HD 41: Primary voters choose between two local experienced elected leaders for Dem nominee

Q: After astonishing property value increases over the past four years, voters and the Legislature have moved to change property tax laws in an effort to reduce property taxes for residents. Did everyone get it right? What would you want to see changed?

A: The sharp increase in property values over the past several years created real challenges for homeowners, seniors on fixed incomes, and working families already struggling with rising costs. I am glad that voters and the Legislature took action to provide relief because doing nothing was not an option.  That said, we have not solved the problem and need to do more. We need a balanced approach that provides meaningful property tax relief while ensuring schools, fire districts, local governments, and other essential services have the stable funding they need.  Going forward, I would like to see continued efforts to make Colorado’s property tax system more predictable, transparent, and fair. We should protect vulnerable homeowners from being priced out of their communities, especially seniors through the homestead exemption, and address the underlying drivers of rising housing costs. That includes reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, lowering construction costs, and encouraging more attainable housing while maintaining strong safety and quality standards.

Q: State lawmakers have in the past two sessions passed a handful of measures addressing the problem of affordable housing. City officials, including those in Aurora, have balked, saying some of the measures usurp local control, especially over zoning and development issues. Do you agree that’s the case? If so, is the end result so important that it outweighs the loss for local communities? 

A: I believe increasing housing affordability and availability is important enough to justify some state involvement, but that involvement should be carefully tailored. We should expand housing opportunities without unnecessarily undermining the ability of local communities to shape their own future. The best solutions will come from collaboration between state and local leaders, not from either side acting alone.  I understand why the legislature felt compelled to act. Colorado’s housing affordability crisis has become a statewide challenge. When teachers, school employees, first responders, and working families cannot afford to live in the communities they serve, the consequences extend far beyond city boundaries.  Local control absolutely matters. Local elected officials are closest to their communities and often have the best understanding of infrastructure, transportation, schools, and neighborhood concerns. At the same time, local policies can contribute to broader housing shortages that affect all Coloradans. I believe the state should set expectations and reduce barriers to housing while giving communities meaningful flexibility in how they meet those goals.

Q: With available water sources all essentially determined, and water storage projects limited, should the state require that new home and business development be limited to provable, existing water supplies committed to the county or town permitting new construction?

A: Colorado’s water reality has to be part of any conversation about growth. We cannot continue approving development based on assumptions that future water supplies will materialize without a credible plan to secure them. At the same time, I would be cautious about imposing a blanket statewide requirement tying all new development exclusively to existing water supplies, as that could unintentionally limit needed housing and economic growth.  I believe local governments should demonstrate a reliable, long-term water supply before approving major new development. Growth should pay for growth, and communities should be transparent about where water will come from and how future residents and businesses will be served. Decisions should be based on realistic, verifiable water availability, not overly optimistic projections.  Colorado should also continue investing in conservation, water reuse, drought resilience, and regional cooperation. I support a water-first approach to development that allows communities flexibility to meet long-term water needs through proven, sustainable strategies while supporting responsible growth.

Q: There have been a number of efforts to limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration agencies and restrict immigration enforcement. What regulations would you support for immigration enforcement operations, or should local police work more closely with ICE? 

A: Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, but local law enforcement also has a duty to keep communities safe and maintain public trust.  I support cooperation between local law enforcement and federal agencies when serious criminal activity or legitimate public safety threats are involved, including violent crime, human trafficking, and drug trafficking. At the same time, I do not believe local police should be expected to serve as federal immigration agents. When residents fear that any interaction with police could lead to immigration consequences, they may be less likely to report crimes, cooperate with investigations, or seek help when they need it.  As outlined in my immigration priority, I support policies that strengthen public safety, uphold the rule of law, and treat people with dignity and fairness. Local law enforcement’s primary mission should remain protecting the communities they serve, while federal agencies carry out federal immigration responsibilities.  The best approach is appropriate information-sharing and coordination when public safety is at stake, while ensuring local police can build trust with residents and focus their resources on preventing and solving crime.

Q: While the Legislature, out of session, has little recourse right now, state lawmakers from both parties are loudly condemning or supporting Gov. Jared Polis’ decision to grant former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters clemency. What do you think about Polis’ decision?

A: I would not have made the same decision as Governor Polis.  Regardless of political affiliation, public officials have a responsibility to safeguard the systems they are entrusted to oversee. In this case, Ms. Peters was convicted by a jury and sentenced by a judge after being found guilty of actions that compromised election equipment and violated the public trust placed in her as an elected official.  I believe in both election integrity and due process. Our elections depend on voters having confidence that election officials will follow the law and protect the security of our voting systems. When that trust is violated, there must be accountability.  While the governor has the constitutional authority to grant clemency, I do not believe this case warranted overriding the outcome reached through the judicial process. At a time when confidence in our institutions remains fragile, we should reinforce the principle that no one is above the law and that public officials are held to the same standards of accountability as everyone else.

