Questions from Southern California News Group:
(Added 10/7/2026) PressEnterprise.com
Fuel costs for Californians are higher than anywhere else in the country. What specific policy would you support to ease the burden drivers feel at the pump? And how would you measure whether that policy was actually successful?
Gas taxes are not the problem. They pay for our roads. Excess profits by the oil near-monopolies are the problem. Excess profits on gasoline and diesel should be taxed at 100% to be returned to consumers.
Refineries shut down to raise prices should be seized by a state entity and run to benefit the people. Unlimited profiteering has been permitted by politicians who take donations from energy companies. Such donations should be prohibited. Price and availability are the obvious indicators of success. Other countries have found efficient, reliable low-cost public transit to be the best way to reduce use of fuel.
How can state lawmakers ease barriers for those wishing to become homeowners and unburden renters with high rental costs, or is this an issue beyond the scope of Sacramento?
The state still limits local use of rent control measures. This worsens the problem. Corporate monopolization of housing is a big problem, and the state can limit that, which will also put much housing on the market for private buyers. Decent housing should be available to all, at rates that do not bust family budgets. Begging the billionaires to build more houses is not an effective strategy. As was done in World War II, we need a public housing program to provide affordable housing, for purchase and to rent. This is now prevented by the profiteers who invest in (excuse me, “contribute to”) politicians.
Elected officials often talk about the need to prevent people from losing their homes in the first place as part of combatting homelessness, but California has more people living on the street than any other state. How would you work with colleagues in Sacramento to get people off the streets and into stable housing situations?
While much more housing could be provided through private programs, this is now only done to provide maximum profits for influential interests. As a supplement, we need public programs to provide decent housing for all. Those with special health needs need housing that has on-site nursing and other support services.
Much of the legislature is willing, but we need to force the big money out of politics to reduce the obstruction of the paid servants of the billionaires in the legislature. We need better protections for tenants as well, which are unlikely to come from politicians who take money from the Apartment Owners Association.
California has the highest grocery prices of any mainland state in the U.S. What’s one specific policy Sacramento could support to bring down food prices for individuals and families struggling to make ends meet?
There are no incentives for grocery companies to lower prices. All the incentives go the other way. We need to have government policies that encourage cooperatives and other stores in “food deserts,” encourage mass availability of foods that are restricted by monopoly corporations, and penalize excess profits taken in by corporations that limit distribution of food to raise prices. But at this point, the most effective step to enable food production would be an end to the federal harassment campaign against immigrant workers.
California’s budget approved by officials this summer included $300 million to offset healthcare costs expected with the expiration of federal subsidies. Do you support this effort by state lawmakers? Also, what would you do to protect Californians’ access to healthcare in light of federal changes that have restricted benefits to various groups?
As a private citizen, and even more effectively as a member of the legislature, I support mass mobilization of our people to end the Trump regime. This is the most effective way to stop the theft of resources by the billionaires that has led to these cuts. Increases in state subsidies to replace federal subsidies are a temporary necessity. We need to aim for a big California single-payer health system that would cut costs, improve medical care, and remove the parasitic corporations that suck our health system dry. Much of the present legislature is willing, but not quite enough. If I am elected, we will be a step closer.
California’s high-speed rail project has been beset by delays, ballooning costs and federal funding cuts. Should the state continue with this project? Why or why not? If you support moving forward with the project, how do you propose the state pay for it?
First, let us step back and see our situation from a worldwide perspective. In Europe and China, not to mention Japan with its very advanced system, high-speed rail is available and efficient. How could it be impossible here?
In fact, you can’t even go from our area to San Francisco by slow-speed rail, as I did at 13. We need a comprehensive rail passenger system, with reasonable fares, to reduce demand for wastefully fuel-intensive auto traffic and air travel. Privately-owned railroad right-of-way can be put under public ownership as necessary, and the very wealthy can be forced to pay, if only we had a legislature that was not dependent on campaign “donations” (investments) from corporations.
Increasingly, we’re seeing communities push back on data centers opening in or near their neighborhoods. Environmentalists complain about the amount of water and energy that data centers need to operate. Residents complain about relentless noise pollution. And others worry about losing agricultural land to these centers. On the other hand, the tech industry emphasizes the role of data centers in supporting cloud computing and artificial intelligence. As a policy maker, how would you balance the concerns of critics with desires to ensure that California remains a leader in innovation?
Oddly, construction of data centers with present technology probably inhibits technical innovation. The developers of these technologies need to be encouraged to adopt newer systems that require less power and less water. And a good way to encourage this is to stop any more permits for the wasteful and destructive data center projects that are given permits by officials who take money from the corporations.
Do you support Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire’s tax that would impose a one-time, 5% tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth of more than $1 billion? Revenues from the tax would primarily go to fund healthcare-related programs, including Medi-Cal, though a small portion would also be used to fund food assistance and education-related programs. Explain why you do or do not support this measure. If you don’t, what alternative solution do you propose so that the state has money to pay for the types of services this tax is intended to fund?
While I am sure I would have written the law differently, Prop. 40 does impose a perfectly reasonable levy on those best able to pay. I am voting “yes.” I would note that the ads against Prop. 40, which show up every few seconds on TV and the internet, are almost entirely composed of lies. Perhaps one problem is that telling lies in political ads is perfectly legal in California. The folks running this campaign, with unlimited money from billionaires, tell outrageous lies constantly. They tell lies for a reason: the truth would help people understand that this is a reasonable levy.
