WESTSIDE - I met Gloria Romero a few years ago when she switched political parties after being one of the most prominent and influential Democrats in Sacramento.
A former California state legislator and educator, Romero was elected to the Assembly in 1998 and later the state Senate in 2001, where she served as the Democratic Senate Majority Leader from 2005 to 2008—the first woman to hold that position.
Her legislative resume included education reforms, such as the Parent Trigger law. Romero holds a Ph.D. in psychology from UC Riverside and has worked as a professor.
After leaving the Democratic Party and registering as a Republican in 2024, she became the Republican candidate for California lieutenant governor in the November 3, 2026, general election after finishing second to Democrat Fiona Ma, the current California State Treasurer.
Here is my extensive Q&A with Senator Romero:
Are you running a coordinated effort with the Republican gubernatorial nominee Steve Hilton? What kind of budget do you have, and is the RNC investing in the race?
Steve Hilton and I created "the Golden Ticket" for California, but we are running individually. We believe this provides a strong opportunity for California voters to understand the roles of each position and how we will work together as a strong team to turn California around after 16 years of one-party rule.
Compare and contrast yourself from your Democratic opponent.
The contrast between Fiona Ma and me is substantial.
Fiona Ma is both a CPA and State Treasurer, and has an extensive record in mismanaging California's investments, bonds, and financial operations. She is the Treasurer of California who has been questioned for issuing no-bid contracts and failing to oversee vital expenditures leading to waste, fraud, and abuse in CA—including the high-speed bullet train. She never raised the alarm on these expenditures, which she should have done as the Treasurer.
But the Lieutenant Governor is not the State Treasurer. The question is what experience each of us brings to the actual responsibilities of this office—and what each of us intends to do with it.
I bring experience at the highest levels of legislative leadership. I served as California Senate Majority Leader—the first woman in California history to hold that position. I chaired the Senate Education Committee, represented working-class communities in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley, and spent years fighting some of Sacramento's most powerful interests.
I also bring something different: political independence.
I was willing to challenge my own party when I believed it was wrong, particularly on education. My advocacy for school choice and education reform created significant disagreements with Democratic Party institutions and teachers' unions. Ultimately, after spending most of my political career as a Democrat, I changed parties in 2024.
Education is one of the Lieutenant Governor's most important responsibilities. The office has seats on the governing boards of California's public higher-education systems. My career has been deeply centered on education—from serving on the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees to chairing the Senate Education Committee and advocating for school choice and accountability.
As Lieutenant Governor, I want to use those positions aggressively: demand measurable academic results, restore objective measures of college readiness and merit in admissions, confront the full cost of attending college, improve transfers and graduation rates, and insist that California's universities prepare students for employment and economic opportunity.
Fiona Ma has spent more than two decades moving as a politically connected insider under the San Francisco Burton-Pelosi machine through the California government—from San Francisco supervisor to Assembly member to the Board of Equalization to State Treasurer.
My case is different. I have been inside Sacramento's leadership, but I have been willing to challenge and break from it. I know how the Legislature works. I know how power is exercised. I know how special interests influence policy. And I know from experience how difficult it can be to challenge the political establishment when your own side tells you to fall in line.
And I would bring one additional perspective to the office: I have belonged to both major political parties. I know Democrats. I know Republicans. I have worked with both, disagreed with both, and changed parties when I concluded that my principles and priorities no longer aligned with the party I had spent much of my life representing.
My goal is to use every constitutional seat, every board position and every convening power that comes with the office—and make Californians notice that their Lieutenant Governor is actually working for them.
One of the reasons I walked away from the Democrat Party is that I know what a woman is and have stood up and will continue to stand up for girls' and women's sports in all of our colleges. My opponent has not. I am the only candidate in this race who has demanded the UC campuses to comply with federally negotiated compacts to ensure that anti-Semitism has no presence on any of our college campuses.
Should you win, how would you work with President Donald Trump? Could you create a relationship that is a win-win for California?
As an elected official I will work with all local, state, and federal officials.
California receives significant amounts of money in the areas of education, coastal and land cleanup, policing, etc. It behooves California to have state-elected officials working collaboratively with federal officials, whoever the President or members of Congress. I am the only candidate who can create a win-win for California.
I believe it is imperative to work with all levels of government, especially federal, and that it is incumbent on us as state leaders to secure the best working relationships and funding irrespective of who holds federal office.
You spent most of your political career as a Democrat, and now you are asking Californians to elect you as a Republican. What specifically changed your mind about the Democratic Party—can a Republican still win a statewide race?
I refer you to the speech given by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at the convention in Dallas earlier this month.
Much of what he spoke about reflects my experiences as well. In a few words, I come from a strong Democrat household and belong to a party that believed in American exceptionalism and a fight for American workers.
I became a professor and later served in Sacramento, where I saw the power of the teachers' unions and education affiliates in ignoring and suppressing the needs of kids trapped in state-identified chronically underperforming schools, particularly poor, Latino, and African-American. I had the independence and the courage to stand up for these kids and families—in the tradition of John, Robert, and Ted Kennedy!
As a Democrat, I supported "school choice" and parents' rights. Democrats have long resisted parent rights, which was my core fight—especially given that I am the daughter of a mother who had a sixth-grade level of education, but who emphasized that education is the key to the American Dream. Eventually, I saw a party that couldn't identify what a woman is, tries to ban gas stoves in the name of "climate change," and denies parent rights of their own children in school systems.
Finally, former President Joe Biden engaged in a primary, and 14 million Democrats voted. These votes were cast aside, and a candidate was installed with not a single vote of the people. I joined Bobby Kennedy when he walked away from being a Democrat and changed my party registration.
You have argued that California doesn't have a revenue problem but a spending and accountability problem. If elected, what are the first two or three areas of state spending you would target reductions—and how would you demonstrate to voters that those cuts wouldn't simply shift costs somewhere else?
California does not simply have a revenue problem. We have an accountability problem. Before Sacramento asks taxpayers for another dollar, government has an obligation to prove that the dollars it already collects are producing results.
My first target would be programs that cannot demonstrate measurable outcomes—starting with homelessness spending. California allocated nearly $24 billion for homelessness and housing over five fiscal years, yet the State Auditor found that California lacked sufficient information to determine the cost-effectiveness of several major programs. I would not indiscriminately cut homelessness services. I would protect programs that demonstrate results and reduce, consolidate, or discontinue funding that cannot show where the money went and what taxpayers received for it.
Second, I would target administrative duplication, unnecessary bureaucracy, and contracts that repeatedly fail audits or performance standards. Every department receiving substantial General Fund dollars should have clearly defined outcomes and publicly report the cost of achieving them. Programs should not continue indefinitely simply because they appeared in last year's budget.
Third, I would scrutinize large discretionary grants, consultants, and politically favored programs before touching core services such as public safety, classrooms, services for people with disabilities, or essential infrastructure.
And here's how I would make sure we're not merely shifting costs: require a fiscal-impact and cost-shift analysis before major reductions take effect. If cutting $100 million from Sacramento simply forces counties, cities, schools, hospitals, or families to spend $120 million, that's not a savings—it's an accounting trick.
I would publish a taxpayer scorecard showing, program by program: How much did we spend? What did we promise? What did we accomplish? What did it cost per outcome? And did reducing the program create costs somewhere else?
California's own Auditor has recommended stronger cost-and-outcome reporting for homelessness programs, and subsequent legislation established additional reporting requirements.
My standard would be simple: fund what works, fix what doesn't, and stop funding what cannot demonstrate results. That's how we protect taxpayers without balancing the budget on the backs of Californians who depend on essential services.
