Telepeer

Pini Herman, CA-30 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: Pini Herman

Current job title: Demographer / Community Organizer

Age: 74

Political party affiliation: Democratic

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: None

City where you reside: Los Angeles

Campaign website or social media: piniforcongress.com

From voter ID to war powers and from immigration to tariffs, Congress has tackled many issues over the past year. What do you, though, see as the top three issues impacting Californians, and what specifically could you do as a lawmaker to address these issues? (Please answer in 250 words or less, and keep your response to future proposals.)

Californians are facing three interconnected challenges: the cost of living, housing access, and a lack of meaningful representation.

First, the rising cost of living—especially food, transportation, and healthcare—is squeezing working families. I would push for targeted tax relief, a public healthcare option to lower costs, and stronger competition policies to bring down prices.

Second, housing is not just unaffordable—it’s inaccessible. Many people who need affordable housing never even see available units. I would expand federal support for housing production, require real transparency in housing programs, and ensure that available units are actually visible and reachable to the people who need them.

Third, and too often ignored, is representation itself. California’s congressional districts are among the largest in the country, a direct result of the House being artificially capped since 1911. That means millions of Californians are effectively underrepresented. I support expanding the House of Representatives so that districts are smaller, more responsive, and less dominated by money and centralized power. If we want government to work, we have to fix how it’s structured.

These challenges are serious, but they are solvable—if we are willing to take on both policy failures and structural barriers at the same time.

Speaking of voter ID, the president has implored Congress to approve legislation that would require people to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. What role do you believe the federal government plays in telling states how to conduct their own elections, as dictated by the U.S. Constitution? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

The Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, but it also grants the federal government authority to set standards—particularly to protect the integrity of elections and the fundamental right to vote. That balance is essential.

The federal government should not micromanage election administration, but it does have a responsibility to ensure that elections are fair, secure, and accessible to all eligible voters. Historically, federal action has been critical in preventing barriers to participation and ensuring equal protection under the law.

On proposals like requiring proof of citizenship, the key question is whether such measures improve integrity without creating unnecessary barriers for eligible voters. Any federal standard should be carefully designed to avoid disenfranchising citizens while maintaining public confidence in the system.

At the same time, representation itself has become strained. Congressional districts are now extremely large, which can distance voters from their representatives and reinforce rigid partisan dynamics. Strengthening trust in elections is not just about rules—it also requires a more responsive and representative system.

In my view, the federal role is to set clear guardrails that protect both access and integrity, while allowing states flexibility in implementation and ensuring that voters remain meaningfully connected to their government.

What, in your opinion, should the federal government focus on when it comes to immigration policy? For example, do you place a priority on border security, visas for high-skilled workers, refuge for asylum seekers, etc., and why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

The federal government should focus on building an immigration system that is fair, functional, and consistent with our values as a nation of immigrants.

First, we must uphold our humanitarian commitments. The United States should be a place of refuge for people fleeing violence, persecution, and instability. That requires an asylum system that is efficient, humane, and accessible—not one that creates unnecessary barriers or leaves people in prolonged uncertainty.

Second, we should recognize the natural and essential role of family reunification in immigration policy. Keeping families together strengthens communities, supports economic stability, and reflects basic human values. Our system should prioritize timely and realistic pathways for families to reunite.

Third, we need a modern and orderly legal immigration system. That means reducing backlogs, expanding pathways for both high-skilled and essential workers, and creating clear, lawful routes that reflect the realities of our economy.

Finally, border management should be effective and realistic—not punitive—while respecting human dignity.

Immigration policy should reflect both our laws and our values, ensuring fairness, compassion, and opportunity.

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.)

Southern California communities cannot wait indefinitely for disaster relief, and I would take an active, multi-pronged approach to securing that funding.

First, I would work to build a bipartisan coalition of members representing disaster-affected districts across the country—wildfires, hurricanes, floods—to apply coordinated pressure for supplemental aid. Disaster recovery should not be partisan, and broad coalitions can move legislation forward.

Second, I would use every available legislative tool to force action, including pushing for standalone votes, attaching disaster funding to must-pass legislation, and working within committees to elevate the issue publicly and procedurally.

Third, I would engage directly with state and local leaders, as well as impacted communities, to document the ongoing impacts and ensure their voices are heard in Washington. Public accountability matters, and sustained visibility can help break political gridlock.

Finally, I would advocate for reforms to make disaster funding more automatic and less subject to delay, so communities are not left waiting in the future.

Rebuilding after disasters is a core responsibility of government. If elected, I would treat it with urgency and use every available avenue to ensure Southern California gets the support it needs.

Do you support a ban or restriction on congressional lawmakers and their families from buying or selling individual stocks? Why or why not? And what would you propose to ensure lawmakers aren’t using their positions to engage in insider trading? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, I support strong restrictions on members of Congress and their immediate families trading individual stocks.

Public service should never be used for personal financial gain, and even the perception of insider trading undermines trust in government.

But this is also part of a broader structural issue. When congressional districts are extremely large, campaigns become more expensive and dependent on major donors, reinforcing a rigid two-party system and weakening accountability.

I support requiring blind trusts or diversified investments, along with stronger enforcement and transparency. At the same time, expanding the House to create smaller, more representative districts would reduce the influence of money in politics and strengthen public trust.

Fixing corruption requires both ethical rules and structural reform.

Do you support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions? If so, how would you ensure those regulations aren’t overly burdensome on small businesses or lower-income families? And if not, how do you propose lawmakers protect the environment and curtail the impacts of climate change? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, I support stronger regulations on pollution and carbon emissions, but they must be designed in a way that is practical and fair.

Climate change is already affecting California through wildfires, heat, and water stress, so reducing emissions and protecting air quality are essential. At the same time, we need to ensure that the transition to a cleaner economy does not disproportionately burden small businesses or lower-income families.

That means pairing regulations with support. I would invest in clean energy infrastructure, expand incentives for energy efficiency, and provide targeted assistance to small businesses to help them adapt without excessive costs. For working families, policies should include rebates, tax credits, and programs that lower energy bills, not raise them.

We should also focus on innovation—supporting new technologies that make clean energy more affordable and scalable, while creating good-paying jobs in the process.

The goal is not just to regulate, but to transition intelligently—reducing emissions while strengthening the economy and making sure no community is left behind.

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 would be cautious about approving additional military funding without a clear and well-defined strategy. If the president cannot clearly articulate the goals, objectives, and expected outcomes of increased spending, Congress has a responsibility to ask hard questions and, if necessary, say no.

The United States should maintain a strong military, but funding decisions must be tied to concrete national security priorities—not vague or undefined objectives. I would require detailed justification for any increase, including how it improves readiness, addresses specific threats, and avoids unnecessary risk.

Oversight is essential. That includes rigorous review, stronger auditing, and ensuring funds are not wasted or misallocated. National security depends not just on how much we spend, but how effectively we use those resources.

A strong defense requires clarity, accountability, and discipline—not open-ended commitments without a clear purpose.

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

The United States should engage in war only under clear, limited circumstances: when there is a direct threat to our national security, when treaty obligations require us to defend allies, or in response to severe humanitarian crises—and only with a defined strategy and lawful authorization.

Congress must play a central role. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, and that responsibility should not be bypassed. Any sustained military engagement should require explicit congressional authorization, clear objectives, defined limits, and ongoing oversight.

War should always be a last resort. It must be based on a clear articulation of goals, an understanding of risks, and a realistic exit strategy. Too often, conflicts have expanded without sufficient accountability or clarity.

Reasserting Congress’s role is essential to preventing open-ended or undefined military commitments. Decisions of this magnitude should reflect both national consensus and constitutional process.

War carries profound human and strategic consequences. It should only be undertaken with necessity, clarity, and full democratic accountability.

Do you believe a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas? Why, or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Yes, a president should seek congressional approval before engaging in military action overseas, except in truly immediate situations of self-defense.

The Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the authority to declare war. That responsibility should not be bypassed. However, Congress has too often failed to assert this role consistently.

Part of the problem is structural. Congressional districts are now so large that representation is less responsive, and partisan dynamics often outweigh institutional responsibility. This makes it harder for Congress to act as an independent check.

Any sustained military engagement should require clear congressional authorization, defined objectives, and ongoing oversight. Reasserting Congress’s role is essential to preventing open-ended conflicts and restoring accountability.

Congress, in theory, is supposed to serve as a check on the president through budgetary, legislative and oversight powers. Do you believe Congress has fulfilled that obligation during the past two administrations, with one being a Democrat and the other a Republican? Why or why not? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)

Congress has not consistently fulfilled its role as a check on the executive branch under either recent administration. Too often, oversight has been inconsistent and shaped by partisan alignment rather than institutional responsibility.

One underlying problem is structural. The House of Representatives has been effectively frozen at 435 members since 1911, despite massive population growth. As a result, congressional districts are now extremely large, making representation less responsive and concentrating political power. This has contributed to a rigid two-party dynamic, where competition is limited and incentives for independent oversight are weakened, reducing Congress’s ability to function as a true check on the executive.

Importantly, this is not a constitutional limitation—it is a statutory cap. Congress can change it by law. Expanding the House to better reflect today’s population would bring representation closer to the constitutional vision of smaller districts, reduce the influence of money in politics, and strengthen Congress’s institutional capacity.

Reasserting Congress’s role requires not only political will, but structural reform. A more representative and responsive House would be better equipped to provide consistent oversight, exercise its constitutional powers, and restore balance between the branches of government.

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.)

I believe Congress should take targeted steps to protect young people online, but broad age bans are likely to be ineffective and difficult to enforce.

There are legitimate concerns about the impact of social media on mental health, privacy, and exposure to harmful content. However, outright bans risk driving use underground, raising enforcement challenges, and limiting access to beneficial forms of connection and information.

Instead, I would support focused, practical protections. These include stronger privacy safeguards for minors, limits on data collection and targeted advertising, and requirements for platforms to design age-appropriate experiences. Congress should also require greater transparency around algorithms that promote harmful or addictive content, and hold companies accountable for failing to address known risks.

Parental tools and digital literacy education should also be strengthened, so families have more control and young people are better equipped to navigate online spaces safely.

The goal should be to reduce harm without cutting off access entirely. That means setting clear standards for platforms, prioritizing child safety, and ensuring that technology works in the interest of young people and their well-being.

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.)

Even as crime rates decline, people’s sense of safety is shaped by everyday experiences—visible disorder, housing instability, and a lack of trust that systems are working. Addressing that gap requires more than statistics; it requires improving conditions people actually see and feel.

In Congress, my role would be to support policies that strengthen both safety and stability. That includes investing in mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and housing solutions that reduce the conditions that often contribute to disorder in communities.

I would also support resources for local governments to improve coordination between outreach, public health, and public safety agencies, so responses are more effective and consistent. When systems are fragmented, problems persist even when funding exists.

At the same time, economic pressure plays a major role. When people are struggling with housing, healthcare, and basic costs, communities feel less stable. Policies that improve affordability and economic security are also part of improving public safety.

Finally, rebuilding trust is essential. People need to see that government is responsive and accountable. That means supporting transparency, measurable outcomes, and ensuring that federal resources actually translate into visible improvements at the local level.

Public safety is not just about reducing crime—it’s about creating communities where people feel secure in their daily lives.

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.)

I understand the appeal of term limits, especially given public frustration with Congress. However, I do not believe term limits alone will fix the underlying problems. In fact, they can reduce experience and shift influence toward unelected actors like lobbyists and staff.

The deeper issue is structural. Congressional districts are now extremely large due to the House being capped at 435 members since 1911. This makes elections more expensive, limits competition, and reinforces a rigid two-party system. When districts are less responsive, voters feel disconnected, and accountability weakens.

Rather than imposing strict term limits, I would focus on reforms that make Congress more representative and competitive. Expanding the House would create smaller districts, increase voter access to candidates, and reduce the dominance of money in politics. That would naturally increase turnover and responsiveness without arbitrarily limiting service.

I do support additional reforms such as stronger ethics rules, transparency, and restrictions on the revolving door between Congress and lobbying.

Ultimately, the goal should be a Congress that is accountable, effective, and truly representative. Structural reforms that strengthen democracy will do more to achieve that than term limits alone.

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

One hidden talent I have is connecting the dots between things that don’t seem obviously related at first. I tend to approach issues with the curiosity of a researcher, especially when they involve practical, real-world problems. I listen to different perspectives, take in a lot of information, and look for the underlying pattern that explains what’s really going on.

Sometimes that shows up in unexpected ways. For example, what sounds like a straightforward issue—like housing affordability—often turns out to also be a visibility and access problem. In looking at local data, I found that many people who qualify for affordable housing aren’t provided with readily available listings, and in many cases, existing built affordable housing is not being fully utilized for its intended purpose. That points to a gap not just in supply, but in how people connect to what already exists. That insight shifts the focus toward practical fixes—like improving transparency, outreach, and matching systems—so existing affordable housing is actually used.

It’s not the most dramatic talent—I’m not going to juggle or play the piano—but it’s been surprisingly useful. It helps me make sense of complex situations, bring different viewpoints together, and turn curiosity into practical, real-world solutions.

Orange County Register

News Details

Pini Herman, CA-30 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS