Former San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo and California State Assemblymember Evan Low squared off in a debate for California District 16’s House of Representatives seat on Friday night. (Find whether you live in the district here).
Low has the endorsement of the California Democratic Party. The candidates are running to replace long-time representative Anna Eshoo, who announced last November that she will not be seeking reelection after 32 years of service.
While the two candidates agreed on major issues like immigration, housing, and home insurance costs, they diverged on crime, specifically on Proposition 36. Liccardo stands in support of the bill, which would increase penalties for petty theft and drug trafficking. “We need accountability for crime,” he said. He claimed that passing this bill would help drug addicts get treatment by giving them the choice between prison and rehab, as opposed to the current system that turns them back out onto the streets.
In line with the California Democratic Party’s endorsement, Low is staunchly against the proposition. “I refuse to go back to the era of mass incarceration,” he said.
The debate’s first major issue was on the U.S.’s role in the ongoing Middle Eastern conflict. Both candidates said they support an immediate ceasefire and return of all hostages to Israel while affirming Israel’s right to exist. Liccardo specifically stated that the Federal Government needs to “accelerate aid to nearly two million Palestinians who critically need it.”
The moderators followed by asking the candidates for their views on immigration policy and temporary protective status for undocumented immigrants. “We need comprehensive immigration reform,” Low said, emphasizing that he would work with Vice President Kamala Harris—assuming she wins the upcoming presidential election—to pass a border bill that Senate Republicans shot down this year.
Liccardo shared a vision of implementing more technology at border crossings to expedite the process of entering the U.S., although he did not specify what that could look like. Both candidates affirmed their support for temporary protective status. “Every single undocumented person in our community would be served by our city,” Liccardo said.
Given the chance to speak on homelessness, both candidates focused on Liccardo’s mayorship. Liccardo pointed to his record as mayor, including the 11% reduction of street homelessness in San Jose from 2022-2023 and his model of converting vacant motels into quick housing, which later became a statewide policy.
Low countered with an independent audit reporting a 40% increase in homelessness during Liccardo’s mayorship and that San Jose fell 13,128 new housing units short of a state mandate.
The debate then shifted to housing policy, with Low emphasizing his commitment to Harris’ plan to provide a $25,000 tax credit to first-time homebuyers and build 3 million new homes.
Liccardo vowed to use New Markets Tax Credits to “transform vacant office buildings and retail and hotels into housing.” Liccardo also promised he would fight to increase exemptions on capital gains taxes. “We can enable more inventory of older homes by increasing the exemptions on capital gains [tax] so that older homeowners will not have to pay such severe capital gains hit,” he said.
When questioned about being “tough on crime,” both pointed to their successes and their opponent’s flaws. Liccardo emphasized that his addition of 200 police officers to San Jose’s police force helped bring the city’s homicide rate to the lowest of any major U.S. city. He criticized Low for voting against SB 1421, a bill that made police misconduct records available to the public.
Low countered by claiming Liccardo’s pension-cutting policies as a San Jose city council member caused 500 police officers to quit, saying “we need more police officers, more.” He vowed to fight for a crime bill if elected.
The candidates then went back to echoing the other’s opinion. When asked, both agreed they would work with social media companies but that more regulation was needed. “We need to be able to partner with tech companies,” said Low. He emphasized his support for the California Consumer Privacy Act, which gave California citizens greater control over their data from corporations.
Liccardo used his rebuttal to attack Low, highlighting that Low’s campaign is under investigation for improper fundraising. “It’s the subject of an ongoing investigation today, because of Evan Low’s attempt to use this caucus to raise money in ways that were not legitimate,” said Liccardo.
The last major issue the candidates were asked about was how they would respond to climate change’s impacts on Californians—specifically, rising home insurance rates caused by destructive wildfires. Low used his time to state support for California Senate candidate Adam Schiff’s plan to help fund home insurance through Medicare and Medicaid. He also mentioned his support for Governor Newsom’s plan to make all California vehicles electric by 2035 and run the state’s power grid on clean energy by 2045.
Liccardo ended by stating his support for Property Assessed Clean Energy financing, which would provide tax incentives for homeowners to make their houses more fire-resistant. He also attacked Low’s Sierra Club F grade, which he received for taking money from oil and gas companies. “He has received more than $170,000 from big oil,” Liccardo said.
