California Needs Change. Becerra Is the Better Choice.
A moderate’s case for Xavier Becerra on crime, housing, and the practical work of governing.
Image Credit: Gage Skidmore / Jasper Langley-Hawthorne
Every election is a choice, and this November, Californians have a particularly important one to make. After years of frustration over housing costs, taxes, homelessness and public safety, voters will decide between Xavier Becerra, the former California Attorney General and U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services, and Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host and adviser to British Prime Minister David Cameron who has made his opposition to California's Democratic establishment the centerpiece of his campaign.
The Democrats have to take some blame for the state's failures, and Republicans can certainly be expected to demand better. And it's not just Republicans who are fed up. The Public Policy Institute of California reported in October 2026 that 73 percent of likely voters said their incomes have not increased in line with inflation, 64 percent of California adults said affordable housing is a major issue in their communities, and 55 percent of likely voters said the state is on the wrong track. These statistics alone make it hard to imagine that Californians are particularly happy with the status quo. As a moderate, I sympathize deeply with many of the conservative arguments that California's government is too large, too inefficient, and too soft on crime.
There is nothing comforting to a small business owner whose store is constantly being robbed or to a family member that works full time and still cannot afford a house — especially when you tell them that California is the world's fourth largest economy. A government should be measured on how it affects the common man, and on that measure California is clearly lacking. Hilton deserves credit for pointing out the state's problems and making housing affordability the centerpiece of his candidacy. He has put forth some plans (albeit unrealistic) to lower taxes, cut regulations and increase the availability of housing. These are policies that resonate with many Californians who have never voted Republican.
Hilton's vision, however, raises many questions. He has largely staked his candidacy on the idea that any Democrat elected to the governor's office will do what Gavin Newsom has done and that the obvious path forward is to turn California into the exact opposite of the status quo. His campaign proposals to reverse Newsom's prison closures, roll back climate regulations to lower gas prices, and cap fees and regulatory costs on new housing illustrate that approach. This argument is flawed because it glosses over the significant ideological differences among Democrats, especially on the issue of public safety. Also, Hilton is asking voters to believe that he can successfully pull off a massive policy shift in a state where the Assembly is overwhelmingly likely to remain solidly Democratic.
This brings me to an often overlooked point in this year’s election: Xavier Becerra is considerably more moderate on criminal justice than his critics suggest. California has been too soft on recidivism, especially in cases of retail theft and drug crime. While a criminal justice system should be compassionate and provide opportunities for rehabilitation, it should also impose serious consequences on the small percentage of recidivists who commit a disproportionate amount of the crimes.
That is precisely why Proposition 36, and Becerra’s support for it, is of great significance. California voters passed Proposition 36 in 2024 to increase criminal penalties for some theft and drug crimes, allowing repeat shoplifters to be charged with a felony and expanding penalties for serious drug crimes. It also mandated drug treatment for some repeat drug offenders and added criminal penalties for those who fail to complete treatment. Proposition 36 was a rather simple bill that reflected a fairly simple idea: California has gone too far in lowering criminal penalties for some crimes. Governor Newsom was against it. Becerra was for it. Becerra has since pledged to support full funding and implementation of Proposition 36, ensuring that the increased criminal penalties and court-ordered treatment will actually be implemented. As governor, Becerra would be responsible for securing the resources needed to fulfill that promise, while prosecutors and judges would still decide individual cases. For voters concerned about repeat theft and drug offenses, that is a concrete commitment worth taking seriously.
Unlike many in his own party, Becerra is independent and is willing to buck the party line when the circumstances justify it. Becerra's support for Proposition 36 illustrates the degree of that independence. His approach to climate policy also deserves a closer look. In a CalMatters interview, he argued that environmental deadlines must account for what families can afford, although he later reaffirmed that California could still meet its 2035 goal for ending new gasoline-car sales. His energy platform pairs emissions reductions with lower household bills and stronger utility oversight. That is the right standard: Climate policy should be judged partly by whether working families can afford the transition.
That same concern about affordability should guide housing policy. Becerra's housing plan calls for declaring a housing emergency on his first day, helping close the funding gap for nearly 40,000 already-approved affordable homes, reducing permitting delays, and allowing more housing near jobs and transit. He also proposes stronger enforcement against cities that obstruct the housing they are required to accommodate. These commitments acknowledge something California's government has too often failed to act on: If regulations and bureaucratic delays prevent homes from being built, working families pay the price. On homelessness, his plan combines rental assistance to prevent people from losing their homes with expanded shelter, permanent housing, and mental health and addiction treatment. He would also tie funding to measurable results, including whether people remain housed. Spending more should come with a clear obligation to show that people's lives are improving.
Hilton, meanwhile, has embraced a much more far-reaching conservative agenda, with proposals that would substantially change California's tax structure, environmental regulations, and relationship with the federal government. His promise to eliminate state income taxes on the first $150,000 of earnings is certainly appealing to taxpayers, and reducing the burden on working families ought to be a bipartisan priority, but an enormous reduction in state revenue would require equally serious decisions about spending and public services.
There is also the practical question of how such proposals would become law. The governor has substantive executive authority, but cannot simply rewrite California's tax system or repeal major statutes without legislative support. Even voters who agree with Hilton's objectives should question whether his confrontational relationship with the Legislature’s Democratic supermajority would help him achieve those objectives or, instead, leave him struggling to deliver on his promises.
Becerra's career has been defined by negotiating bills, managing large budgets, and navigating the legal and political systems that all governors must deal with. And while experience alone does not guarantee competence – California has produced many failed politicians – it is a relevant skill for someone who wants to run a large and complex state like ours. Hilton, on the other hand, is asking Californians to vote this November in a referendum on Gavin Newsom.
But Newsom isn't running again, and Becerra is. Voters should evaluate Becerra on his own merits and not simply assume that all Democrats are equally to blame for decisions in Sacramento. You can agree with Hilton that California needs serious change and be skeptical of his effectiveness. You can agree that Democrats have had shortcomings at governing and acknowledge that Becerra has proven capable of going against the party when it matters. The next governor will be inheriting a state with serious issues that neither political party can tweet their way out of.
To make housing affordable, maintain public safety, and keep government costs down will require tough decisions, partnership with local officials and a willingness to not just listen, but to collaborate with people across the aisle. Becerra's record, especially his support for increased criminal penalties under Proposition 36, demonstrates more good judgment than the straw man his opponent has tried to build.. Every election is a choice between two candidates, and this November, the correct choice is clearly Xavier Becerra
