Across the Aisle Vol. IV: AI, Housing and the Decisions Shaping Nevada

GZLV’s October 1 virtual candidate forum brought education, judicial, county and legislative races into one conversation about public trust, affordability and accountability.

By Marlon A. Medina | Gen Z Coalition of Las Vegas

LAS VEGAS — What should a university cut before asking students to pay more? What does accountability look like when someone entering a courtroom needs treatment, stable housing or a second chance? And who should decide how artificial intelligence enters our schools, public agencies and elections?

Those questions shaped Across the Aisle Vol. IV, hosted virtually by the Gen Z Coalition of Las Vegas on Thursday, October 1, 2026. The forum brought together candidates from Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and nonpartisan races, alongside community participants and guest contributors, for a discussion of decisions that affect Nevadans’ everyday lives.

Moderated by GZLV founding chair Marlon A. Medina, the evening connected college costs, family courts, property records, housing development, small businesses and emerging technology. Candidates were grouped by the responsibilities of the offices they seek, giving participants room to explain both their priorities and how they would approach the work.

Technology and AI guest Tony Benton and real estate professional Noah Lechuga contributed questions throughout the program. An open Q&A extended the discussion to surveillance, housing affordability and the responsibility to protect children as technology advances.

The evening’s major highlights

• Education candidates pressed for closer scrutiny of spending before additional costs reach students, with attention to administrative overlap, outside contracts and classroom resources.

• Judicial candidates explored accountability and rehabilitation, including specialty courts, family stability, judicial temperament and the limits of AI in legal work.

• County candidates gave specific examples of modernization, from property-record alerts and document verification to appraisal tools and more accessible services.

• Housing discussions examined permitting, land availability and zoning, while raising the unresolved tension between affordability for buyers and financial security for existing homeowners.

• The economy and technology discussions tested familiar campaign promises, asking what diversification, worker protection, privacy and public oversight would mean in practice.

Watch the Volume IV recap

Hear candidates discuss education, housing, justice and public trust in the official recap of our October 1 forum.

Education: what changes before students pay more?

The opening policy panel brought together Board of Regents candidates Patrick Villa, Erik Swendseid and Stephanie Molina, alongside Clark County School District trustee candidate Linda Cavazos.

Medina asked what should be cut or changed if the Nevada System of Higher Education faces another major budget shortfall, before students are asked to absorb higher tuition.

Villa, a longtime mathematics professor at the College of Southern Nevada, argued for detailed reviews of spending and institutional redundancies. He favored deliberate decisions about programs and positions over uniform cuts across every department. His emphasis was on administrators taking responsibility for deciding which expenditures serve students and which can be reduced.

Molina focused on administrative layers and overlapping responsibilities. She argued that institutions should justify higher-level administrative positions and examine whether savings could support student services and student success. Her answer placed the burden on institutions to explain their organizational choices before applying broad hiring restrictions.

Swendseid connected the immediate budget question to a longer-term challenge: making Nevada’s colleges and universities valuable enough that graduates can build their careers in the state. He supported examining redundancies while cautioning against sweeping decisions that could destabilize entire academic programs.

Cavazos brought the discussion into K–12 education. She emphasized evidence, measurable results and the need to evaluate expensive external contracts against their contribution to student achievement. She also stressed listening to educators, students, parents and community members when deciding what deserves continued investment.

The panel’s answers shared an interest in scrutiny, although they did not establish an agreed list of cuts. The practical question left for voters is how that scrutiny would work: which spending would be reviewed, what evidence would guide decisions and how classroom needs would be protected.

AI in education: access, privacy and public review

Benton asked whether elected boards should publicly review AI tools and their data terms before those tools reach students. The question connected technology adoption to informed consent and institutional responsibility.

Swendseid emphasized safeguards, particularly for younger students, while acknowledging that he could not give a simple yes-or-no answer without more information. Molina highlighted student privacy and intellectual property, including concerns about whether students’ work could be used to train AI systems. She distinguished institution-level review from a systemwide contract that should receive board attention.

For GZLV, this exchange raised a useful standard for future conversations: the public should be able to understand what a tool does, what information it collects and who is responsible for evaluating it.

Courts and justice: accountability with dignity

The judicial panel featured Jessica Green, Alex Hubert, Josh Santeramo, Patricia A. Marr and Marilyn A. Caston. It gave participants an opportunity to hear about municipal, district and family courts through the people seeking to serve in them.

Green addressed the opening question about preventing poverty, mental illness and an inability to pay from becoming a revolving door through the justice system. She argued that people appearing in municipal court should be heard, treated with dignity and given a clear explanation of the process and the judge’s decisions.

She emphasized diversion and specialty court programs that connect eligible participants with treatment and existing community services. Santeramo drew on his experience representing clients in specialty courts to explain how supervision, services and regular judicial check-ins can support people seeking to change their lives.

