CONTACT US

Contact Form

    News Details

    Sara Deen, AD-66 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: Sara Deen

    Current job title: School Boardmember / Small Business Owner

    Political party affiliation: Democratic

    Incumbent: No

    Other political positions held: Palos Verdes Peninsula School Board President; SoCal ROC Board Member

    City where you reside: Rancho Palos Verdes

    Campaign website or social media: saradeenforca.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.)

    As school board president, I’ve seen firsthand how state budget decisions ripple into classrooms, affecting students, teachers, and families. Managing our school district budget has taught me that every dollar carries real responsibility. That’s the experience, fiscal discipline and accountability I’ll bring to the Assembly.

    Balancing the budget isn’t about false choices. We can be responsible without asking more from families already working hard to get by.

    On spending: We owe people honesty, rigor and results. That means auditing state programs, cutting what doesn’t work, and demanding results from what does. I’ve done this on the school board—funding what delivers for students and holding the line on everything else. At the state level, we must protect what matters most—public safety, health, education, infrastructure—while ending waste.

    On revenue: Growth should work for us. By using state assets wisely, investing in clean energy, technology, and tourism, and improving how we collect what’s already owed, we can strengthen our budget without raising taxes. Closing unfair tax loopholes and stopping fraud isn’t just smart—it’s fair.

    And when new revenue is truly needed, trust must be earned. In 2024, before asking voters to approve a school bond, we proved the need, exhausted every option, and were transparent. The community said yes because we respected them enough to do the work first.

    California doesn’t have to choose between cuts and higher taxes. My approach will include fiscal discipline, economic growth, and the political courage to innovate.

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

    Some budget cuts are off the table — and I’ll be direct about which ones and why.

    Public education is one of them. Our kids only get one shot at an education, and we can’t shortchange that. Proposition 98, our education funding law, exists to protect school funding and we must honor it. As enrollment drops and funding shifts, schools need more flexibility, not more red tape. That means raising the base funding so schools can meet students where they are. But protection doesn’t mean a blank check—every dollar should make a real difference for students. And decisions about education should be guided by educators, not politics, if we want schools to truly prepare students for tomorrow’s jobs and industries.

    The same goes for promises we’ve made to voters. When people vote to fund something, it’s a commitment. In 2024, Californians passed Proposition 35, the Medi-Cal funding law, to strengthen healthcare. That money must go exactly where voters intended—and we should track the results. Using those funds to patch budget holes isn’t just wrong—it breaks trust.

    The bottom line is simple: we protect what matters most—our students, our health, and the public’s trust. But protection also means responsibility. We owe people both.

    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.)

    It is clear from my conversations and work in the community that the top three priorities facing the state, and our region, include affordability, health care, and education.

    Affordability: Everyday costs are rising—from gas and groceries to utilities and housing—making it harder for families and pushing more people toward homelessness. Let’s tackle rising costs by ensuring accountability in the utility and insurance industries while streamlining permitting and reducing unnecessary red tape to make it easier and more affordable to start a business or build in our communities, while maintaining strong environmental and safety protections.

    Healthcare Access: As a family dentist and healthcare small business owner, I’ve seen firsthand how insurance companies deny care while raising rates. Rising healthcare costs also strain small businesses and local governments trying to provide coverage for their employees. Let’s expand access to quality, affordable healthcare, including mental health and substance abuse treatment, removing barriers to care, and pursue real solutions that put patients first so every Californian can get the care they deserve.

    Quality Education: As school board president, I’ve worked to strengthen neighborhood public schools, ensure safe learning environments, retain great teachers, and expand affordable pathways to college and future-ready careers. Serving on the SoCal ROC Board, I’ve focused on delivering high-quality Career Technical Education programs that lead to good-paying jobs in the South Bay. Let’s make sure every student, teacher, and school has the tools and support they need to thrive.

    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.)

    The cost of living is crushing too many families — and we have to go straight at what’s driving it: housing, transportation, utilities, and everyday essentials. That means real relief now, and real fixes for the future.

    Housing comes first. If people can’t afford a place to live, nothing else works. We need to build more homes, cut red tape, and make it easier to get projects done — without sacrificing safety or the character of our communities. Growth should make sense: every neighborhood is different, and our approach should respect that. We can also help seniors stay in their homes or move into housing that fits their needs, while opening up space for young families. And we should let communities work together to meet housing goals, instead of forcing one-size-fits-all solutions. These changes will take time, but they matter.

    Transportation and energy costs are stretching families thin. People shouldn’t have to choose between getting to work and paying their bills. We need clean, safe, and reliable transit, and we need to hold utility companies accountable so families aren’t paying more while corporations profit.

    And it’s the everyday costs that add up — childcare, healthcare, groceries. Expanding access and lowering these costs would give families room to breathe.

    This isn’t just about policy — it’s about people. We need urgency, and we need long-term change. I’m committed to both.

    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.)

    As a school board president, I’ve seen what happens when fear enters a school community. When immigration enforcement occurs near schools or hospitals, students miss class and families delay care — regardless of immigration status.

    Every child has a constitutional right to public education. Practices that discourage attendance undermine that guarantee and harm entire communities.

    It’s also important to distinguish between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. Local agencies are most effective when they are seen as protective, collaborative, and accountable to the communities they serve. In contrast, ICE enforcement actions are often perceived as escalatory and disruptive, eroding trust and making families less likely to seek help or report crimes.

    California has taken important steps to protect the constitutional rights of residents and for public safety by regulating cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and requiring verification of legal authority before access to sensitive locations is granted. I support efforts to strengthen accountability when constitutional rights are violated and to prevent the use of state-controlled property for enforcement staging.

    But we must go further. A fair immigration process must come first — with clear pathways to legal status, due process, and adequately resourced courts. Only then can enforcement be truly fair and humane.

    A comprehensive “sensitive locations” framework covering schools, healthcare settings, and other essential community spaces would help ensure consistent protections.We can uphold public safety without compromising access to education, care, or dignity.

    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.)

    Before I ran for school board, I fought for healthcare for all Californians because, as a dentist, I made a promise: patients come first. But today, that’s not the reality. Your zip code and income still decide how healthy you’ll be — and that’s unacceptable.

    Our system is too complicated and fragmented. People wait too long for care, get denied when they need help, and are left trying to navigate a system that doesn’t feel like it’s on their side. Decisions about treatment should be made by patients and doctors — not insurance companies.

    And it’s getting worse. Federal legislation, H.R. 1, will cut coverage for millions who depend on Medi-Cal, while driving up costs for families with private insurance. No one is truly safe in this system anymore — not low-income families, not the middle class, not even those who think they’re covered.

    We have to do better.

    My time on the school board reshaped how I approach change. When our schools were at risk of closing, I worked with people who didn’t always agree with me and we found common ground to protect our students. It wasn’t perfect — but it worked. And it showed me that real progress takes people coming together, not drawing lines in the sand.

    I still believe in a system where everyone has equal access to care, including long-term care as we age. But getting there means building coalitions and taking real steps now, including standing up to insurance companies so care decisions are about people, not profits.

    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.)

    I understand the principle behind limiting state benefits to those with legal status. But in practice, the lines are not so clear. We’ve seen this in legal cases, where the court recognized that denying basic services based on status harms both individuals and society.

    As a healthcare provider, I took an oath. I cannot — and should not — withhold care from a human being based on immigration status.

    Our current system reflects this contradiction in costly and ineffective ways. For example, someone lawfully awaiting an asylum hearing may only qualify for emergency coverage — meaning they can be stabilized after a serious accident or acute crisis, but are then responsible for the cost of additional care, or the hospital is forced to absorb those losses. That is neither fiscally responsible nor morally defensible. Patients delay care, conditions worsen, and costs are ultimately shifted to hospitals, taxpayers, and insured families.

    I support expanding access to coverage because it is both humane and economically sound. Preventive and continuous care are far less expensive than emergency-only care. Funding should come from reducing administrative waste, leveraging federal waivers, and reinvesting savings from avoided emergency care. Over time, broader reforms that simplify coverage and reduce overhead can help offset costs.

    The goal is simple: care when people need it — not only when it becomes catastrophic.

    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.)

    Homelessness starts with a hard truth: it’s a housing problem. Researchers Gregg Colburn and Clayton Aldern found that rising rents — more than anything else — drive people into homelessness. When housing costs more than people can afford, they lose their homes. It’s that simple — and that painful.

    The best way to fight homelessness is to prevent it. An eviction notice shouldn’t mean losing everything. But too often, tenants face court alone while landlords have lawyers, and the outcome is almost decided. We can fix that by ensuring every tenant has access to legal help and a fair shot to stay housed.

    There’s also real hope. Redondo Beach is showing what’s possible — using data, accountability, and Housing Court to help people get back into stable housing. It’s about solving the problem, not just managing it.

    We also need to make housing more affordable so fewer people reach the brink: build more workforce and middle housing, support community land trusts, and help first-time buyers achieve stability.

    Finally, we have to make it easier to build. Right now, the system is too slow and complicated. We can streamline housing and small business permitting while still protecting safety and our climate.

    This is about people — about whether someone has a place to call home. We can, and must, do better.

    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.)

    California must move toward a future that is less dependent on fossil fuels, but we also have to be honest about where we are today. There are critical parts of our economy that do not yet have viable climate-friendly alternatives. At the same time, California already relies in part on imported crude oil to meet demand, even as we refine oil within the state. That means any effort to reduce in-state refining must be handled thoughtfully. Abrupt decisions risk creating instability, while inaction ignores environmental and public health harms.

    This is exactly where I have focused my work: bringing together people who are often on opposite sides to find practical, shared paths forward. We do not have to choose between economic stability and environmental responsibility. By focusing first on reducing oil dependence and then pursuing a phased, predictable transition away from refining, we can create a roadmap that communities, workers, and businesses can plan around.

    At the same time, accountability must be considered. Oil companies should not be allowed to profit excessively while families struggle with rising costs, and they must take responsibility for the health impacts their operations have on nearby communities. I will work to advance policies that require investment in community health and environmental protections, ensuring that those most affected are not left to bear the burden alone.Real progress comes from rejecting false choices and building coalitions that reflect the full complexity of the challenge.

    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.)

    Yes, I would advocate for increased funding for treatment programs, regardless of whether Proposition 36 had passed. I firmly believe in addressing challenges head-on. When it comes to mental illness and substance use disorders in our communities, the answer is: we need more treatment.

    Today, more than 5 million Californians age 12 and older need, but have not received, substance use treatment. That is an unacceptable reality, and my commitment to closing that gap exists independent of any ballot measure.

    Proposition 36 did not create this crisis, but it has made this crisis impossible for us to ignore any longer. A recent analysis found that fewer than one in five people arrested on Prop. 36 drug charges have been ordered to treatment, and fewer than one in one hundred have completed a treatment program. Those numbers speak volumes about the need we must urgently fill.

    However, we cannot and should not wait for someone to enter the justice system before offering them a path to recovery. When treatment is readily accessible, we don’t just save lives, we also lower costs to taxpayers and strengthen public safety for entire communities. Simply put, I am unequivocally committed to expanding California’s investment in evidence-based treatment through the budgetary and legislative processes, and any other tool available to us.

    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.)

    As a dentist, I learned early that my role was never to judge a patient’s treatment decisions — it was to deliver care safely and in alignment with their wishes. Patients sometimes chose paths I personally disagreed with or would never have chosen for myself. In a free society, that’s how it should be.

    The same principle applies to the state. The state should protect patients’ access to medically sound care and ensure providers can deliver it without ideological interference.

    As a person of faith, I understand that gender and sexuality carry deep theological meaning for many Californians. For others, they are matters of personal identity. The state’s job is not to impose any faith tradition nor theological perspective — it is to ensure fairness and safety for all. We already honor this balance: physicians routinely respect Jehovah’s Witness patients’ wishes to decline blood transfusions, even against medical recommendation. I personally know physicians with sincere religious objections to gender-affirming care who have nonetheless delivered it with skill and compassion, because their faith calls them to honor the law and their oath. That is integrity in medicine.

    If other states restrict healthcare, California should stand as a refuge for those seeking lifesaving treatment — a place where freedom and liberty are protected even in the exam room, and where healthcare policy is driven by wellness, evidence, and the needs of patients, not political agendas.

    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.)

    As a school board member, I publicly supported expanding our district’s middle school-level bell-to-bell cellphone ban to high schools — and though I was in the minority, I stand by that position. The evidence is too compelling to ignore. Researchers like Jonathan Haidt and the U.S. Surgeon General have documented the measurable harm social media is causing young people’s mental health. And in March, a jury found Meta and Google negligent for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people. This is not a parenting failure — it is a platform design problem.

    These platforms are engineered to maximize engagement, and children are the most vulnerable targets. Parents cannot opt their kids out of algorithmically designed addiction by themselves. The state has both the authority and the obligation to intervene.

    As a state lawmaker and mom of two teens, I would support requiring age verification, banning algorithmic targeting of minors, limiting targeted advertising to children, and mandating default safety and privacy settings for users under 18. Any safeguards should empower parents — not replace their judgment — with clear tools to manage and monitor their children’s access.

    Protecting children from exploitative platform design is a core government function. Holding powerful companies accountable to that standard isn’t overreach — it’s exactly what good governance looks like.

    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.)

    AI should not be feared, but seen as a tool to be guided. Like the calculator or the automobile, AI will transform how we work, learn, and solve problems. The question is never whether to embrace a transformative technology, but how to do so wisely.

    As a school board member, I led the effort to establish an AI Task Force in our district. My conviction was simple: AI is a powerful tool for students, teachers, and staff, but it must be deployed safely. That means preserving the human connection essential to real learning, maintaining academic integrity, protecting student and staff data privacy, guarding against cyberattacks. Getting those guardrails right in our schools is a preview of the work California must do at scale.

    California should not choose between innovation and protection — we can and must do both.

    As a state lawmaker, I would support clear, sector-specific guardrails that protect workers and consumers without stifling the innovation that keeps California competitive. That means investing in workforce transition programs, so displaced workers are retrained, not abandoned. It means requiring transparency when AI is used in consequential decisions — hiring, healthcare, criminal justice. And it means ensuring that communities most vulnerable to disruption have a seat at the table when policy is made.

    AI will not wait for us to get comfortable. But speed without guardrails is reckless, and fear without engagement is costly. California’s legacy is leading technological revolutions responsibly and this moment is no different.

    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.)

    When I knock on doors across the South Bay, residents often tell me they feel less safe today than they did 20 years ago, but the sources of that unease are worth examining honestly. Most often, what they describe is the visible crisis of homelessness in cities near the South Bay. Sometimes, it is anxiety amplified by election-season media coverage that overstates the threat of violent crime.

    But feelings of unsafety are real and deserve real responses — not political theater.

    Homelessness is, first and foremost, a housing problem. We cannot arrest or sweep our way out of it. Lasting solutions require building housing, including supportive housing, paired with accessible mental health and addiction treatment for those who need it. Treating the whole person is both the compassionate, and the cost-effective, approach.

    On property crime — theft, shoplifting, fraud — the data is clear: these offenses spike during economic downturns as financial stress rises, sometimes compounded by substance abuse and reduced investment in public safety. Addressing property crime means addressing its roots: economic stability, treatment access, and adequately funded local services.

    As a state legislator, I would focus on thoughtful housing production, behavioral health infrastructure, and protecting public safety budgets from the boom-and-bust cycles that leave communities vulnerable. I would also push back against fear-driven narratives that conflate homelessness with criminality or distort crime statistics for political gain.

    Californians deserve honest leadership — and solutions that actually work.

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

    As the eldest granddaughter, the eldest daughter and perpetual big sister, my greatest talent truly is problem-solving, but that’s not exactly hidden.

    I love Bollywood dancing; however, I’m not particularly talented at it nor have I had the wisdom to keep this interest “hidden”.

    Hidden talent: I’m secretly artistic, although I have never had the opportunity to develop this talent through coaching or classes. Thus far, I have designed most of our campaign’s social media content myself in Canva. Probably not the best use of a candidate’s time and probably not the most viral content out there, but in the busyness of a campaign, it’s my creative outlet and my happy place.

    ​ Orange County Register 

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    News
    CONTACT INFO
    3621 W. MacArthur Blvd
    Suite 107
    Santa Ana, CA 92704
    QUICK LINKS
    SERVICES
    CURRENT NEWS

    © 2024 Telepeer Cloud Business Communications. All Rights Reserved.

    Crafted with Love: DigiCorns