The state has ambitious goals to transition away from heavy reliance on fossil fuel. Meanwhile, oil refineries in California that shut down in the past year said they did so in part because of the state’s costly regulatory requirements and decreasing consumer demand for traditional gasoline. But the closure of these refineries have drivers concerned about the price of gas going up – especially at a time when affordability remains the No. 1 concern for many Californians. How would you balance the state’s clean energy goals with desires to prevent Californians from further pain at the pump?
Clean energy is an excellent goal. But encouraging people to use alternative energy sources by jacking up the price of the fuels they need now is a cruel policy. As we wean our state off fossil fuels, we need to maintain price stability to avoid forcing working people into poverty. If a big oil company wants to punish us, and jack up prices, by shutting a refinery, the state should take over the refinery. But we need to accelerate the development of other energy sources, such as solar. Billionaires must be prevented from dictating energy policy, or hurting our people to keep their power and profits.
Similarly, the Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand offshore oil drilling and production in California. Explain why you do or do not support this move. If not, do you believe California state leaders have the legal authority to stop or restrict it?
California has certainly been able to restrict or outlaw drilling before. Trump fancies himself a dictator, able to deliver California to his billionaire collaborators. He isn’t. I strongly oppose Trump’s move to give away our oil to his corporate friends, and I support California’s right to limit oil drilling as needed to protect our environment.
A law signed in 2024 establishes statewide standards for new, large warehouses in California, including distance buffers separating warehouses from schools, homes and other so-called “sensitive receptors.” Do you support Sacramento having a role in local land-use decisions when it comes to logistics? Why or why not? Is there anything else state government should do when it comes to regulating warehouses?
Yes, I support limits on warehouses. In fact, safety and environmental regulations need to be tightened considerably. We need to restrict or eliminate the ability of corporations to give money to politicians at the local, state, and federal level, so that corrupt billionaires cannot buy city councils and boards of supervisors and install any destructive projects they like. It is reasonable to allow other cities in a region, and the state government as well, a role in approving major projects that affect traffic, air quality, and other regional aspects of life.
Tell us about a time you’ve changed your mind on a political position. What was it, and what changed your mind?
This is from many, many years ago, but I remember it clearly. I once agreed with most labor unions at the time that special legislation protecting women workers was needed. (This even led some unions to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, though I have always supported it.) Over a period of some years, as I listened to the arguments of women co-workers, I came to realize that a better position would be to extend to men all the protections given to women. We need full health and safety protection for all workers, men or women, rather than special protections for women. I now favor full equality on the job for all workers, and full protection for all of them.
Bonus question: What is the best book you’ve read this year? Explain why you found it compelling.
“Anthology of Women in Riverside, California 1870-1970.” I contributed one small article, but I found the other articles fascinating, and very important in understanding this area’s history. Put together by the Riverside Historical Society.
These are Kevin Akin’s answers to questions submitted by Ballotpedia in late May.
Q. Who are you? Tell us about yourself.
A. I am a community volunteer, for many organizations over the years, who strongly opposes the Trump administration’s corruption, violence, and attacks on democracy. When I saw that the pro-Trump incumbent had no opposition on the ballot, I consulted with friends and filed as a write-in candidate. Write-in candidacies are often a futile gesture. Not so in my case. Under California election law, the top two vote-getters in the present primary will advance to the November ballot. There are only two candidates, the incumbent and myself. That means that even though I will receive few votes in the primary, I will advance to the November election because I will be in second place. I am a very serious candidate, and I am already putting together a committee to fight for every vote in November. I think that my opposition to the Trump “MAGA” machine, of which the incumbent is a part, can win me a majority this year. Anyone of any party or no party can write in my name in June, and vote for me on the November ballot. A worker all my life, I was a carpenter for five years, a steelworker for ten years, and I was a steam engineer in a hospital boiler room for over 20 more until my retirement. I have been a member of four unions, and I have also been active in so many community organizations that I can’t count them now. Hobby clubs, my religious congregation, historic preservation efforts, family-based charities, and too many others to fit here.
Q. Please list below 3 key messages of your campaign. What are the main points you want voters to remember about you and your candidacy?
First key message.
I want to represent working people in Sacramento. The very wealthy already have plenty of representation in Sacramento and Washington. The working majority in this district deserves a representative in the legislature who puts their needs first. I would expect that the billionaires will not like me, and I am cool with that. My only concern when approaching any political issue is “what is good for working people?” This cuts across party lines.
Second key message.
A warm regard for the people of this district, from a lifetime of community activism in our area. I was born in Riverside, I was raised here, and I have had co-workers and friends in every part of this district. Of course district lines have changed every ten years, but I have lived in my present house, in the 63rd District, for 52 years. I love this whole place, I want to protect its quality of life and improve it, and I am concerned about the working-class people of our area and all of California. They are what makes this place function, and they want it to function better.
Third key message.
“To bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” Those are the words of George Washington. Sadly, the present Trump cult, of which the incumbent is a member, has been using bigotry as a basic part of their plan to take full power. I strongly support every effort to oppose bigotry and discrimination. Whether someone is a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or of no religion at all should make no difference at all in treatment by the government, or in activity regulated by the government. I appreciate the rising tide of tolerance from 1776 right up to Trump taking power, and I am determined to do my bit to make that tide rise again.
What areas of public policy are you personally passionate about?
I have several main concerns. One is opposition to racism and bigotry, which hurts us all.
Another is the defense of democracy, and of constitutional safeguards and division of power. We do not need a king! Or a president with king-like power. I had some ancestors who fought to throw off the yoke of George the Third, and their achievement cannot be discarded .
Another is determination to empower working people in every area of life, which requires the disempowerment of the billionaires, the people Franklin Delano Roosevelt called “economic royalists.” We need to take the money out of politics, and if this requires changes in the Constitution, so be it.