Green also stressed that participation can involve substantial commitments, including repeated court appearances, treatment, testing and efforts to establish greater stability. The discussion presented these programs as structured forms of accountability. Readers can explore the city’s existing programs through the Las Vegas Municipal Court specialty courts resource.

Family court and the consequences beyond a case

Caston described how even a brief period in custody can affect employment, housing and a parent’s position in a family court dispute. She emphasized helping parents address the conditions that make them unsafe or unstable, while considering the needs of the entire family.

Marr added that custody decisions require careful attention to the circumstances and the best interests of children. She cautioned that a difficult period in someone’s life must be assessed in context, rather than treated as a complete account of their capacity to parent.

On judicial quality, both emphasized commitment to the work. Marr captured the point directly: “There are families in our community that deserve better than adequate.”

Hubert focused on intellectual curiosity, thoughtful reasoning and empathy. He described the importance of a judge explaining a decision and approaching the bench with the responsibilities of a neutral jurist. In his view, a firm sentence and humane treatment can coexist.

Together, these answers gave voters a way to consider judicial candidates beyond professional résumés: how they listen, explain their reasoning and treat people whose lives may change through a ruling.

AI in legal work: useful tools, serious limits

Medina raised the risk of AI producing invented legal authorities. The ensuing discussion distinguished administrative assistance from the judgment required to decide a case.

Green saw a role for technology in organizing information behind the scenes but rejected using it to make decisions about people in court. Santeramo described AI as an emerging tool that requires independent verification and cannot substitute for an attorney’s analysis.

Caston pointed to document organization and communication tools that help co-parents reconsider hostile messages before sending them. Marr discussed problems that arise when clients treat AI-generated legal material as authoritative without understanding its limitations.

The exchange showed that views on AI can be specific to the task. Organizing records, improving a message and determining someone’s rights involve different responsibilities and deserve different levels of scrutiny.

County government: defining modernization

The county panel included Clark County Recorder candidates Tanya Flanagan and Steven Borella, County Assessor candidate Tamicka N. Washington, and County Commission District E candidate Manny Kess.

Washington described modernization through the daily demands of property assessment. She discussed better tools for mass appraisal and land analysis, allowing staff more time to examine redevelopment areas in person. She also emphasized a more usable website and accessible services for residents, including older adults.

Flanagan focused on workflow, geographic accessibility and coordination between the recorder, assessor and other county offices. Her proposals included better communication across departments, clearer public information and improvements to property-record notifications.

Borella also supported text notifications, alongside exploring blockchain-based document verification. He presented that proposal as a way to help residents verify the integrity of recorded documents. He emphasized his technology and management background and argued for an approach informed by experience outside the office.

Their exchange also addressed concerns about office management. Flanagan stressed her own record of county and legislative service, fairness and transparency. The discussion gave voters a contrast between the experience she would bring from within government and the reforms Borella proposed from outside it.

A useful resource for residents: Clark County already offers a Recording Notification Service that emails subscribers when a recorded document matches an enrolled name or parcel number. The county’s FAQ explains that alerts provide notice of a recording; they do not prevent a document from being recorded. The text-alert ideas discussed at the forum were proposals for improving the service.

The broader lesson was that modernization becomes easier to assess when candidates describe the actual experience they want to improve: receiving an alert, locating a record, completing a transaction or getting an answer from an agency.

Housing: faster approvals, neighborhood input and affordability

Lechuga asked how policymakers should address the gap between housing costs and what local workers earn, even when new housing is being built.

Kess argued that delays in county permitting add costs that ultimately reach consumers. He proposed examining bottlenecks, accelerating approvals and moving more transactions online.

When asked how the county should balance growth with neighborhood concerns, he emphasized consulting residents, considering infrastructure and evaluating whether a proposed development fits the area. He also criticized a Commercial Center project and its funding as an example of his concerns about community input.

Later, Lechuga sharpened the affordability question: what does a successful housing market look like when prospective buyers need relief but existing homeowners want to protect the value of their largest asset?

Kess supported releasing additional federal land for development and encouraging smaller, less expensive homes. Galvin also supported greater land availability, while emphasizing changes to zoning, parking requirements and approval processes. John Scott, participating in the open Q&A, proposed eliminating property taxes and using capital gains taxation as a market-management tool.

These were different proposals for a shared concern. The discussion left an important question for follow-up: how would each approach translate into attainable rents and purchase prices, and how would that result be measured?

Nevada’s economy: diversification and the people doing the work

The legislative panel featured Rafael Arroyo, Shenea Booth, Christopher Brandlin and Tighe Galvin.

Arroyo argued that economic development agreements should be evaluated by their value to Nevada. He questioned whether additional tax incentives are always necessary and suggested considering arrangements, such as revenue sharing, that could provide a more direct public return.

Galvin emphasized competition, small businesses and skepticism toward taxpayer support for major private projects. He criticized the disruption associated with large events and argued that business success should rest on merit.

