2026 CANDIDATE SURVEY
Tish Hyman
Candidate for Los Angeles City Mayor
To help foster greater discussion about reforming City Hall, we asked City of LA candidates to participate in a six question survey. Half of the questions seek general feedback, and the rest are issue specific.
Please note survey responses, candidate information, and website links are provided for informational/educational purposes only. Fair Rep LA is presenting these responses as submitted without edit, evaluation, or commentary. Fair Rep LA does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or their responses in any way.
Survey Info:
-
Answers: Respondents were told that questions could be answered in 1-2 sentences, and that while additional context was welcome, the form had a 1,250 character limit for each question (approximately 200 words).
-
Resource Document: Additional background information was provided via a resource document.
-
Participation: Surveys were sent to all City of LA candidates qualified to appear on the ballot. This is a very busy time for candidates, so we appreciate everyone who made time to respond. Please avoid reading too much into a candidate’s lack of participation. We respect the limited bandwidth campaigns have, and it's possible that our request(s) may have been lost in their inbox.
-
Background: The City of Los Angeles is undergoing the first comprehensive review of our city’s governance structure in 27 years. The Charter Reform Commission recently transmitted a report containing over 60 recommendations to the City Council, who will soon be deciding what will be sent to the November ballot for potential approval by voters.
I most strongly support the recommendations that rebuild public trust and make City Hall harder to corrupt.
First, I support creating a stronger Inspector General or anti-corruption office with real power to investigate waste, misconduct, contracts, and abuse of public resources.
Second, I support independent redistricting. Voters should choose their representatives; politicians should not choose their voters. After what Los Angeles saw with the leaked City Hall tapes, this reform is essential.
Third, I support stronger transparency and ethics rules so residents can clearly see how decisions are made, who benefits, and where public money is going.
Fourth, I support a clear process for handling elected officials accused of serious misconduct or crimes tied to public trust. The city cannot afford confusion or political games when public confidence is on the line.
Overall, I support reforms that take power out of back rooms, reduce corruption, protect voters, and force City Hall to answer to the people of Los Angeles.
I do not strongly oppose reform, but I do have concerns about any recommendation that expands government without clear accountability, cost controls, or measurable results.
My biggest concern is expanding the City Council from 15 to 25 seats without proving how it will improve services for residents. Better representation matters, but more politicians does not automatically mean better government. If we expand the Council, I would want strict budget limits, clear district service standards, and proof that residents will get faster responses, better constituent services, and more accountability — not just more offices, staff, and political bureaucracy.
I also have concerns about ranked-choice voting if voters are not properly educated before implementation. I am open to election reform, but the process must be simple, transparent, and trusted by everyday Angelenos.
Finally, I would be cautious about any reform that creates new offices or mandates without identifying the cost, funding source, and oversight structure.
Sum it up, if a reform makes City Hall more transparent, accountable, and responsive, I support it. If it just makes government bigger without making it better, I have concerns.
Yes. I believe Los Angeles should consider charter reforms that create stronger performance accountability across city government.
First, I would support a public performance dashboard requirement for major city departments and programs. Residents should be able to see clear data on spending, timelines, outcomes, staffing, service requests, and whether programs are actually working. Transparency should not be optional.
Second, I would support stronger budget accountability rules requiring departments to publicly explain major cost overruns, delays, and failed contracts before receiving expanded funding.
Third, I would consider reforms that strengthen emergency preparedness and interdepartmental coordination. During fires, homelessness crises, infrastructure failures, or public safety emergencies, residents need a city government that can move quickly, communicate clearly, and execute across departments.
Finally, I would support stronger rules around public engagement so communities are not just informed after decisions are made, but included before major policies, developments, or budget priorities move forward.
I support the goal of better representation, but I would not support expanding the Council from 15 to 25 seats without strict accountability, cost controls, and proof that it will improve services for residents.
Los Angeles is too large for many residents to feel heard, and smaller districts could help communities get more direct attention. But more elected officials does not automatically mean better government. It could also mean more staff, more offices, more bureaucracy, and more political dealmaking if it is not done carefully.
If the Council expands, I would want the reform tied to clear district service standards, budget limits, transparency requirements, and public reporting on whether residents are actually receiving faster responses and better constituent services.
I would also be open to studying alternatives, including a smaller expansion than 25 seats, such as 21 districts, or adding some citywide or at-large representation to balance district interests with the needs of the whole city.
Long story short: I support better representation, but I do not support growing government just to grow government. Any change must make City Hall more responsive, more accountable, and more effective for Angelenos.
I am open to Ranked Choice Voting, but I would not support implementing it unless Los Angeles commits to a serious voter education plan first.
The benefit is clear: voters can rank candidates in order of preference, and the city could avoid costly runoff elections by deciding races in one November election. The Charter Reform Commission recommended RCV for city elections beginning in 2032, and any charter change would still require voter approval.
My concern is voter confusion and trust. Los Angeles has a large, diverse electorate with many languages, age groups, and levels of civic engagement. If voters do not understand how to rank candidates, how votes transfer, or why a candidate won, the system could create more distrust instead of more confidence.
I would support studying RCV further and preparing for it only with strong language access, sample ballots, public education, community workshops, and clear reporting of results. I would also be open to comparing alternatives like Approval Voting or STAR Voting before making a final change.
Sum it up , election reform should make voting easier, fairer, and more trusted ,not more confusing.
I would be cautious about expanding voting to 16 and 17 year-olds for all municipal offices right away.
I understand the argument: young people live with the consequences of city decisions, especially around schools, safety, transportation, housing, and the environment. LAUSD has also supported expanding voting rights for 16 and 17 year-olds in local elections, arguing that students directly experience school policies and should have a voice.
But voting for Mayor, City Attorney, Controller, City Council, and LAUSD School Board is a serious civic responsibility. Before expanding the electorate, I would want a strong civics education plan, clear voter education, language access, and proof that the election system can handle the change without confusion or added distrust.
I would be more open to starting with 16 and 17 year olds voting only in LAUSD School Board elections, where students are directly impacted every day. That could serve as a pilot before expanding to all municipal races.
In short , empower young people, but do it responsibly. If we lower the voting age, it should come with education, structure, and safeguards so young voters are prepared, informed, and confident in the process.