Candidate questionnaire: Shaun Griffith

The final week of the primary election season is upon us. In Philadelphia’s 3rd congressional district, Democrats are vying for the chance to succeed Dwight Evans and represent a deep-blue seat in Congress.  

City & State shared questionnaires with each of the leading candidates to get a final in-depth look at the players in the PA-3 Democratic primary and where they stand on specific issues, from housing to healthcare and more. 

Next up in the series: Shaun Griffith, who believes his “people over profit” message is louder than the ones coming from seasoned politicians. 

City & State previously published questionnaire responses from Ala Stanford, Sharif Street and Chris Rabb.  

Some responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Here’s what Griffith had to say about: 

Housing policy

To make housing more affordable for Americans, I would like to do a few things. First, I would like to work with organizations like the Philadelphia Housing Authority to understand how U.S. Housing and Urban Development funding can be most easily applied to their projects – and use that as a model for not only cities in Pennsylvania, but also large cities and throughout the country, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Antonio, Houston, Chicago, etc. Ideally, funds can be distributed as block grants for use by local organizations, because homelessness and housing affordability are not identical across the country. 

Second, I would like to establish a new Federal Insurance Contributions Act entitlement that could be earmarked for housing to make sure that people who are on a fixed income – such as the elderly, the disabled, the widowed and the orphaned – can have a separate fund to afford housing, because people who receive Social Security benefits are usually on a fixed income. 

Third, I would like to stop private equity from investing in residential real estate, because this prevents ordinary homebuyers from purchasing homes; many working Americans are often outbid by private equity. I would also like to look into using a model similar to how Hawaii used eminent domain to purchase private land back in the ‘60s to resell it to ordinary home buyers to recapture some of the housing markets that have already been scooped up by private equity. There is legal precedent for this type of action.

Finally, to help ensure housing affordability, I would like to create a class of mortgages that are not only underwritten by the federal government (since nearly all residential mortgages are ultimately underwritten by the federal government) but also sold by the federal government, removing the profit motive of private banks from residential real estate acquisition. Ideally, these mortgages would be underwritten with a fixed interest rate that is low enough to be managed by most working families. 

Healthcare policy

The Medicare for All bill has been in the Senate for approximately 10 years, and the companion House Bill has been drafted for about nine years. There has never been a floor vote either in the House or the Senate, largely because of Republican and institutional Democrats blocking the progressive agenda. If I were to go to Washington, I would withhold my vote for any Speaker of the House until we have a floor vote on the Medicare for All bill. Members of the House need to be on record stating whether they believe access to healthcare is a human right. 

Given that the Republican redistricting plans in Texas and other states have been largely successful and Democratic attempts to redistrict have largely failed (with the exception of California), I don’t expect there to be a large majority of Democratic House members in January 2027; thus, if I am willing to withhold my vote for a House Speaker until we have a floor vote on Medicare for All, my vote alone may make the difference.

Public transit funding

I am impressed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's efforts to make public transit free for New Yorkers, and by his ability to wrangle support from Albany. I would like to take his success as a model and make it available nationwide, because access to efficient public transit helps working-class people commute to work affordably. Additionally, since Build Back Better funding has not been widely allocated or disbursed, it could be a source of funds to invest in the necessary infrastructure to improve and expand public transit. 

An underdiscussed issue

I have noticed, at most public forums and daily when I interact with residents of Philadelphia, that people are very concerned about data center construction and regulation. Media outlets must acknowledge the extraordinary stress on our public utility grid that data centers will cause. Recently, there has been news about a 180-day municipal moratorium on data center production in Pennsylvania, suggesting that this issue is gaining traction among Pennsylvania legislators. Still, based on my experience interacting with people, Philadelphians want to see more action to ensure that ordinary, hardworking people are not paying for the additional use of electricity and water. 

Utility costs and environmental hazards are not the only concerns about data center construction and operation. There is a need for a frank discussion about what happens when artificial intelligence replaces most white-collar work … Our entire economy will change, because the labor force will undergo a dramatic shift. Likely, this will require some form of universal basic income, because a massive swath of the existing middle class will probably be unemployed and will either need to retrain for other fields or may not even be able to find work. Right now, no national politician is addressing the very real threat to our existing economic model.

Meeting the needs of a diverse district

Different neighborhoods indeed have different concerns. Grays Ferry, where I live, is different from Cobbs Creek, where I used to live, and both are different from Roxborough, where I work. And that is to say nothing of other areas like Rittenhouse, which are very affluent compared to some areas of North Broad that are lower-income. I believe that there are two main things that the government can accomplish that will serve the most people.

