Lucinda KWH Jahn is challenging Rep. Darrell Issa for his inland North County and East County congressional seat. The independent candidate also ran against him in 2022 and in the open race for a similar district in 2020 but did not advance beyond either primary.
To help inform voters, the San Diego Union-Tribune asked all the candidates a series of the same questions about their priorities, positions and campaigns. Their emailed answers have been lightly edited for clarity.
Why are you running, and what makes you the best candidate?
My integrity and principles are not up for sale. I am the “zero donate candidate,” for a reason. Special interest groups and other organizations do not influence my decision-making, since I refuse to accept money from them. I am free to make data-driven decisions in the best interests of my constituency. All of them, not just some of them.
Lucinda KWH Jahn, candidate for California’s 48th Congressional District
(Courtesy of Lucinda KWH Jahn)
I know some will not be happy with my decisions and some will disagree with my decisions, however, in the interest of intellectual honesty, you must be open to entertaining more than one point of view. You must balance the needs of the entire group, not just some of them. It is the same balancing act families do every day.
What are the top 3 issues facing this district and California generally?
Border regulation: We have a growing humanitarian crisis along our southern border. The current situation as I understand it is not compassionate or fair to the migrants or to the citizens of our country.
Cost of living relative to income: We are over-taxed and financially stressed at the household level. As a member of Congress, I can draft legislation to simplify the tax code.
Global conflict: We must continue our diplomatic efforts but do so from a position of unity and strength.
What are the first 3 things you would do in your first term in Congress?
I’ll focus on our immigration laws. We haven’t seriously reviewed this legislation since 1986. I would also focus on enforcement. We must define “asylum” and we need to clearly communicate what exactly it means to the global community. We must improve enforcement and processing.
Regarding domestic issues, I’ve three key areas of focus — term limits, our federal tax codes and healthcare.
My international priority is finding a path to end the wars in the Ukraine and Gaza. We cannot be seen as backing down from the commitments we made to our allies.
What would you do to curb climate change and its effects on California?
The Earth’s climate has always changed. How much of the change is due to human activity? Understanding integrated, adaptive systems is extremely difficult. Climate models are only as good as the data used to create them.
Congress should fund research and development of several energy producing systems such as solar, wind, geothermal and thorium nuclear reactors. Congress could also support research into carbon-capture systems. We need more regional solutions and more diverse solutions. It is not a problem that can be fixed with a focus on only one system or method of energy production.
How should U.S. migration and asylum policy change, what should guide it, and what specifically will you pursue in Congress?
We should process migrants according to our current laws and system. Communities can be better served by finding solutions to help people create a home of prosperity, rather than a place to flee.
Our border should be regulated. Our asylum laws are being exploited. Not all migrants are being persecuted for their beliefs. Why are the countries these people are fleeing from unable to build functional societies?
The social problems of humanity won’t be solved by relocating. The American people cannot economically support migration at the current scale.
What is your stance on the war in Gaza, and on U.S. involvement in and support of it?
The people of Israel have the right to defend themselves. The Hamas Covenant of 1988 states, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Any religious or political entity should be judged by their words and actions. It’s not possible to negotiate with irrational actors. Their religious doctrine is used to justify terrorism. The Hamas Covenant is an affront to religious freedom and human rights.
The people of Palestine are suffering for supporting Hamas, while its leaders are living billionaire lifestyles in Qatar.
Would you support federal statutory restrictions on, or protections of, abortion rights? Which, and to what extent?
Fundamentally, I am pro-choice. However, the word “abortion” is not in the Constitution. The right to an abortion argument is inferred, or rather an interpretation of constitutional amendments, not explicitly stated.
The Supreme Court returned the authority to make laws about abortion to the states. We, the people, are going to have to accept responsibility for making educated, informed and medically sound decisions about abortion.
I do not favor late-term abortions without medical necessity. My support of either restrictions or protections of abortion rights is predicated on sound medical practice.
Would you support or oppose stricter federal gun laws and background checks? Which, and to what extent?
I support our constitutional rights, but rights come with responsibility. The national dialogue about this issue is so emotional that we may be missing what really contributes to gun violence. Why does a segment of our society think shooting people is the answer to their problems? Are acts of gun violence related to mental health issues? If we take away one weapon, will another weapon be used?
This issue has become more about guns and not about people committing crimes and what motivates them. My first step would be, determine what motivates someone to commit acts of violence.
