Telepeer

Shannon Wingfield, AD-68 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: Shannon Wingfield

Current job title: Sr. Communications Manager/Tribal Council Secretary

Age: 48

Political party affiliation: Democratic

Incumbent: No

Other political positions held: Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Tribal Secretary (present) and Councilmember at Large (prior)

City where you reside: Anaheim

Campaign website or social media: www.shannonwingfield.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.)

Balancing California’s budget requires honest prioritization, not ideological shortcuts.

Frankly, anyone who tells you this problem has one simple answer isn’t being straight with you.

Yes, there are areas of the state budget that have grown inefficient over time — redundant programs, administrative bloat, contracts that haven’t been reviewed in years. Those deserve a hard look, and I’m not afraid to have that conversation. But I am not willing to balance a spreadsheet on the backs of our kids, our veterans, or our most vulnerable neighbors. Cutting education or health services to close a deficit is a false economy. We pay for it twice later.

What I think we’re missing is creativity. California has the fifth largest economy in the world. We are not broke, we are misaligned. That means looking seriously at how we grow revenue without piling more burden onto working families and small businesses who are already doing their best in one of the most expensive states in the country.

In practice, that looks like performance audits of state agencies, smarter public-private partnerships, aggressive pursuit of federal funding we’re leaving on the table, and policies that actually help small businesses in communities like Anaheim, Orange and Santa Ana grow and thrive — which expands our tax base naturally over time.

This is a values question as much as a budget question. My answer is that we protect people first and cut waste second — in that order, every time.

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

For me, the non-starters are the ones that sound reasonable on paper until you look at who actually gets hurt.

Education is the first one. I am a first-generation college student who has self-funded my own education since I was 17 years old. I know what it costs, financially, emotionally, personally, when the system doesn’t show up for you. When we cut education funding we are not trimming a budget line. We are telling a whole generation of kids, particularly kids in communities like District 68, that their future is negotiable. It is not.

Veterans’ services are the second non-starter. These are people who were told that if they gave this country everything, this country would have their back. That is a promise. You don’t balance a budget by breaking promises to the people who sacrificed the most.

Health services are the third. We are in the middle of a crisis that shows up on our streets every single day. Cutting those programs doesn’t make the problem disappear. It just moves it somewhere more expensive and more painful, like emergency rooms and jails. That’s not savings. That’s cost-shifting.

I come from a community, the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, that knows what it looks like when government decides your needs are expendable. I will not be the person in that room who lets it happen again.

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.)

Three issues keep coming up when I talk to people across Anaheim, Santa Ana, and Orange. They are not abstract policy debates. They are kitchen table conversations happening right now.

The first is housing and the cost of living. Orange County has some of the highest rents in the nation and a workforce that cannot afford to live in the communities they serve. As a legislator, I would push for zoning reform that actually produces middle-income housing, not just luxury units, stronger tenant protections, and incentives for local developers to build affordable workforce housing near transit corridors.

The second is public safety and neighborhood stability. People in this district want to feel safe walking to school, going to work, and coming home at night. That means fully funding law enforcement, investing in intervention programs that stop crime before it starts, and holding repeat offenders accountable. Public safety is not a partisan issue. It is a basic expectation that every family in this district deserves.

The third is small business survival. Anaheim and Santa Ana are built on small businesses, many of them family-owned, and they are the economic backbone of this district. State regulations, fees, and tax burdens are squeezing them out. I would work to reduce regulatory barriers, expand access to capital for small business owners, and create pathways that let local entrepreneurs compete and grow without the state getting in their way.

These are solvable problems. We just need the will to solve them.

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 policy I would champion first is a comprehensive permitting reform bill that forces California to cut the time and cost it takes to build housing. Right now it can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get approval to build. That cost gets passed directly to renters and buyers. Streamlining that process is not glamorous legislation, but it is some of the most impactful work a legislator can do.

Alongside that, I would push for a small business tax relief package targeted specifically at employers with under fifty employees. When small businesses have more breathing room they hire more people, pay better wages, and invest back into their communities. That creates upward pressure on household income without the state having to write a single check.

I would also work to expand apprenticeship and workforce training programs tied directly to industries that are growing in Orange County: construction, healthcare, and technology. Helping residents access higher-paying jobs is a cost-of-living policy. It just does not always get talked about that way.