Your background gives you something unusual in this race: you know the Democratic Party from the inside and now represent the Republican Party. What do you believe Democrats fundamentally misunderstand about California today—and, conversely, what do Republicans misunderstand about the state that you would bring to the Republican Party?
I have a perspective few candidates in this race can claim: I spent years inside the Democratic Party, including serving as Democratic Majority Leader of the California State Senate, and today I am a Republican. I know both parties from the inside.
What I believe too many Democrats misunderstand is that good intentions are not the same thing as good results.
California has been governed overwhelmingly by Democrats for years, and government has become extraordinarily good at announcing programs, appropriating money, and measuring how much it spends. It has not always been nearly as rigorous about measuring whether those programs actually work.
My test is simple: What did Californians get for their money?
If we spend billions addressing homelessness, are fewer people living on our streets? If we dramatically increase education spending, are more children reading and doing math at grade level? If we create programs intended to make California affordable, can working families actually afford the rent, electricity, gasoline and groceries?
Accountability is not anti-government. It is responsible government.
But Republicans can misunderstand California, too.
As of May 2026, Democrats represented about 45 percent of registered voters, Republicans about 25 percent, and No Party Preference voters nearly 23 percent. California’s statewide elections are also voter-nominated contests in which every voter can choose among all candidates in the primary, regardless of party preference.
That means Republicans have to compete for Californians who may never change their party registration.
We have to understand the California that actually exists: enormously diverse, heavily urban, immigrant-rich, entrepreneurial, and culturally complicated. We should not write off Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Latinos, Asian Americans, young voters, or working-class communities simply because Democrats have historically performed well with many of them.
I come from those communities. I know that a Latino family struggling with rent, a small-business owner buried in regulations, or a parent worried about a child's school does not wake up every morning thinking about political ideology. They are thinking about whether California is working for their family.
That is what I would bring to the Republican Party: compete everywhere, listen to everyone, and never confuse a voter’s registration with that voter’s values.
I didn't leave one political party to become blindly loyal to another. I changed parties because my convictions and my assessment of California changed. I will work with Democrats when they are right, Republicans when they are right, and challenge either party when Sacramento puts ideology, special interests or political power ahead of results.
California does not need another partisan warrior. It needs leaders willing to ask a much harder question:
If Xavier Becerra is elected Governor and you as LG, how will you work together?
If Xavier Becerra is elected governor and I am elected lieutenant governor, the voters will have given both of us a job to do. My responsibility would be to respect that decision and work with him wherever we can advance the interests of Californians.
We come from different political perspectives, and I would not pretend those differences don't exist. There will be issues where we agree, issues where we disagree, and times when I will speak up and challenge his administration. But disagreement does not have to mean dysfunction.
I would look for common ground on improving our schools and universities, reducing the cost of living, creating economic opportunity, protecting California's coastline and natural resources, combating human trafficking, and making state government more accountable.
At the same time, the lieutenant governor is independently elected and has independent responsibilities. I would use my seats on California's higher-education governing boards to demand results for students, and my role on the State Lands Commission to protect our coastline while recognizing California's economic and energy needs. Those are responsibilities I would take seriously regardless of who occupies the governor's office.
And when we disagree, I will be respectful, transparent and independent. I know Xavier Becerra. We both served in public life during overlapping periods, and we understand that governing requires working with people who don't always share your politics.
The good news is that I have known Xavier for many years—he was my Congressman who wanted me to run for office to serve in Congress with him! I declined that offer, but he and I have always had a respectful friendship. I am happy for his political successes but do not support many of his policies. I have no doubt that he and I could work extremely well with each other.
The lieutenant governor has relatively limited direct executive power but becomes governor if there is a vacancy and has important responsibilities involving higher education and the State Senate. What would you actually use the office to accomplish—and what would you do differently from the current Democratic leadership if you had to assume the governorship?