Q: Has the state struck a good balance between addressing justice for crime victims and promoting “restorative justice” in an effort to rehabilitate rather than house crime perpetrators and reduce the cost of state prisons?

A: As someone with a Doctorate in Criminal Justice who teaches in the field, I believe Colorado should pursue both accountability and rehabilitation. These goals are not mutually exclusive, and a balanced justice system is more effective than one focused solely on punishment or rehabilitation.  My experience has shown that evidence-based approaches can improve public safety while reducing recidivism. Restorative justice can be a valuable tool, particularly for juvenile, first-time, and nonviolent offenders when victims choose to participate. When implemented properly, it requires offenders to take responsibility, understand the harm they caused, and make meaningful efforts to repair it.  At the same time, victims must remain at the center of the process. They deserve to be heard, protected, and treated with dignity. Serious violent crimes and repeat offenses require accountability measures that prioritize public safety and justice for victims.  Colorado should continue evaluating restorative justice programs based on measurable outcomes. The goal should be a system that holds people accountable, supports victims, and creates opportunities for rehabilitation when appropriate.

Q: Between Medicaid cuts and a limited insurance exchange program, many Coloradans are experiencing rising healthcare costs. Is there anything the state can do to lower the cost of healthcare both for people with and without commercial health insurance? 

A: Healthcare affordability is one of the biggest challenges facing Colorado families. Rising premiums, deductibles, prescription drug costs, and out-of-pocket expenses affect people across Medicaid, the individual market, and employer-sponsored plans.  I recognize that many cost drivers are beyond the state’s direct control, and federal cuts to Medicaid have put Colorado in a difficult position. Still, there are meaningful steps the state can take to improve affordability and access.  First, we should increase competition and transparency in healthcare pricing so patients understand costs and policymakers can identify what is driving increases. Second, we should invest in primary care, preventive care, and behavioral health, because treating issues early is often less expensive than relying on emergency care. Third, we must address healthcare workforce shortages, especially in rural and underserved communities.  Colorado should also keep working to lower prescription drug costs, support community health centers, and expand affordable coverage options for both insured and uninsured residents.

Q: What is the biggest difference between you and your opponent, and why is it important to voters in this primary election?

A: The biggest difference between me and my opponent is the combination of lived experience, professional expertise, and proven leadership I would bring to the Colorado House.  I am an immigrant, a mother, an educator, a criminal justice scholar, and an elected member of the Aurora Public Schools Board of Education. These experiences have shaped my understanding of the challenges Colorado families face, from education and housing to healthcare, public safety, and economic opportunity.  What sets me apart is that I have governed and delivered results in a complex community. On the APS Board, I have worked through difficult challenges, balanced competing priorities, and made decisions affecting thousands of students, families, and educators. I focus on outcomes over ideology and believe in collaboration to solve problems.  With a doctorate in criminal justice and a career in education and public service, I bring an evidence-based approach to policymaking. My focus is practical solutions, accountability, and improving opportunities and quality of life for the people I serve.

Q: If you could unilaterally sunset any Colorado law, which one would it be and why?

A: If I could sunset one Colorado law, it would be any law that creates barriers to opportunity without producing measurable public benefit.  As someone who teaches criminal justice, I believe laws should be regularly evaluated based on evidence, outcomes, and whether they are accomplishing their intended purpose. Too often, government adds new laws and regulations but rarely revisits them to determine whether they remain necessary or effective.  Rather than single out one law for political effect, I would support a systematic process requiring periodic review of major laws and regulations. If a law is not improving public safety, expanding opportunity, protecting consumers, or serving a clear public purpose, we should be willing to reform or repeal it.  Government works best when it is accountable, transparent, and willing to adapt when evidence points to a better path forward. My focus is not on preserving laws for their own sake, but on ensuring Colorado’s laws help people, solve problems, and reflect the needs of our communities today.

Q: What two bills that failed or were vetoed do you think should have become law?

A: Two bills I wish had become law were SB24-106 and SB25-005.  SB24-106 sought to address barriers to condominium construction in Colorado. Homeownership is increasingly out of reach for many working families, young professionals, teachers, and first responders. While the bill was not perfect, Colorado needs to encourage more attainable starter homes and condominiums while maintaining strong consumer protections. Expanding homeownership opportunities helps build stronger communities and long-term financial stability.  SB25-005 would have revisited Colorado’s Labor Peace Act framework, including the requirement for a second election before certain union security agreements can take effect. Whether one supported the bill or not, it raised an important question about whether a system created more than 80 years ago still reflects today’s workforce and economy.  Both bills represented a willingness to thoughtfully reexamine existing policies and pursue practical solutions that expand economic opportunity, support workers and families, and strengthen Colorado communities.