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: Tony Rodriguez
Current job title: Regional Recruiting Manager
Political party affiliation: Republican
Incumbent: No
Other political positions held: NA
City where you reside: Tujunga
Campaign website or social media: tony4senate.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.)
California doesn’t have just a revenue problem; it has a spending discipline and structural problem. Cut waste, protect essentials, demand accountability, grow the economy and use targeted revenue only as a last resort.
For you, what’s a non-starter when talking about budget cuts? Why? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Non-starter for me is tax increases or fees. What we need to do first is fix spending, eliminate waste, and grow the economy. If there is a gap, then we can consider bringing in additional money, and even then, we should do it carefully and narrowly.
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.)
Restore accountability in government, secure our communities and recover the dream of owning a home.
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.)
California’s cost-of-living crisis is being driven by one thing: housing. We simply don’t have enough of it, and what we do build takes too long and costs too much. That’s why I’ll champion a law to fast-track workforce housing, cutting red tape so projects that meet the rules get approved in 90 days, not years. We’ll lower fees to make it cheaper to build homes for working families, and convert empty commercial spaces into housing.
There have been numerous efforts made in the state legislature to curtail federal immigration enforcement in California, from prohibitions on agents wearing masks to banning federal officers from future employment in a public agency. Do you see any area where the state could better protect its residents from the federal government’s widespread immigration crackdown? Would you prefer the state work more hand-in-hand with the federal government on immigration? Where does the role as a state legislator fall into your beliefs here? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I believe there is a balanced path forward. The state should focus on protecting law-abiding, working families, people contributing to our communities, while allowing targeted cooperation with federal authorities when there are legitimate public safety concerns. That’s not “handing over control,” it’s being responsible.
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.)
First, I would push for greater price transparency. Patients deserve to know the cost of services upfront so they can make informed decisions and avoid surprise billing. Alongside that, we should expand competition by allowing more providers and clinics to enter the market, especially in underserved areas.
Second, I support strengthening preventive care. By investing in early screenings, chronic disease management, and wellness programs, we can reduce costly emergency care and long-term complications. Preventive care lowers costs for both patients and the system overall.
Third, we must address prescription drug prices. I would advocate for policies that increase competition in the pharmaceutical market, including faster approval of generics and biosimilars, and holding manufacturers Accountable for unjustified price hikes.
Fourth, I support expanding access to telehealth and urgent care alternatives. These options are often more affordable than emergency room visits and can significantly reduce unnecessary healthcare spending.
Finally, I would work to reduce administrative waste in the system. Simplifying billing, reducing regulatory burdens, and improving efficiency can lower costs that are ultimately passed on to patients. The goal is simple: make healthcare more affordable, more transparent, and more accessible.
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.)
Everyone should have access to basic, timely healthcare, especially in emergencies—but we also have to be honest about costs and sustainability. I do not support broad, unlimited expansion of state-run healthcare programs without a clear, stable funding source. California is already facing budget pressures, and expanding coverage without fiscal discipline risks cutting other essential services or raising taxes on working families.
Instead, I support a targeted, responsible approach: First, protect and strengthen emergency and essential care access for everyone, regardless of status. No one should be turned away in a medical crisis. Second, expand low-cost community clinics and federally qualified health centers. These providers deliver high-quality care at a fraction of the cost and serve as a safety net for uninsured residents. Third, partner with the private sector to create more affordable, basic coverage options—catastrophic plans, direct primary care models, and sliding-scale systems—so people have access without relying entirely on state programs.
Fourth, improve efficiency in existing programs before expanding them. We should eliminate waste, fraud, and administrative overhead to stretch every dollar further.
As for funding, any targeted expansion should come from reprioritizing existing spending and capturing savings from system efficiencies—not broad new taxes. The goal is to ensure no one falls through the cracks, while keeping the system financially sustainable for the long term.
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.)
First, I would prioritize cost stability for renters and homeowners. That means expanding targeted rental assistance for working families facing temporary hardship, strengthening eviction prevention programs, and offering property tax relief for seniors and middle-income homeowners at risk of being priced out. We should also increase access to first-time homebuyer programs so more Californians can build equity instead of being stuck renting.