Will any of this be immediate? Permitting reform can show results within a couple of years. Tax relief for small businesses can be felt within a single budget cycle. Workforce development takes longer, but the returns are lasting.

The cost-of-living problem was decades in the making. Solving it requires legislation with both a short game and a long game running at the same time.

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.)

Immigration is one of those issues where the loudest voices on both sides have made it nearly impossible to have an honest conversation. I am not interested in performing for either extreme. I am interested in what actually works for the people living in this district.

The federal government has both the authority and the responsibility to enforce immigration law. That is not something the state of California can or should try to override entirely. Where I do think the state has a legitimate role is in ensuring that enforcement is carried out lawfully, transparently, and in ways that do not undermine the public safety of our communities.

I also believe that people who want to become part of this country deserve a pathway that is rigorous but reachable. As an enrolled member of the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation, I understand firsthand what it means to have to prove your belonging, to document your lineage, to navigate a system that was not built with you in mind. Our tribal enrollment process requires evidence, patience, and persistence, but it is not designed to be impossible. That is the model I would bring to the immigration conversation. A process that is firm, fair, and actually completable for people who are committed to being here the right way.

As a state legislator, I would focus on protecting due process, maintaining community trust in local institutions, and advocating for a federal immigration system that reflects both the rule of law and basic human 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.)

Healthcare costs are not an abstract policy problem for most families in this district. They are a monthly decision about what you can afford to skip. A copay you put off. A prescription you split in half. A specialist you never see because the out-of-pocket cost is simply out of reach. I have lived that reality and I understand it.

At the state level there are concrete things we can do. First, I would champion price transparency legislation that requires hospitals and insurers to publicly post what they charge for common procedures and services. Right now, pricing is deliberately hidden, which means patients have no ability to compare costs, employers cannot negotiate effectively, and insurers face no real competitive pressure to lower rates. When people can see what things actually cost, the market is forced to respond. That one change alone could save California families significant money without a single new government program.

Second, I would push to expand California’s authority to negotiate drug prices directly, building on the work already started with the state’s generic drug initiative. Californians should not be paying three times what other countries pay for the same medication.

Third, I would support strengthening Medi-Cal so that the transition between Medi-Cal and employer coverage is less disruptive for working families who move in and out of eligibility as their income changes. That gap is where people fall through and end up in emergency rooms, which drives costs up for everyone.

None of these are overnight fixes. But they are practical, achievable steps that do not require dismantling the entire system. They require the political will to take on powerful interests who benefit from keeping things exactly the way they are.

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 believe we should work toward ensuring more Californians have access to healthcare coverage. But any expansion has to come with an honest conversation about how we pay for it. Expanding programs without a sustainable funding mechanism is not compassion, it is a promise we cannot keep, and California has made too many of those already.

Where I think there is genuine common ground across the political spectrum is in preventive and emergency care. When someone shows up in an emergency room without insurance, we all pay for it through higher premiums and hospital cost shifting. Investing in preventive care and community health clinics is not just the humane approach, it is the fiscally responsible one. It costs significantly less to treat a condition early than to treat a crisis later.

On the broader question of non-citizen coverage, my position is this: No one should be turned away from basic healthcare or left without a roof over their head. Human dignity does not have a citizenship requirement. But I do believe that people who are actively engaged in the legal process of becoming citizens, who have raised their hand and said I want to be here the right way, should be prioritized in accessing state programs and services. That is the same principle behind our tribal enrollment process. You show your commitment, you do the work, and the door opens further.

What I will not do is make sweeping promises with no plan to fund them. The people who depend on these programs deserve sustainability, not just good intentions.

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 does not start on the street. It starts the moment someone gets a rent increase they cannot absorb, loses a job with no safety net underneath them, or faces a medical bill that wipes out everything they saved. The truth is most California families are one paycheck away from that reality. Prevention is where we have to put our energy because it is both more humane and significantly cheaper than intervention after the fact.

For renters, I would support strengthening just cause eviction protections so families are not displaced without legitimate reason, and expanding emergency rental assistance programs that can move quickly when someone hits a crisis point. Speed matters. A family that gets help in week two does not end up on the street in week six.

