- Share on WeChat
-
— Awards:
— Father's Occupation:
— Mother's Occupation:
— Pets (include names):
1. Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
- Pro-choice
2. Other or expanded principles
- I am strongly pro-choice and believes it is not my place, or our government's, to stand between a woman and her doctor.
1. In order to balance the budget, do you support an income tax increase on any tax bracket?
- Yes
2. In order to balance the budget, do you support reducing defense spending?
- Yes
3. Other or expanded principles
- I believe we can cut unnecessary or duplicative spending across the federal budget so that American's hard-earned tax dollars are used for programs that make us safer and that help lift up working families who are struggling to make ends meet. I support raising taxes on the wealthiest among us so that we may invest in our future.
1. Do you support the regulation of indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
- Yes
2. Other or expanded principles
- The largest corporations and the wealthiest donors have more influence in campaigns and Washington than ever before. We need to save our Democracy by fixing America's broken campaign finance system. The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates of unlimited dark money flowing through our public discourse. It is absolutely critical for us to find ways to fix our broken system by implementing better disclosure rules, blunting the impact of Citizens United, and implementing a public financing system to ensure everyone has a voice in America.
1. Do you support federal spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
- Yes
2. Do you support lowering corporate taxes as a means of promoting economic growth?
- No
3. Other or expanded principles
- I will support tax breaks for small businesses because I know that is the best way to promote economic growth, create good-paying jobs, and boost wages for working families. I will not support, as we see in Trump's tax cuts, giveaways to the largest corporations and the wealthiest individuals tax breaks who are doing better than ever even as working families struggle to get by.
1. Do you support requiring states to adopt federal education standards?
- Yes
2. Other or expanded principles
- I will support making critical investments in public schools to give every child regardless of their zip code a chance to get ahead with a quality education. I believe every student in America deserves access to a quality public education that prepares them to reach their dreams and succeed in the global, 21st-century economy. In Congress, I will be a champion for more federal funding to reduce class sizes, and give teachers and students the support they need, whether its supplies, training, technology or safe and comfortable facilities.
1. Do you support government funding for the development of renewable energy (e.g. solar, wind, thermal)?
- Yes
2. Do you support the federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions?
- Yes
3. Other or expanded principles
- As Hawaii Attorney General, I have been on the forefront of Hawaii's unmatched commitment to building a more sustainable future and protecting our precious natural resources for today and tomorrow. The people of Hawaii can count on me to continue being a champion for conservation and an advocate for action on climate change. My priorities include finding real solutions to stop climate change and reduce U.S. greenhouse emissions and supporting programs and funding to help Hawaii invest in sustainable sources and new technologies so we can generate, store, and transmit the green energy of the future.
1. Do you generally support gun-control legislation?
- Yes
2. Other or expanded principles
- I believe one reason Hawaii has the lowest gun death rate in the nation is because it has passed common sense legislation that limits who and what types of weapons the people of Hawaii may possess. It's time for Congress to get its act together and protect our students and our citizens. I will bring Hawaii's values and its lessons to Washington, D.C. where I will fight to enshrine our successful state gun control measures into federal law.
1. Do you support repealing the 2010 Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare")?
- No
2. Other or expanded principles
- As Hawaii Attorney General, I fought to protect the Affordable Care Act and the principle that every American should have access to quality, affordable healthcare. I support the merits of a universal healthcare system. I believe we should be improving and advancing the Affordable Care Act to ensure families have access to affordable health insurance in every state.
1. Do you support the construction of a wall along the Mexican border?
- No
2. Do you support requiring immigrants who are unlawfully present to return to their country of origin before they are eligible for citizenship?
- No
3. Other or expanded principles
- I will support renewing America's commitment to diversity by overhauling our failed and outdated immigration system, protecting DREAMers and reuniting Hawaii families. This includes creating a pathway to citizenship for the millions of aspiring Americans who will help us grow America's economy and enrich our diverse culture. And it includes fighting to protect and strengthen family reunification policies. As for a wall, security measures may be necessary, but construction of a wall along the entire Mexican border is unrealistic and funding may be better spent on other projects.
1. Do you support the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes?
- Yes
2. Other or expanded principles
- I support removing cannabis from the U.S. government's list of "Schedule 1" controlled substances and establishing a safe, reasoned pathway for future legalization by the states.
1. Should the United States use military force in order to prevent governments hostile to the U.S. from possessing a nuclear weapon?
- Unknown Position
2. Do you support increased American intervention in Middle Eastern conflicts beyond air support?
- No
3. Other or expanded principles
- The might of the U.S. military should only be brought to bear when all efforts at diplomacy have failed and when America, or our interests, are threatened with imminent harm. That?s why it is critical for the State Department to be both staffed and fully funded - two things the Trump Administration has failed to accomplish in its first 500 days.
Please explain in a total of 100 words or less, your top two or three priorities if elected. If they require additional funding for implementation, please explain how you would obtain this funding.
- I know how hard it is for working families to make ends meet, pay the bills, and put food on the table. That is why my top priority in Congress will be fighting to make sure Hawaii working families are thriving not just surviving with more affordable housing choices, more opportunities to bring home a bigger paycheck, and more security and dignity in retirement for our kupuna. You can also count on me to fight for America's future and face head-on issues like climate change, fixing America's broken immigration system, and ending the senseless gun violence epidemic sweeping the nation.
On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order, Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States, that rescinded and replaced his January 27 executive order of the same name. The order suspended entry into the United States for individuals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen for 90 days. The order also suspended refugee admissions to the United States for 120 days while the process was reviewed for additional national security measures that could be implemented. The order was set to go into effect on March 16, 2017. On March 7, 2017, Chin filed a lawsuit against the executive order in federal district court. Chin asked a federal judge to uphold the restraining order imposed on the previous executive order and apply it to the new one. The official complaint argued that the new executive order was also illegal because it would harm Muslim residents of Hawaii, the state's educational institutions, and its economy. The previous executive order faced a lawsuit that made similar arguments, filed primarily by attorneys general from Washington and Minnesota, and supported by 16 other Democratic attorneys general. On March 15, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson blocked implementation of the order with a nationwide temporary restraining order. Watson wrote, "It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam ... Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not." On March 30, Watson granted Hawaii's request to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction, writing that the plaintiffs "met their burden of establishing a strong likelihood of success" on their claims. The injunction extended indefinitely the block against federal implementation of Section 2 and Section 6 of the executive order while the case worked its way through the courts. Later on March 30, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal of Watson's decision in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issued its ruling on June 12, upholding the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Watson. The panel found that in issuing the executive order, President Trump exceeded the president's broad authority over immigration. President Trump did not "make a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States,'" the court wrote. The court found that the executive order also violated provisions of the law that prohibit nationality-based discrimination and that President Trump did not follow the process outlined in federal law for setting a limit on the admission of refugees. The Department of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear the case. On June 26, 2018, the court ruled 5-4 to reverse the ruling of the Ninth Circuit. The court concluded that the plaintiffs could not show likelihood of success on the merits because the order fell within the president’s broad power over immigration matters. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