Second, we must increase housing supply across all income levels. I support streamlining permitting and environmental review processes to eliminate unnecessary delays that drive up costs. Projects that meet local zoning and affordability standards should be approved faster—sometimes in months, not years.
Third, we need to incentivize smart development. This includes tax credits and fee reductions for builders who include workforce housing—not just luxury units—and who convert underused commercial properties into housing. Public-private partnerships can also help unlock land already owned by the state for residential development.
Finally, accountability matters. Funding must be tied to results—cities that meet housing production goals should be rewarded, while those that block progress should face consequences.
Housing affordability won’t be solved overnight, but by reducing barriers, increasing supply, and supporting working families, we can make meaningful, lasting progress.
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.)
As a legislator, I’d focus on a balanced, practical approach: First, implement a predictable and transparent profit cap mechanism—not sudden penalties. Companies should know the rules in advance, with adjustments tied to market conditions to avoid abrupt shutdown threats.
Second, stabilize in-state supply in the short term. That means maintaining refining capacity while requiring contingency planning before any closure—so the state isn’t caught off guard.
Third, increase transparency in pricing. Require real-time reporting on refinery outages, supply levels, and margins so regulators and the public can identify price manipulation versus genuine market constraints.
Finally, accelerate the transition to cheaper alternatives—like expanding EV infrastructure and clean fuels—but in a way that lowers costs, not raises them. Climate goals should reduce long-term expenses for consumers, not create short-term burdens. The bottom line: we need accountability for excessive profits, but also stability in supply. Good policy doesn’t choose one over the other—it ensures Californians aren’t punished at the pump while we responsibly transition to a cleaner energy future.
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.)
Absolutely. Proposition 36 reflects a recognition that many people committing drug-related offenses are struggling with underlying behavioral health issues, and effective treatment can prevent recidivism and save lives.
As a legislator, I would advocate for increased funding dedicated to evidence-based behavioral health programs, ensuring that treatment—not just punishment—is accessible to those who need it. To ensure proper use of these funds, I would push for strict accountability measures, including clear performance metrics for every program, regular audits, and public reporting on outcomes. Funding should prioritize programs with demonstrated success in reducing substance abuse and criminal behavior, rather than generic services. Collaboration with local health providers, nonprofits, and community organizations would allow us to tailor treatment programs to the populations most affected.
Additionally, I would support integrating treatment with diversion programs in the criminal justice system, making participation in therapy a part of sentencing alternatives for eligible individuals. This approach ensures that funding is directly tied to reducing recidivism and improving public safety. Finally, I would champion continuous evaluation and feedback loops—allocating resources to programs that work and redirecting funding from those that do not. By combining targeted funding, accountability, and evidence-based practices, we can uphold the intent of Proposition 36: treating substance abuse as a public health issue while keeping our communities safe.
This approach balances compassion with fiscal responsibility, ensuring taxpayer dollars achieve meaningful results while giving individuals a real chance to recover and contribute positively to society.
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.)
The state has a critical role in ensuring that all residents, including LGBTQ+ individuals, have access to medically appropriate care. Gender-affirming care is recognized by major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, as essential for the health and well-being of transgender and nonbinary people. The state should ensure that hospitals, clinics, and licensed providers follow evidence-based standards, provide training on LGBTQ+ health, and protect patients from discrimination. This includes enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws in healthcare and supporting programs that increase access to gender-affirming care, particularly in underserved communities.
If other states adopt restrictive policies that deny or criminalize gender-affirming care, California should consider protective measures for residents seeking care. This could include ensuring telehealth services across state lines, allowing out-of-state providers to practice safely in California, and protecting families and minors traveling to California for medically necessary treatment.
Additionally, the state can advocate legally for the right of patients to access care without facing penalties in their home states. Ultimately, the goal is to safeguard patient autonomy, ensure equity in healthcare, and protect the health of vulnerable populations. The state’s role is not to mandate specific treatments, but to guarantee that residents can access medically necessary, evidence-based care safely, legally, and without discrimination. This approach balances public health, civil rights, and individual freedom while positioning California as a state that prioritizes the well-being of all its residents.
