Anabel Mendoza

Full Name (as it will appear on the ballot)

Anabel Mendoza

Party affiliation

Democrat

How can people learn more about your campaign?

anabelforcongress.com

What do you believe this office is actually responsible for—and what is it not responsible for? How would that understanding guide your decisions if elected?

This office is responsible for using federal power to materially change people’s lives: passing legislation, directing resources, conducting aggressive oversight, and challenging systems that put profit and punishment ahead of every day people. It is about fighting for investment in housing, health care, education, and good-paying jobs, and holding federal agencies and corporations accountable when they harm our communities. My approach is simple: be honest about the role, but never passive within it. Voters deserve a representative who understands both the limits and the power of the office and who is willing to confront entrenched interests, fight for structural change, and ensure federal policy actually improves daily life for working families.

Congressman Davis brought decades of seniority and committee access that helped direct federal resources to this district. Without that institutional leverage, what is your concrete plan to compete for federal funding—especially in the early years of your term?

Seniority can help, but waiting decades to deliver results is not a strategy our communities can afford. As a Gen Z candidate, I believe leadership should be measured by impact, not time served. My plan is to fight for federal funding from day one through coalition-building, aggressive advocacy, and clear district priorities. I would work with members and caucuses to advance funding for housing, transit, climate infrastructure, and economic investment. I would aggressively pursue federal grants by coordinating with local leaders, labor, and community organizations so IL-07 projects are ready to compete immediately. I would also use oversight and public pressure to ensure federal agencies prioritize disinvested communities like those on Chicago’s West Side. Real power comes from organizing, building alliances, and fighting unapologetically for resources. Our district should not have to wait its turn to receive the investment it deserves.

Washington is undergoing major changes in how federal education policy is administered, including significant restructuring of the Department of Education, shifts in grant administration, and ongoing legal disputes over Title IX enforcement. These changes have real consequences for local school districts. If elected, how would you help constituents understand what is changing—and what responsibility do you believe Congress has to intervene when executive actions may conflict with congressional intent or existing law?

One of my responsibilities in Congress would be to make federal changes clear and accessible by communicating directly with constituents, school leaders, and community organizations through regular community briefings, updates, and strong partnerships with local stakeholders and schools. Congress also has a constitutional duty to provide oversight when executive actions conflict with congressional intent or existing law. If an administration attempts to weaken civil rights protections, undermine Title IX enforcement, or redirect education funding without proper authority, I would support aggressive oversight, legal challenges where appropriate, and legislative action to restore congressional control.

Both parties’ House leaders—Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Speaker Mike Johnson—operate under intense scrutiny and internal debate about strategy, effectiveness, and governance. As a prospective new member of Congress, how do you evaluate party leadership, and under what circumstances would you support or oppose your party’s leaders?

Party leadership should be evaluated by one standard: whether their strategy delivers material change for everyday people and advances justice, not just whether it preserves political power or maintains the status quo. I believe in collaboration and strong coalitions, but I also believe members of Congress have a responsibility to think independently and represent their communities first. I would support party leadership when their priorities align with those of our district. As a new member and as part of a younger generation of leaders, I see my role as pushing for bold solutions while building unity around policies that materially improve people’s lives. Leadership should not be followed out of loyalty alone. It should be earned through accountability, results, and a clear commitment to the people we serve.

On the West Side, there’s a critical need for affordable housing. Will you cosponsor and actively whip support for the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act (H.R.2854) to finance rehab/ownership in disinvested neighborhoods—and what specific guardrails would you demand so it prevents displacement rather than accelerating speculation and gentrification?

Yes, I would support the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, but only with strong guardrails to ensure it builds community wealth instead of fueling speculation and displacement. Too often, federal housing subsidies are captured by investors and accelerate gentrification rather than stabilizing neighborhoods. Any investment must prioritize long-term affordability through shared-equity models, community land trusts, and resale protections that keep homes accessible. We must also block corporate investors from acquiring subsidized properties and prioritize first-generation homeowners and existing residents who have stayed through decades of disinvestment. Reinvestment on the West Side must mean stability, ownership, and generational wealth for the people already rooted in these communities.

West Side households get hit hardest when food, utilities, and essentials jump. Would you vote for the Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2025 (introduced as H.R.4528 / S.2321)—and what should count as an “exceptional market shock” where gouging enforcement kicks in?

Yes. I would vote for the Price Gouging Prevention Act because families across IL-07 are already stretched thin, and corporations should not be allowed to turn crises into profit spikes. Price gouging enforcement should trigger during declared emergencies, major supply chain disruptions, extreme weather events, or any market shock where dominant corporations raise prices beyond real cost increases. In sectors like groceries, utilities, and fuel, where a few companies control the market, “market forces” too often mean monopoly power. Affordability is not just about wages. It is about stopping corporate abuse that drives everyday costs out of reach.

One major Democratic voting-rights agenda item is restoring/modernizing Voting Rights Act protections through the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2025 (H.R.14 / S.2523). Would you support this?

Yes, wholeheartedly. I would strongly support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act because protecting the right to vote is foundational to a functioning democracy. Since the weakening of the Voting Rights Act, we have seen a wave of voter suppression efforts that disproportionately impact Black, brown, immigrant, and working-class communities

What is your understanding of the SAVE Act and what is your position on the pending legislation?

The SAVE Act recently passed the House under the guise of “election security,” but in reality it creates new barriers that risk disenfranchising eligible voters, especially naturalized citizens, working-class families, and women whose legal documents may not match their current names. I oppose it. Noncitizen voting is already unlawful and extremely rare. Policies like this do not protect democracy. They restrict it. Requiring specific citizenship documents ignores the reality that millions of Americans do not have easy access to passports or birth certificates and shifts the burden onto voters rather than strengthening the system. In a district like IL-07, where immigrant communities are a vital part of our democracy, legislation like this sends a dangerous message about who is welcome to participate. Protecting elections should mean expanding access and restoring Voting Rights Act protections, not erecting new hurdles that silence voices.

Many West Side leaders argue violence reduction requires poverty reduction and local investment, not just enforcement. What federal funding streams would you expand or protect for community violence intervention, trauma services, and youth employment—and how would you measure success in IL-7 beyond arrest stats?

At the federal level, I would fight to expand and protect the funding streams that actually prevent harm and break cycles of trauma, such as funding for trauma-informed mental health care, crisis response, and substance-use treatment that is accessible, registered apprenticeships, summer paid work programs so young people have real income and pathways, and more. How I’d measure success is by looking at: youth employment and job retention rates, not just enrollment, school attendance, chronic absenteeism, and graduation trends, reductions in shootings, and homicides. If the only “success” we can show is arrests, we have failed. Success is fewer funerals and more opportunity.

Would you support the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2025 (H.R.5361), and which provisions matter most to you (qualified immunity standards, national misconduct registry, DOJ “pattern or practice” power, training requirements)?

Yes, without a doubt. For communities across IL-07, real safety means both preventing violence and ensuring policing practices respect constitutional rights.