For homeowners, particularly first-generation homeowners in communities like Anaheim and Santa Ana, I would push for down payment assistance programs and financial literacy resources that help working families build and keep wealth rather than just survive month to month.

I also believe we have to be honest about the landlord side of this equation. Small property owners are not the enemy. Many of them are working families too, relying on rental income to stay afloat. Policies that pile unfair burdens on landlords without balance drive them out of the market entirely, which reduces housing supply and makes everything worse. Good housing policy protects renters and treats landlords fairly at the same time.

On the development side, I would champion hard deadlines on local permitting, streamlined approval for affordable and workforce housing, and tie state infrastructure funding to cities that are actually meeting their housing production goals.

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.)

The commission made a pragmatic call and I understand why. When two refineries representing nearly a fifth of California’s capacity threaten to shut down, the immediate concern for working families who depend on their cars to get to work every day is real and legitimate. Gas prices in Southern California are already punishing. The threat of them going higher is not something you can dismiss with a policy principle.

That said, I do not think the answer is to simply back down every time the energy industry applies pressure. That is not balance, that is surrender. And it sets a precedent that the threat of closure is an effective negotiating tool, which means we will see it used again and again.

California cannot keep taxing gas at record levels, watching prices hit record highs, and then act surprised when working families are struggling. The math is not complicated. The political will to address it has just been missing.

As a state legislator, I would push for a comprehensive review of the state gas tax structure, phased enforcement of the excessive profits law with clear timelines, and serious investment in refining infrastructure so California is not held hostage by closure threats.

Climate goals matter. But climate policy that makes life unaffordable for working families will fail and it deserves to.

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.)

Proposition 36 passed because Californians were frustrated and they were right to be. The pendulum had swung too far in one direction and communities across this state were paying the price in empty storefronts, open drug use, and a general sense that consequences had disappeared. Voters sent a clear message and I respect that message.

But Prop 36 only works if the treatment side of the equation is funded and functional. And I want to be clear about something: Drug treatment should not replace accountability. It should run alongside it. Someone who pleads guilty to a felony drug offense should be serving their sentence and receiving treatment at the same time. One does not cancel out the other. Consequences matter. Recovery also matters. We do not have to choose between them.

That said, California does not currently have enough treatment beds, counselors, or programs to fulfill the promise Prop 36 makes to voters. Offering treatment as part of a sentence when the infrastructure does not exist is not a solution. It is a delay with a better sounding name.

Yes, I would demand that behavioral health treatment funding be a protected line item in the state budget, not something that gets trimmed when revenues dip. That is the infrastructure that makes Prop 36 work in practice and not just on paper.

On accountability, I would push for outcome-based reporting requirements tied to every dollar spent. Not just how many people entered treatment, but how many completed it, stayed sober, and stayed out of the system. We have spent enormous sums on behavioral health in California with very little transparency about results. That ends with me.

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.)

My core belief on healthcare is consistent regardless of the type of care being discussed. Medical decisions belong to patients and their doctors. Not politicians. Not legislators. Not bureaucrats. That principle does not change based on which party is in power or which care is being debated.

The state’s role in gender-affirming care should be focused on ensuring that no Californian faces discrimination when seeking legal medical treatment. That means strong anti-discrimination protections for patients and providers alike. It means ensuring that insurance coverage cannot be arbitrarily denied for care that is recognized by major medical associations as legitimate and necessary. It does not mean the state dictating specific clinical protocols to doctors or mandating particular treatments. That is not the government’s lane.

On the question of other states restricting access, I think California can and should be a place where people are not turned away. That does not require grand political gestures. It requires practical support, making sure providers have the resources to serve patients who come here seeking care, and that those patients are not bankrupted by the cost of traveling for treatment that should have been available at home.

What I will not do is use this issue as a political performance on either side. There are real people behind this question, many of them young, many of them in genuine distress, and they deserve a legislator who talks about their lives with seriousness and respect rather than treating them as a talking point.

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.)

This is one of those issues where common sense has been slow to catch up with technology and we are watching the consequences play out in real time in our schools, our communities, and our emergency rooms.

Let me be clear about something first. Parents are the first line of responsibility when it comes to their children’s online activity. That is not something the state can or should replace. A legislator who pretends government is the answer to every parenting challenge is not being honest with you.

But here is the reality. Parents are up against billion-dollar platforms that employ entire teams of engineers specifically designed to maximize the time young people spend scrolling. That is not a fair fight. And when those same platforms have repeatedly shown they will not act responsibly on their own, the state has a legitimate role in leveling that playing field.

What I would focus on is not telling parents how to raise their children. It is holding platforms accountable for what they are deliberately doing to young people for profit. That means strong age verification requirements, strict limits on data collection and targeted advertising aimed at minors, and mandatory algorithmic transparency so parents can actually see what content is being pushed to their kids.

I would also push for digital literacy education in California schools. Technology is not going away. Giving young people the critical thinking tools to navigate it responsibly is something schools, parents, and the state can work on together.

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.)

California has a unique responsibility on this issue because so much of the technology shaping the world is being built right here. That means we have both more influence and more obligation than any other state to get this right.

I do not believe the choice is between regulation and innovation. That is a false option presented by people who benefit from keeping things unregulated. The most innovative industries in history have operated within frameworks that protected consumers and workers. AI is no different.

On the jobs question, I want to be honest in a way that politicians often are not. AI will displace jobs. That is already happening and pretending otherwise does not serve the workers in District 68 who are watching their industries change in real time. The state’s responsibility is not to stop that from happening. It is to make sure workers are not left behind when it does. That means investing heavily in workforce retraining programs, creating transition support for industries most vulnerable to automation, and requiring companies that deploy AI at scale to contribute to a workforce development fund that helps the people their technology displaces.

On regulation, I would support transparency requirements that tell consumers when they are interacting with AI, strict guardrails around AI use in hiring, housing, and healthcare where bias can cause real harm, and meaningful liability standards so companies cannot hide behind algorithms when things go wrong.

California should lead on AI. Leading means setting the standard, not avoiding it.

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.)

Statistics can tell you crime is declining. They cannot tell you why a mother still checks the locks twice before bed, why a small business owner feels anxious opening up in the morning, or why a woman walking to her car in a parking lot still scans her surroundings out of habit. Feeling safe and being safe are two different things, and both matter.

I will say this with some personal weight behind it. I have faced intimidation firsthand. I know what it feels like when someone uses fear as a tool against you and the systems meant to protect you move slower than the threat does. That experience does not leave you. And it has made me deeply committed to making sure the people of this district have faster, stronger, and more reliable access to the protections they deserve.

As a legislator, my focus would be on three things. First, fully funding local law enforcement and ensuring response times in communities like Anaheim and Santa Ana are not a function of zip code. Second, investing in community-based intervention programs that address the conditions, poverty, mental health crises, and lack of opportunity, that create the environment where crime grows. Third, strengthening victim support systems so that when something does happen, people are not navigating trauma alone while also fighting bureaucracy.

Public safety is personal for me. It is not a campaign talking point. It is a lived experience that I am bringing with me into that statehouse, whether anyone is watching or not.

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

I was not expecting this question, but I appreciate it because the answer is genuinely one of my favorite things about myself.

I make a perfect chocolate chip cookie. I know that sounds like something everyone says, but I mean it in the way that people ask me to bring them to every gathering and look genuinely disappointed when I show up without them. What makes it more interesting is that I have also mastered the gluten-free version out of necessity. I have Celiac disease, which means gluten-free baking is not a trend for me, it is a daily reality. Anyone who has tried to bake without gluten knows it is its own separate science and a minor miracle when it actually works. I have cracked the code!

The recipe that matters most to me though, is my great-grandmother’s tamales. That one is not mine, it is hers, and I am simply the person trusted to carry it forward. There is something sacred about cooking a recipe passed through generations by hand. Every time I make them, I feel connected to something much larger than myself.

I am also a speed reader, which comes in handy when you are simultaneously running a campaign, serving as tribal secretary, pursuing a law degree, and trying to stay informed.

I plan travel the way some people plan weddings, obsessively, creatively, and with an eye for experiences most people would never find on their own.

And the talent I rely on most is intuition. I have learned to trust it completely. It has never steered me wrong when I have listened to it.

Orange County Register

News Details

Shannon Wingfield, AD-68 candidate, 2026 primary election questionnaire

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News

CONTACT INFO

QUICK LINKS

SERVICES

CURRENT NEWS