Governments around the world are increasingly considering an age ban or other restrictions on social media use among young people, citing mental health and other concerns. Do you believe it’s the state’s responsibility to regulate social media use? Why or why not? And what specific restrictions or safeguards would you propose as a state lawmaker? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I believe the state has a role in protecting children and teens from demonstrable harms, including mental health risks linked to social media, but it should balance this with parental responsibility and freedom of expression. The state’s focus should be on setting safety standards, education, and enforceable safeguards rather than outright bans, which can be difficult to implement and circumvent.
As a state lawmaker, I would propose a layered approach. First, enforce strict age verification for social media accounts to prevent underage access.
Second, require platforms to implement robust privacy protections, limit data collection from minors, and provide clear parental controls.
Third, mandate transparency around algorithmic content targeting, ensuring platforms cannot exploit vulnerabilities in young users’ cognitive and emotional development.
Additionally, I would fund public education campaigns and school programs that teach digital literacy, responsible social media use, and mental health awareness. Platforms should be required to provide easy-to-access reporting mechanisms for harmful content and include features that limit continuous usage, such as screen-time alerts or daily usage caps for minors.
The state’s role should be protective, not punitive—creating a safer environment while encouraging responsible use and parental engagement. By combining regulations, education, and accountability, we can reduce risks without unnecessarily restricting access or stifling innovation.
This approach recognizes that social media is integral to modern communication, while still prioritizing the well-being of the next generation.
Artificial intelligence has become a ubiquitous part of our lives. Yet public concerns remain that there aren’t enough regulations governing when or how AI should be used, and that the technology would replace jobs and leave too many Californians unemployed. How specifically would you balance such concerns with the desire to foster innovation and have California remain a leader in this space? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
Artificial intelligence presents enormous opportunities for California’s economy, from healthcare and transportation to clean energy and education. At the same time, we cannot ignore legitimate concerns about job displacement, privacy, and ethical use. Balancing these requires a dual approach: thoughtful regulation alongside innovation incentives.
First, I would support establishing clear state guidelines for AI deployment in sensitive areas, such as healthcare, finance, and public services, ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection of consumer data. This would include requiring companies to conduct impact assessments before large-scale implementation that could affect employment or safety.
Second, I would champion workforce-focused policies. California should invest in retraining and upskilling programs, particularly in AI-related fields, so workers displaced by automation can transition into emerging roles in technology, green energy, and advanced manufacturing. Partnerships with community colleges, vocational programs, and private tech firms would create clear pathways for these transitions.
Third, I would encourage innovation through targeted incentives for startups and research institutions, ensuring California remains a global AI leader. This could include tax credits, grants for ethical AI development, and support for small businesses adopting AI responsibly.
y regulating where risk is highest, equipping workers for new opportunities, and fostering innovation in responsible ways, California can lead in AI while protecting its residents. Our goal must be to embrace the economic and social benefits of AI without leaving anyone behind.
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.)
As a state legislator, my role isn’t just about responding to crime after it happens—it’s about addressing the root causes that make Californians feel unsafe in their communities. Even as violent crime rates statistically decline, perception and lived experience matter. People shouldn’t have to worry about walking home at night, sending their kids to school, or opening their businesses.
I would focus on a three-pronged approach: prevention, accountability, and community support.
Prevention means investing in programs that address poverty, mental health, and substance abuse—the underlying drivers of much criminal behavior. Accountability means ensuring law enforcement is effective, transparent, and responsive, while also holding repeat offenders responsible to maintain community trust. Community support means partnering with neighborhoods, schools, and local organizations to provide safe spaces, youth engagement, and restorative programs that empower residents rather than just punish.
Additionally, I would champion policies that make neighborhoods safer through infrastructure—better lighting, safe public spaces, and improved public transit—and by supporting local initiatives that promote neighborhood watch programs and rapid response to concerns. It’s about restoring a sense of security and trust, so residents feel they can live without fear.
Ultimately, my job is to bridge policy with people’s daily reality. By combining practical enforcement, preventative social programs, and community empowerment, we can make neighborhoods genuinely safer—not just statistically safer—so every Californian can feel at ease in their own home.
What’s a hidden talent you have? (Please answer in 250 words or less.)
I am able to maintain my composure at all times, and I am able to sit with anyone and have a civil conversation, even when I don’t agree with the person.