities: maintaining safe communities, investing in reliable infrastructure, and delivering effective, targeted social programs.

As State Senator, the first action I would call for is a comprehensive, independent audit of the state budget to ensure taxpayer funds are being used efficiently and as intended. Any waste, fraud, or ineffective spending identified must be immediately addressed. After the audit comes back, I would then propose redirecting those funds to prioritized areas of spend.

Those priorities should include strengthening public safety, investing in infrastructure such as roads and transportation, and supporting results-driven social programs. I also support expanding partnerships with local nonprofits and community-based organizations by further establishing competitive grant funding. These organizations are often closest to the challenges we face, especially in areas like homelessness and mental health, and are best positioned to deliver results for their communities.

For you, what’s a non-starter when talking about budget cuts? Why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

A non-starter for me when it comes to budget cuts is funding for public safety. Voters made their expectations clear through Proposition 36: we must fully support local law enforcement and ensure our laws are enforced.

Safe communities are the foundation of a functioning society, and I will always back our police by ensuring they have the resources and tools needed to protect the public.

I would also oppose cuts to programs that combat homelessness and address the mental health crisis. These are complex, interconnected challenges that require consistent investment and long-term solutions. Reducing funding in these areas would only worsen outcomes, placing greater strain on emergency services, public safety systems, and local communities.

Ensuring people have access to mental health care, treatment, and supportive housing is not only compassionate, it is also fiscally responsible. When we invest in effective solutions upfront, we reduce long-term costs across healthcare, law enforcement, and social services.

What are the top three most pressing issues facing the state, and what would you propose, as a state legislator, to address them? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Affordability. Californians are being priced out of their own state. We must provide immediate relief by cutting taxes, starting with the gas tax, to lower everyday costs. At the same time, we should increase competition in our markets, reduce regulatory barriers, incentivize job growth, and expand pathways to homeownership so the next generation can build a future here.

Rebuilding and modernizing our infrastructure. Communities impacted by recent fires and disasters are still struggling to rebuild due to slow and overly complex permitting processes. As the next State Senator, I would work to streamline approvals, cut unnecessary red tape, and expedite rebuilding efforts at both the state and local levels. We must also invest in maintaining and upgrading roads, utilities, and public works to reflect the needs of a growing state.

Restore balance and trust in our education system. Students deserve an education that is rooted in facts, critical thinking, and transparency, not political bias. I would support policies that ensure curriculum accountability, encourage parent-teacher collaboration, and prioritize student success both inside and outside the classroom. This also includes promoting charter schools and providing resources for parents to have the option of homeschooling.

What specific policy would you champion in the statehouse to improve the cost of living for residents? Would you see this having an immediate impact on Californians or would it take some time? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

On day one as the next State Senator, I will call to repeal the gas tax. Californians face some of the highest fuel costs in the nation, and the gas tax places an additional burden on working families who rely on their cars every day. Repealing it would provide direct, immediate relief by lowering the cost of transportation, groceries, and other essential goods.

In addition, I would support policies that increase in-state energy production and refining capacity. California has significant natural resources, yet we rely heavily on imported energy, which drives up costs and strains the environment more due to emissions from transporting the oil in. Expanding responsible, in-state production and streamlining refinery operations would help stabilize supply and reduce price volatility.

The impact of repealing the gas tax would be felt almost immediately, putting money back into the pockets of Californians.

Expanding energy production would take more time, but it would create long-term affordability and energy independence for the state.

There have been numerous efforts made in the state legislature to curtail federal immigration enforcement in California, from prohibitions on agents wearing masks to banning federal officers from future employment in a public agency. Do you see any area where the state could better protect its residents from the federal government’s widespread immigration crackdown? Would you prefer the state work more hand-in-hand with the federal government on immigration? Where does the role as a state legislator fall into your beliefs here? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I believe the state’s primary responsibility is to protect the safety of its citizens. California’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, particularly when it comes to individuals convicted of violent crimes, which has created unnecessary risks for our communities.