I would use every power the Constitution gives the lieutenant governor. I don't see this as a ceremonial office, as too many Lt. Governors see it today. I see it as a strong leadership position, particularly in the area of education which consumes almost half the state budget, and a powerful platform for accountability.
First, higher education. The lieutenant governor has a vote on the governing boards of UC, CSU and the community colleges. I would use those votes to not just show up and sit on these boards but to actually LEAD on these boards and demand measurable results: affordability, stronger graduation and transfer rates, shorter time to degree, greater transparency, campus safety, and objective standards that ensure students are academically prepared. This is at a point of crisis, and I proudly joined with over 1200 UC faculty in demanding the restoration of objective, standards-based college admissions protocols. I am the only candidate in this race who has been a student in all three of these systems of higher education, as well as having been a professor in all three as well.
Second, I would use the State Lands Commission and the lieutenant governor's coastal responsibilities to focus on protecting California's coastline, addressing pollution and neglected state lands, and making sure environmental policy produces measurable results. As someone who was personally impacted by both the Franklin and Palisades fires, I understand the intense frustration and sense of abandonment felt by so many from our own local and state governments. I will not perpetuate "woke, environmental" policies, which prioritize plants over people and will lead on implementing science-based fire risk management policies to protect lives, property, and California businesses.
Third, I would use the office's statewide platform to focus attention on human trafficking, economic opportunity, and government accountability. As a dog lover, I will create a statewide network of animal welfare advocates to advance enforcement of anti-cruelty laws and invest in rescue, foster, and adoption pet systems while seeking additional funding for strong, ethical no-kill shelters. I have joined with animal rights advocates to end the cruelty of dogs on Skid Row and will continue these efforts statewide.
And I would always remember that the lieutenant governor must be prepared to become governor. If that responsibility came to me, Californians would see a change in governing philosophy: rigorous audits of state spending and programs, measurable performance standards for agencies, a stronger focus on affordability and public safety, and greater scrutiny of regulations that increase the cost of housing, energy, and doing business.
Ultimately, California voters in November will have a choice between two candidates, not simply two parties. Make the affirmative case: Why are you personally the better choice to be California's next lieutenant governor—not merely why the Republican Party is a better choice than the Democrats? What experience, independence, and accomplishments do you bring that your Democratic opponent cannot?
California voters should judge me not simply by the letter after my name, but by my record, my independence, and what I have actually accomplished.
I bring experience at virtually every level relevant to this office. I served in the State Assembly, represented East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley in the State Senate, chaired the Senate Education Committee, and became the first woman in California history to serve as Senate Majority Leader. I understand the Legislature, the budget process, higher education, and how to bring people together to get legislation through a difficult political system.
But experience alone isn't enough. What distinguishes my record is independence.
I have challenged powerful interests even when they were aligned with my own party. On education, I didn't just give speeches about failing schools. I fought for school choice and parental power and authored major reforms, including California's Parent Trigger law and Open Enrollment Act.
I also bring something unusual to this race: I know California government from the inside, but I'm not captive to it. I was willing to leave the political party in which I had risen to one of its highest leadership positions when I concluded that it no longer represented my principles. Voters don't have to agree with every decision I've made, but they will always know where I stand.
And I understand education personally. My mother had only a sixth-grade education. I went from community college to earning a Ph.D., teaching at California universities, serving on the Los Angeles Community College Board, and ultimately chairing the Senate Education Committee. Education didn't just change my résumé—it changed my life.
I'm not asking Californians to elect me because I'm a Republican. I'm asking them to examine my life and my record. I've been a professor, a community college trustee, a legislator, an education reformer, and the Senate Majority Leader. I've worked with Democrats and Republicans. I've taken on my own side when I believed it was wrong.
That is the record I bring. That is the independence I bring. And that is the kind of lieutenant governor I intend to be.
(Nick Antonicello is a regular contributor to City Watch LA and covers the numerous municipal, legislative, judicial and statewide contests on the November 3rd ballot. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected])