Brandlin focused on occupational licensing and administrative costs that can discourage small businesses from growing. He advocated reducing regulatory burdens and broadening the economy beyond gaming and casinos.

Booth brought a worker’s perspective to the discussion, drawing on her background in performance and acrobatics. She described instability affecting entertainment workers, the consequences of losing employment and the need to consider wages, benefits and workforce support when assessing economic development.

Her remarks widened the question of diversification: new activity may generate revenue, but what opportunities and protections reach the people doing the work?

Schools, decision-making and nutrition

Galvin also discussed his education priorities, drawing on his work with students with special needs. He proposed limiting central-office administrative hiring, directing resources toward classrooms and giving school organizational teams more authority. He described decentralization as an immediate priority and breaking up CCSD as a longer-term goal, alongside expanded school choice.

Brandlin discussed reviewing school meals and advocated a ban on cultivated, or lab-grown, meat. These were proposals he presented as part of his health-focused platform; the forum did not evaluate the scientific evidence behind his broader health arguments.

Both exchanges illustrated why a policy priority needs further detail: implementation, costs, evidence and the responsibilities of the office involved all matter.

Campaign information, deepfakes and public trust

Arroyo discussed campaign advertisements he said presented his remarks without their full context. He described explaining one advertisement to his children and argued that voters should review original material and communicate directly with candidates.

That discussion moved into a wider concern about fabricated images, audio and video. Benton raised two related risks: people accepting manipulated media as authentic, and people dismissing authentic material by claiming it was generated by AI.

Brandlin called for visible disclosure of AI-generated political content. Additional context: Nevada already requires clear disclosure on certain election-related communications containing synthetic media under NRS 294A.3493. The law defines the covered media and specifies requirements for video and audio disclosures. Its existence gives voters a basis for asking how campaigns comply and how violations are addressed.

Caston brought the issue back to family court, warning about fabricated messages and recordings that could affect custody disputes. She emphasized the importance of reliable communication records.

For GZLV, the connection between these discussions was public trust. Voters and courts both need ways to evaluate the origin, context and reliability of information before acting on it.

Open Q&A: surveillance and responsibility for AI

Benton’s question about automated license plate readers prompted differing approaches to public safety and privacy.

Galvin opposed broad use of the technology and argued that police access should require warrants. Scott urged participants to consider surveillance capabilities across companies, rather than focusing only on one provider. Kess emphasized enforcing existing vehicle-registration requirements and coordination with law enforcement.

The exchange left room for a more detailed future discussion about access, oversight, retention and the evidence used to assess benefits and risks.

Benton also asked where rules protecting Nevadans from AI-related harm should come from: federal government, state government or the companies developing the technology.

Kess favored a strong state role, reflecting Nevada’s particular needs. Booth described her advocacy concerning online exploitation and child protection, urging officials to act proactively and strengthen protections at both state and federal levels.

Those responses connected a fast-moving technology debate to an established responsibility of public service: deciding who is accountable when a system creates harm.

What GZLV takes from Volume IV

Volume IV made several offices more tangible for people who may rarely encounter them outside a ballot. It connected the work of a regent to college costs, a judge to family stability, a recorder to property information and a commissioner to the pace and consequences of development.

It also showed the value of asking a follow-up question. Terms such as modernization, diversification and accountability became more useful when speakers explained which process they would change or whose experience they wanted to improve.

Agreement on a concern did not always produce agreement on a solution. The forum provided room for those differences while allowing participants to hear one another’s reasoning. That is central to GZLV’s approach to civic dialogue: respectful participation, substantive questions and direct engagement across political perspectives.

Medina thanked candidates and contributors for making the discussion possible and described the personal commitment and grassroots effort behind the series. He also invited potential partners to support production and continued access to future forums.

Who participated

The following candidates contributed to the recorded discussion. Offices and affiliations follow Clark County’s official 2026 general-election candidate list.

Additional Q&A participant: John Scott, who identified himself during the forum as running for governor. He is not listed among the gubernatorial candidates on the official 2026 general-election ballot.

Moderator: Marlon A. Medina. Guest contributors: Tony Benton, technology and AI; Noah Lechuga, real estate and housing.

GZLV also recognized Galvin’s help with candidate outreach. Medina clarified that this contribution did not confer special treatment in the discussion.

For participation across earlier forums, visit GZLV’s Across the Aisle candidate record.

Continue the conversation

Medina announced the next in-person forum, Across the Aisle Vol. V, planned for Thursday, October 22, 2026, at UNLV. Students, candidates, community organizations and residents can register for GZLV events and receive updates.

For voters preparing to act on these conversations, early voting in Clark County runs October 17–30, 2026, and Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, with Election Day polls open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Consult the county’s 2026 General Election Guide for locations, registration information and voting options.

This recap summarizes the October 1 discussion. Policy proposals and personal assessments are attributed to their speakers; GZLV commentary and additional public-source context are identified separately. Participation and inclusion do not constitute an endorsement by the Gen Z Coalition of Las Vegas.