If we want to reduce federal enforcement actions in neighborhoods and public spaces, the state should work more cooperatively with federal authorities in controlled settings, such as within our prison system. Allowing federal agents to take custody of individuals convicted of violent offenses before they are released helps keep dangerous individuals off our streets and reduces the need for broader enforcement actions. Getting violent criminals off our streets saves lives.

As an immigrant myself, I am eternally grateful for what this country provides. But our country depends on a fair and lawful immigration system. It is not fair to those who follow the legal process to allow others to bypass it. We should be working to streamline and improve the legal immigration system, including making the path to citizenship more efficient and ensuring legitimate asylum claims are handled properly.

As a state senator, my role is to balance compassion with accountability, supporting legal immigration, protecting public safety, and ensuring policies reflect both fairness and the rule of law.

Health care costs — like in many other areas — are continuing to rise. What policies, specifically, would you support or like to champion that could lower premiums or out-of-pocket expenses? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

To lower healthcare costs, we need practical reforms that increase transparency, accountability, and consumer choice.

First, I would prioritize real price transparency. Patients should know the cost of services before receiving care, not weeks later when a bill arrives. Requiring hospitals, providers, and insurers to clearly disclose pricing upfront empowers individuals to make informed decisions and encourages competition that can help drive costs down.

Second, we need stronger oversight of insurance companies and drug pricing. The state should use its negotiating power and incentive structures to hold insurers accountable, increase competition, and reduce prescription drug costs. Lowering administrative costs and ensuring fair pricing practices can directly reduce premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for families. We also need to open insurance across state lines to create more competition. Like all markets, competition leads to lower prices.

Third, I support expanding access to Health Savings Account, particularly for low- and middle-income households. HSAs give individuals more control over their healthcare spending and encourage smarter, more cost-conscious decisions. Paired with more flexible insurance options, this can increase affordability and access.

Finally, long-term cost reduction must include a focus on prevention. Encouraging healthier lifestyles through education and community-based initiatives can reduce chronic disease and overall healthcare spending over time.

Would you support expanding state health care programs to ensure more residents — including those who are not citizens — are covered? How would you propose the state fund such an expansion? Or, how would you propose the people who cannot afford health care still get the necessary care they need without expanding state programs? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

My priority is to ensure that California’s healthcare system is sustainable and serves its citizens. While I believe everyone deserves access to basic, emergency care, I do not support expanding state-funded healthcare programs to cover individuals who are not in the country legally, especially given our current budget challenges.

In a perfect world, we would have unlimited resources. But in reality, we must make responsible decisions about how taxpayer dollars are used. Expanding coverage without a clear funding source risks further straining an already overburdened system.

That said, there are ways to ensure people still receive necessary care without expanding state programs. Federal law already requires emergency rooms to treat individuals regardless of status, and we should continue to uphold that standard.

Additionally, I believe employers should be held accountable for providing healthcare coverage to their workforce. If a business chooses to hire someone, they should take responsibility for that employee’s well-being, just as they would for any other worker.

I would also support community clinics and nonprofit providers that deliver low-cost or charitable care, ensuring that no one is left completely without options.

As part of combating homelessness, elected officials often talk about the need to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place. What policies or programs should the state adopt to make housing more affordable for renters and homeowners? What do you propose the state do to incentivize housing development and expedite such projects? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Preventing homelessness starts with making housing more affordable and accessible. As a real estate professional, I’ve seen firsthand how difficult it is for first-time buyers and working families to achieve homeownership in California. High costs are driven in part by Sacramento overregulation, restrictive mandates, and policies that prioritize high-density development over balanced community growth.

We need to expand housing supply in a way that strengthens communities, including increasing opportunities for single-family homes and starter housing. State mandates should allow more flexibility for local governments to plan development that reflects the needs of their communities, rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions. I would immediately end RENA mandates and work with regional leaders to provide new standards that are actually achievable and maintain a city’s unique charm.