The first is universal access to healthcare, such as the Medicare for All bill, which will help all Americans, especially low-income and gig workers. It will also help reduce the cost of all healthcare, benefiting small business owners who want to provide healthcare to their employees and large business owners who can remove healthcare from their labor costs. The Medicare for All bill would likely make Medicare more economically viable by expanding the insured population to include people in their 20s, 30s and 40s, who cost less per-person to insure. 

The second thing the government can do to help all Americans is increase the minimum wage. This will obviously help lower-income people who are working for low wages. It will also help union workers negotiate better contracts and other skilled workers who can reasonably expect higher wages, knowing that entry-level labor deserves at least $15 per hour. 

These two changes – both within the purview of the federal government – will help Philadelphians, regardless of where they live. 

Combatting D.C. power dynamics

Here are several tactics that House Democrats can deploy to rein in the excessively autocratic executive branch.

Legislatively speaking, the House should draft legislation to overturn the Aliens and Enemies Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. §21) and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Passing such legislation would eliminate the veneer of legality surrounding ICE's operations. Even drafting and voting on such legislation will draw public attention to how thin the veil of legality is. 

The legislative branch should not approve any budget that does not dramatically reduce the budget of the Department of Defense because most of the executive branch’s legitimate power is in its ability to deploy arms and troops. Reducing the Department of Defense budget will significantly weaken the executive branch. Similarly, the legislative branch needs to amend or revoke the War Powers Act of 1973 (50 U.S.C. Chapter 33 §1541 et seq.) because, under current law, the executive branch can deploy troops for 60 days, with the option to extend for another 30 days without approval from Congress. That is precisely what Trump is doing in Iran, where he is essentially engaging in a foreign, regime-change war, and that has the potential to morph into a decade-long, trillion-dollar quagmire. The legislative branch cannot continue to abdicate its authority to declare war under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to the executive branch. 

The legislative branch should work on dismantling DHS. The U.S. Treasury should conduct customs enforcement to collect tariffs, or the Department of Agriculture should handle food imports. Immigration should be enforced through immigration courts, and an organization similar to the former Immigration and Naturalization Service should exist to regulate ports of entry and execute orders duly issued by immigration judges after due process hearings. 

Finally, because the United States Supreme Court invented Executive Privilege a few years ago, it is incumbent on the legislative branch to clearly define the executive branch's duties. Because it appears that an executive can do anything within the purview of executive duties, America needs to define "executive duties" unambiguously. As an example, using his crypto meme coin, Trump has, according to various reports, received billions of dollars in what should be considered foreign emoluments. Aside from the fact that this almost certainly violates constitutional prohibitions against foreign emoluments, it also should be clearly defined as outside the scope of executive duty. If the legislature can define executive duties, a rogue executive such as Donald Trump can be held to account when he exceeds the executive branch's mandate, despite the Supreme Court's invention of Executive Privilege. 

Reconciling a lack of political experience when trying to get things done in Washington

First, none of the candidates on the ballot have ever served in the U.S. House of Representatives; in other words, no one has direct experience on point. 

Having served the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as an Appeals Referee for approximately 12 years, I have seen firsthand how poorly drafted legislation leads to misunderstandings among party litigants and the administrative agencies tasked with carrying out legislation enacted by legislators. The primary responsibility of legislators is to draft and pass legislation. I will always view any legislation that I write, sponsor, edit, or co-sponsor through the lens of how poorly drafted legislation can lead to poor policy administration and confusion among parties affected by the legislation, often resulting in litigation. My experience makes me more competent in the essential job responsibility of a legislator than anyone else on the ballot.

If Democrats take control of Congress

The two things I would first focus on are not holding the Trump Administration accountable, but rather demanding a floor vote on Medicare for All and a higher minimum wage. If I were to go to Washington, I would withhold my vote for speaker of the House until there was a vote on those two issues. I could conceivably effect meaningful change for working Americans within the first week.

Regarding holding Trump accountable, I would incorporate everything that I mentioned in my response to the preceding question about standing ground against the Trump Administration but also add that another thing the legislative branch can and should do is conduct hearings on a regular basis about the actions of the Trump Administration – particularly about the actions of Homeland Security and the Federal Communications Commission – to gather evidence concerning some of the worst violations of our civil liberties. The hearings would generate evidence that would then be remitted to various state attorneys general to prosecute violations of our civil liberties.  Prosecuting violators of Americans’ civil liberties in federal court would probably be pointless because Trump could simply pardon the worst offenders. However, some of the worst offenders can be prosecuted in state courts because most states have protections of American civil liberties similar to those the federal government purports to have.