I would also support policies that discourage large institutional investors from monopolizing the housing market and driving up prices. Homeownership should remain attainable for individuals and families, not dominated by corporations.

To incentivize development, we must reduce regulatory burdens, streamline permitting, and lower construction costs. I am a proud supporter of Prop. 13 which allows seniors to stay in their homes and the ability to afford living in their homes on a fixed income. Builders are often discouraged from constructing entry-level homes due to excessive fees, delays, and strict requirements. By simplifying approvals and offering targeted incentives for starter homes, we can encourage more balanced development.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law in 2023 authorizing state energy regulators to penalize oil companies making excessive profits. But the California Energy Commission put off imposing the penalties last year after two oil refineries, which represent nearly a fifth of California’s refining capacity, said they would shut down operations. Those announcements prompted many to be concerned about soaring gas prices. What do you think of the commission’s decision? And how would you, as a state legislator, propose balancing California’s climate goals with protecting consumers from high gas prices at the pump? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Credit to the Energy Commission for not just making the right call but exposing the failure of Sacramento and Gov. Newsom.

Threatening penalties on oil companies while simultaneously relying on them to keep our state running is a reckless policy. It’s no surprise refineries are shutting down when Sacramento continues to treat this industry like the enemy.

California didn’t end up with the highest gas prices in the nation by accident; it’s the result of years of anti-energy, anti-business policies coming out of Sacramento. Punishing companies for being profitable doesn’t help consumers; it drives investment out of the state and reduces supply, which ultimately raises prices at the pump.

As a senator, I would take a different approach. Instead of hostility, we should be partnering with energy producers to stabilize supply, keep refineries operating, and bring jobs back to California. That means rolling back punitive regulations, creating incentives for in-state production, and ensuring our energy policies are grounded in reality.

We can pursue environmental progress without punishing working families. An “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, one that includes responsible use of our natural resources alongside innovation, will protect consumers while allowing us to transition thoughtfully over time.

Californians should not be forced to choose between affordability and environmental goals. Right now, under Newsom’s leadership, they’re getting neither. I will fight to lower costs, restore balance, and put working families first

In 2024, voters approved Proposition 36 to increase penalties for certain drug and retail theft crimes and make available a drug treatment option for some who plead guilty to felony drug possession. Would you, as a legislator, demand that more funding for behavioral health treatments be included in the budget? How would you ensure that money is used properly? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I unequivocally support fully funding Proposition 36, including expanded behavioral health treatment. Californians voted overwhelmingly for this measure because we demanded a return to accountability, public safety, and real solutions to drug addiction and repeat crime. Whether they like it or not, the Democrats in Sacramento have a responsibility to respect that mandate.

For too long, failed policies have weakened law enforcement and ignored the root causes of crime. Prop. 36 strikes the right balance, holding individuals accountable while offering treatment options for those struggling with addiction. If someone commits a non-violent offense tied to substance abuse, we should intervene with rehabilitation, not just release them back onto the streets.

I would ensure this funding is paired with strict oversight and measurable outcomes. That means auditing programs regularly, tracking success rates like reduced recidivism and recovery outcomes, and holding agencies accountable for how funds are spent. Money should go toward effective partnerships between law enforcement, courts, and licensed treatment providers.

Investing in both enforcement and treatment will ultimately save taxpayer dollars by reducing repeat offenses, lowering incarceration costs, and helping individuals get back on their feet. Prop. 36 is an opportunity to restore law and order while addressing addiction in a meaningful way.

What role should the state play in ensuring hospitals and doctors are providing gender-affirming care to LGBTQ+ residents? Similarly, what role do you believe the state could play should other states adopt policies that restrict that care? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I believe the state should play a limited role when it comes to personal medical decisions made by consenting adults.

Individuals over 18 have the right to make their own healthcare choices, including whether to pursue gender-affirming care, without unnecessary government interference. These decisions should remain between patients and their medical providers.

However, I do not support state involvement in facilitating or expanding these services using taxpayer resources.

When it comes to minors, however, I believe there must be clear boundaries. Children under 18 should not undergo irreversible medical procedures or treatments related to gender transition. These are serious, life-altering decisions that require maturity. I also strongly support parental rights; parents should be fully informed and involved in their child’s health and well-being. Schools and institutions should not withhold critical information from families.

Regarding other states, California’s role should be to respect federalism and focus on governing responsibly within its own borders, rather than intervening in the policies of other states. One of the biggest problems in Sacramento right now is that we have a legislature that would rather go fight interstate wars than fix the issues we have at home.

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. Do you believe it’s the state’s responsibility to regulate social media use? Why or why not? And what specific restrictions or safeguards would you propose as a state lawmaker? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

I don’t believe it is the state’s role to regulate social media use among young people. That responsibility should primarily rest with parents. Families are best positioned to decide what is appropriate for their children based on their values and circumstances.

However, the state can play a role by equipping parents with better tools and information. I would support investing in parent education programs that raise awareness about the mental health risks associated with excessive social media use, including anxiety, unrealistic expectations, and online bullying. Empowering parents with knowledge allows them to make informed decisions and set appropriate boundaries at home.

I also support targeted, common-sense safeguards in specific settings. For example, implementing restrictions on cellphone use during school hours would help students stay focused, improve learning outcomes, and reduce distractions in the classroom. Schools should be environments where students can fully engage without distractions.

Artificial intelligence has become a ubiquitous part of our lives. Yet public concerns remain that there aren’t enough regulations governing when or how AI should be used, and that the technology would replace jobs and leave too many Californians unemployed. How specifically would you balance such concerns with the desire to foster innovation and have California remain a leader in this space? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Artificial intelligence is not something we can stop, and we shouldn’t try to. California’s leadership in innovation depends on allowing emerging technologies like AI to grow and thrive. Overregulation risks driving our top companies and talent out of the state, and we cannot afford to lose another industry.

At the same time, we must be thoughtful about how AI impacts workers and students. Rather than heavy-handed restrictions, I support a balanced approach that protects people while fostering innovation.

First, we should empower industries and workers to adapt. Organized labor, local leaders, and employers should have a seat at the table to help shape how AI is integrated into their fields. Those closest to the work are best positioned to develop practical standards that protect jobs while embracing new technology.

Second, we must invest in workforce retraining and education. AI will change the job market, but it will also create new opportunities. The state should support programs that help workers learn how to use AI tools, transition into new roles, and stay competitive in a changing economy.

Third, I support reasonable safeguards in education. AI should not replace learning. Schools should adopt clear policies to prevent misuse, such as cheating, while still preparing students to responsibly use these tools in the future.

Statistically, violent crime rates in California is on the decline, but still, residents are not feeling safe or at ease in their communities. How do you see your role in the state legislature in addressing the underlying issues that make Californians feel unsafe in their own neighborhoods? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Feeling safe and being safe are not always the same, and both matter. While crime statistics may show improvement, many Californians still do not feel secure in their own neighborhoods. When elected, my role is to restore both public safety and public confidence.

First, I will strongly support law enforcement by ensuring agencies have the staffing, training, and resources they need. In areas like Los Angeles County, gang violence remains a serious concern. Increasing recruitment and supporting specialized units focused on gang intervention and enforcement can help address repeat offenders and organized crime more effectively.

Second, transparency is key. My office would work to ensure communities have clear, accessible information about crime trends and public safety efforts. When residents understand what is happening in their neighborhoods and see progress, it helps rebuild trust.

Third, I believe in strengthening community partnerships. Programs like neighborhood watch, community policing, and local engagement initiatives empower residents to be part of the solution while fostering stronger relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

Finally, we must address underlying issues such as repeat offenses and lack of accountability. Supporting policies that balance enforcement with rehabilitation, especially for non-violent offenders, can reduce long-term crime and improve outcomes.

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

I am a very good dancer! I have won two different dance competitions.

Orange County Register

News Details

Kristina Irwin, SD-24 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS