MOVE LEFT LA
A Voter Guide To Better Politics in Los Angeles
March 5, 2024 Primary
Looking for election results?
Check state and federal races here.
Check city and county races here. (Note: LA County’s website only tallies ballots cast by LA County voters. The results for state and federal races on this page do not include votes from other areas of California. Check the first link for those races’ totals.)
Shareable link: tinyurl.com/laballotguide
One pager: tinyurl.com/onepagevoteguide
En español: tinyurl.com/lavotacion
Mobile users: Visit this link and view in the Google Docs app for a better user experience.
This guide was prepared by Kris Rehl, a writer, organizer with LA Street Care, and 2020 DNC delegate. If you’d like to show your support, consider buying Kris a coffee (Venmo: krisrehl) and subscribe to their newsletter.
This guide includes recommendations for the best (or often least worst) options on the ballot with explanations based on policy, track record, and news stories. The resource section at the end of this guide features links to election coverage, voting records, campaign finance tools, and more. Always be mindful of bias in corporate media and beware of candidates who claim to be “progressive” or “compassionate”–many are not. (Surprise! Politicians lie.)
The resource section also includes a list of local organizations that I hope you will consider joining because electoral politics will not save us. Even when the best candidates win, they’re largely limited to damage control within a system that is fundamentally designed to protect corporate interests instead of improving people’s lives. Submit information/corrections here.
Tips for voters:
A note on paywalls: The LA Public Library provides free subscriptions to many publications with a library card. If you’re blocked from viewing a news source, Google “plain proxies.”
A note on endorsements from political organizations & non-profits: Almost every political organization bases endorsements on just one or two questionnaires/interviews, which are typically not shared publicly. Why? The endorsement process is a lot like the Golden Globes–it’s all about winning over a small group of people by any means necessary and has little to do with merit. Endorsements are often transactional and pre-existing relationships can have greater influence than a candidate’s policy or track record (e.g., Planned Parenthood endorsed alleged sexual assaulter David Ryu over Time’s Up alum Nithya Raman in 2020). Even with otherwise trustworthy groups, there’s almost never disclosure about conflicts of interest (e.g., voting members who also work on a candidate’s campaign) or examination of finances (e.g., candidates donating to the organization that’s voting on their endorsement). And according to those racist City Council tapes, many political orgs can be paid off by politicians—and for cheap. Always exercise skepticism when someone tells you who to vote for without showing their work.
A note on endorsements from news outlets: Most voter guides published by news outlets–even reputable ones–are researched and written by “editorial teams,” which do not include their regular staff of reporters (e.g., L.A. Times, Knock LA).
*Indicates a Democrat running solely against Republican opponent(s)
DISTRICT 2: Jillian Burgos - A few decent candidates are running in this district, but Burgos, an essential healthcare worker, SAG member, and small business owner, has the best policies. While serving on the NoHo Neighborhood Council, she created a tenant rights workshop and passed grants to provide food to unhoused neighbors. If elected, Burgos would become the second renter on LA City Council. She believes housing is a human right and opposes 41.18, an ordinance that criminalizes the existence of unhoused people with a draconian ban on sitting, lying, and sleeping in most places in the City. She will fight for effective solutions like housing with supportive services while addressing the root causes of homelessness. That means expanding rent control, right to counsel for renters facing eviction, support for youth aging out of the foster care system, and social housing–affordable, usually publicly-owned, housing designed for mixed-income tenants.
Burgos supports fare-free access to LA Metro, a policy everyone should support because 75% of fare revenue pays for…fare enforcement. And more riders means fewer drivers, which is why she’ll prioritize housing and infrastructure development near transit hubs. Burgos wants more protected bike lanes and dedicated bus lanes across the city along with better bus shelters. She will work to expand green spaces and parks, cap harmful oil wells, improve energy efficiency, and expand water capture programs.
Many candidates running this election have flattened the concept of public safety, but Burgos applies it to addressing broader harms. She will work to hold employers accountable for wage theft, establish overdose prevention centers, and build reintegration programs for formerly incarcerated Angelenos to break the cycle of recidivism. She wants to remove armed officers from schools and traffic stops and end all city cooperation with ICE. In addition to expanding unarmed mental health response teams, Burgos would prioritize intimate partner violence response. Which would be great, because Mayor Karen Bass decided not to increase funding for domestic violence programs in her budget this year despite a reported 54% increase in homelessness due to victims fleeing domestic violence–and every single domestic violence shelter in LA being constantly filled to capacity, leaving many survivors with nowhere to go. At least Karen got cops that $15k signing bonus they wanted though.
Burgos mobilized her campaign to support striking workers in 2023 and has some great policies to build on her community outreach and improve civic engagement. She will advocate to improve and expand translation services at all public meetings, starting with City Council. She will work to enfranchise noncitizen LA residents, so they can vote in city elections. And she would create youth programs to teach financial literacy, civic engagement, mentorship, and job training.
Her platform also emphasizes LGBTQIA+ justice, which is appreciated, especially after transphobic and homophobic bigots held a violent rally outside the district’s Saticoy Elementary in June. Those policies include establishing a City Council committee dedicated to queer issues, expanding access to gender-affirming and reproductive care, and enhancing supportive services.
Who else is running?
Currently representing this district is LA City Council President Paul Krekorian, who famously freaked out when someone coughed during a meeting and infamously delayed all public comment to the end of Council meetings, making people wait several hours to participate in civic engagement. He’s terming out and setting up his longtime former chief of staff turned Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian as his successor. Nazarian wants to increase the police force despite the LAPD’s own data showing crime is down across the City, earning him a daming endorsement from LA police. He also made the questionable decision to feature a photo of himself with former President Bill Clinton on his website. Clinton recently made news when he was repeatedly mentioned in unsealed court documents, linking him closely with convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
District 4: Nithya Raman - In 2020, Raman ran an inspiring grassroots campaign and became the first LA City Council candidate to unseat an incumbent in 17 years. Amid multiple Councilmembers facing federal indictments, she pledged to co-govern and implement a robust set of progressive policies. While she’s delivered on some of those promises, Raman has abandoned others, alienating many of her progressive supporters. Before we get into her record, I want to disclose that I live in Raman’s district and was inspired to volunteer for her 2020 campaign. I chose not to do so for her re-election campaign because I staunchly oppose some of her actions since taking office. However, her only competitive challenger is a conservative reactionary, whose entire campaign is predicated on reversing the progress Raman has made in this district. His victory would have immensely negative consequences for anyone vulnerable or poor inside the borders of CD4.
Raman centered her 2020 campaign around the biggest issue facing Los Angeles: homelessness. As an MIT-trained urban planner and co-founder of local homeless services organization SELAH, Raman likely entered office with more knowledge about the City’s failures and challenges surrounding this issue than any of her veteran colleagues. In 2020, she made a campaign promise to “eliminate policies that criminalize people who are unhoused.” In her first year, Raman kept that promise, joining Mike Bonin as the lone dissenting votes against 41.18, an ordinance that criminalizes the existence of unhoused people with a draconian ban on sitting, lying, and sleeping in most places in the city. She has since repeatedly voted against the addition of 41.18 special enforcement zones and cast dissenting votes against legislation meant to criminalize unhoused people (e.g., for possessing bicycles). However, the L.A. Times recently reported Raman stated support for parts of 41.18–although either the paper or Raman chose not to elaborate on which parts. Raman also disappointingly aligned with her conservative colleague in repeated votes to ban RVs from parking in parts of Council District 11 and supported legislation making it easier for the City to force treatment on unhoused people with mental health disabilities.
One of her campaign promises that never materialized: brick and mortar Community Access Center. She was on track to open one of these centers, which would have provided services and a social worker to meet with unhoused constituents, but my understanding is local NIMBYs pressured the building’s landlord to block the center’s opening when they caught wind. This isn’t the only significant challenge she’s faced trying to deliver on campaign policies, but she’s also found some innovative solutions. Raman hired a dedicated Homelessness Team, which builds relationships with unhoused people in the district and helps connect them with services, shelter, and housing. And when resources aren’t available, the office uses discretionary funds to help close the gaps. This model has been so effective in CD4 that it’s been replicated by several other districts to varying degrees of success. The CD4 Homelessness Team also works with encampment residents and helps address their needs in preparation for sanitation visits, usually downgrading them to unintrusive trash pick-ups. To be clear, I strongly believe the City should abolish its so-called CARE+ program, which is costly, ineffective, and responsible for sweeping encampments. Unfortunately, every council office utilizes them and to my knowledge, no alternatives have been proposed legislatively. In my experience, the CD4 team has managed to minimize their impact with thorough preparation, advocacy, and helping out with anything residents need.
One major exception was a December 2023 sweep in coordination with Mayor Karen Bass’s Inside Safe program, which blindsided and permanently displaced tenants residing in 50 RVs on Forest Lawn Drive. Inside Safe places unhoused people in motel rooms with the goal of eventually finding them permanent housing, but the program won’t guarantee permanent housing or even a long-term stay at the motels. That’s a big risk for people asked to forfeit their RVs for little or no compensation. And even though the program claims to be completely voluntary, the City towed any RVs that stayed behind without recommending a safe place to relocate. This suggests the purpose of the operation was the removal of visible poverty–not housing. Raman touts this specific Inside Safe operation on her homelessness policy page as an accomplishment, and that frankly sucks.
Fortunately, it’s the only mention of Inside Safe on her campaign website because the program has failed to deliver on promised mental services, transparency reports, or even its stated goal of permanent housing. One year and at least $93.8 million in, only 255 Inside Safe participants found permanent housing–and some of them had already obtained housing vouchers before entering the program. For context, the City of Los Angeles is home to an estimated 46,260 unhoused people as of January 2023. More Inside Safe participants have returned to homelessness (largely due to its locations’ inhumane, unsanitary, unsafe, and carceral conditions) than were placed in permanent housing. Despite these expensive failures, Mayor Bass refuses to engage with participants to improve her signature program. Perhaps Bass should look to the efficacy of Nithya's Homelessness Team, which has sheltered or housed 500 people in the district (not counting those who were sheltered/housed by other programs), which has made CD4 home to the smallest unsheltered population in LA. And they even did it without leaning on criminalization and coercion.
Raman’s campaign emphasized unarmed alternatives to police, and she’s delivered a work in progress. She’s expanded the CIRCLE program, which deploys “trained crisis response teams to respond to non-urgent 9-1-1 calls related to unhoused individuals,” throughout her district. And while I’m genuinely glad we have any kind of unarmed alternative, CIRCLE has some major flaws. The program’s teams are supposed to include one licensed mental health clinician and two outreach workers with lived experience (e.g., currently/formerly unhoused, formerly incarcerated). Unfortunately, we have a shortage of licensed mental health clinicians and this program is still underfunded, meaning it’s just outreach workers with lived experience going on a lot of calls. A nonprofit called Urban Alchemy supplies CIRCLE’s outreach workers, who reportedly receive a startling lack of training. Urban Alchemy recently made headlines when its employee sprayed water at an unhoused person on a cold January night, prompting LA City Controller Kenneth Mejia to launch an investigation. Raman was elected after CIRCLE’s launch, but if she’s serious about unarmed alternatives, she needs to call for divestment from Urban Alchemy and advocate for programs that address more than just unhoused people in crisis.
And yes, that’s going to be a difficult political battle. During her first year in office, she and Mike Bonin were met with intense resistance from their colleagues when they introduced their motion to cap hiring of new police at attrition and divert the $18 million in savings to programs that reimagine public safety. Early in her term, Raman took a few principled stands on policing (e.g., voted against a ban on flashlights at protests). Her advocacy and decision-making process were often transparent and educational even when she knew she couldn’t win. But she ultimately folded and joined her colleagues in unanimous support for a City budget that increased the LAPD budget to the detriment of literally everything else that matters. Even though I was critical of Raman’s vote, a part of me thought–I don’t know what happened behind closed doors. Maybe she managed to negotiate some gains she wouldn’t have won with a no vote. When the next budget vote rolled around the following year, I cynically expected another unanimous approval for the proposed increases to police funding. Instead, Mike Bonin cast a lone dissenting vote, refusing to support the LAPD budget. I was inspired to see someone finally take a stand but even more disappointed with my councilmember. At the time, a tiny part of me still wondered–since Mike Bonin wasn’t seeking re-election, maybe he had nothing to lose? But that doubt died the following year when newly-elected Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez voted against the City budget and its increased LAPD funding. Hernandez subsequently released this statement: “Budgets are a statement of values—and a budget that allocates one-quarter of our entire budget to LAPD while underfunding every other department and service does not reflect my values or the values of my constituents.” And then…nothing bad happened to Hernandez or her district. No, really. She voted against an unjust budget, and she’s completely fine.
Raman’s pattern of voting for more police funding extends beyond the annual budget votes–she approved multiple grants for the LAPD and supported multiple motions from conservative Councilmember John Lee to approve increases for LAPD overtime in his district. Raman has faced growing backlash as she struggles to reconcile these votes with the outspoken stances she took against police during her 2020 campaign, drawing ire from survivors of police violence. Her vote against last year’s LAPD contract (i.e., raises and stipulations negotiated for officers by the Police Protective League separate from the police department’s budget), which will give cops $1 billion in pay raises over the next four years, was the only instance I could find in which Raman took a stand against significant funding for police. That contract was approved and will be paid for by raiding other City department budgets. The deal, negotiated by Mayor Karen Bass, is especially going to fuck these already severely-understaffed departments when the City has to reconcile its looming $350-400 million budget crisis next year.
Increases to the police budget have far-reaching consequences. The department wants to create a real-time surveillance system called, LAPD Live, which would allow it to livestream several thousand security cameras across the city, including in retail stores and any person who registers their camera with them. One department representative claimed they plan to grow their force by 4,000 officers before the 2028 Olympics, and the LAPD has already demanded its largest funding increase ever for next year’s budget. In the face of these frightening initiatives, Raman has grown less critical of cops and skirted questions about her stances (e.g., her views on whether police have a place in the LA Federation of Labor), even as the Police Protective League raises massive amounts of money to mobilize against her.
Raman has delivered on other public safety initiatives like street medicine teams and introduced a motion to protect immigrants from ICE, which will hopefully finally make LA a sanctuary city. (This is the latest update I could find on the sanctuary policy in case you’re interested). Raman has also been outspoken about Vision Zero, the City’s commitment to eliminate traffic deaths by 2035. That goal was set ten years ago by disgraced former Mayor Eric Garcetti, and it hasn’t been going well. In 2023, the City’s traffic deaths reached a 20-year high with 337 people killed and 1,559 people severely injured. Traffic-related deaths have also become the number one killer of children in LA County. Raman has done her part to help prevent this in her district, adding miles of bike lanes, including protected bike lanes. She also worked to get $4 million in funding from the state for safety improvements to Griffith Park, which will be implemented soon.
In October 2022, bigots began mass disseminating fliers featuring primarily antisemitic but also anti-LGBTQ and anti-Armenian messaging around Southern California. On November 28, 2023, citing an uptick in antisemitism, Raman and Councilmember Bob Blumenfield passed a motion requesting a report from the LAPD on how to increase penalties for the crime of littering in mass “with the intent to willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person based on their perceived characteristics.” The bill received instant backlash for its subjective language, specifically the phrase “perceived characteristics,” which leaves intent open to police interpretation. Activists papered Raman’s district office and critics like Stop LAPD Spying’s Hamid Khan argued that the motion was “a clear and direct assault on people’s ability to speak out, our right to protest, our right to speech” at a time when anti-Zionism is being conflated with antisemitism. Also, if you think police are the answer to eliminating antisemitism, homophobia, or truly any form of bigotry, I’m sorry to tell you that you’re barking up the wrong tree.
A large group of Jewish activists packed that same November 28 meeting, urging City Council to call for a permanent ceasefire. During public comment, one Jewish activist shared this statement: “Israel has killed more than 14,000 Palestinians, attacked refugee camps and hospitals, cut off food and water, and displaced almost 80% of the population. This is collective punishment, shading into genocide.” Earlier that morning, Eunisses Hernandez and Kenneth Mejia were the only LA City officials to sign onto a letter from California municipal leaders, calling on President Biden to pursue a permanent ceasefire. Raman had been careful to avoid making that kind of definitive statement, despite the DSA Palestinian working group’s criticism of her zionist political alliances eight months earlier. Raman had previously released a statement condemning DSA, and the Democratic Socialists recently censured her while simultaneously reaffirming their endorsement of her. Raman finally called for a permanent ceasefire in an Instagram post the evening of the meeting, minutes after Councilmember Soto-Martinez did the same. Relatedly, both Raman and her opponent Ethan Weaver received endorsements from Democrats for Israel.
Raman is the most complex candidate I’m covering in this guide, and I’ll be honest with you–the number of hours I’ve spent writing and researching this one entry is stretching well into the double digits. Please forgive any lack of nuance as I try to wrap this up. So…City Councilmembers are assigned to various issue-based committees that oversee policy in their specific areas and then generally bring motions to the full Council to vote on. Disgraced former Councilmember Gil Cedillo was the Chair of the Housing Committee, which allowed him to be rude as fuck to Nithya and shit all over her proposals like extending pandemic eviction protections and offering just cause eviction protections to all renters in Los Angeles. But when the LA Fed Tapes scandal exploded onto the national stage, Cedillo went into hiding and Raman took over, giving her the power to remove items from the Council agenda. When a vote came up to end the pandemic eviction moratorium, she did not use that power to block it. To be fair, the recent election and vacancies created by the Fed Tape scandal meant a new Council President could have just slotted someone else into her chair, who would. Instead, she advanced a package of conciliatory protections. But the crushing level of rent debt and enormous number of tenants facing eviction were fucking bleak. Between February and November 2023, 71,429 eviction notices were filed in Los Angeles–96% for non-payment of rent. In January 2024, Raman led a vote to enact these tenant protections:
Raman and her allies have celebrated these protections, especially this last one. Some Councilmembers have deployed canvassers to track down renters in the few days they have between receiving an eviction notice and getting kicked out. The canvassers are supposed to offer help, but the reality is that help is limited. By accessing resources like Keep LA Housed, I know a few people who have managed to delay their evictions by a couple weeks–enough time for some of them to figure out a temporary arrangement or find storage for belongings. And that’s great. But 96% of people are facing eviction due to rent debt, and these protections aren’t paired with meaningful financial support that the majority of these tenants need to stay housed. Without debt forgiveness, there aren’t many avenues to put off an eviction long-term unless you’re a member of a strong tenants union. Still, landlords trying to issue mass evictions hate Raman and are spending enormous amounts of money to mobilize against her.
Also on the housing front, Raman led the City Council side of implementing the United to House LA tax measure, which promises innovative solutions that create housing faster and at a lower cost–and provides financial support to vulnerable seniors in danger of losing housing. She passed legislation to make new buildings in the City carbon-free, and her office created a more transparent process within the Council office for engaging with developers that includes input from impacted community members. This is important considering how many members of City Council have been indicted by the FBI for corruption specific to their dealings with developers.
Speaking of ethics, Nithya introduced a motion to study the feasibility of implementing Democracy Vouchers in Los Angeles, working toward one of her 2020 campaign goals of establishing fully publicly funded elections. Here is how Nithya describes them: “Anyone who can legally donate gets four $25 vouchers per election cycle. They can be redeemed online, in the mail, or given directly to candidates. Voters can use all of them on one candidate or spread them across multiple races.” Democracy Vouchers are really awesome and would help make campaign finance more equitable while diminishing the power of corporate PAC money. I encourage you to learn more about them and how to organize to make them a reality!
Unfortunately, Nithya has not taken a position on a key point in the long-delayed Municipal Lobbying Ordinance, which will define lobbying rules for groups, including unions and non-profits. A coalition of groups opposed exemptions for unions and non-profits– and you might think, what’s the harm? Aren’t those good? Well, do you remember the LA Fed Tape Scandal? That’s the one where LA City Council President Nury “Fuck That Guy He’s With The Blacks” Martinez infamously colluded with Councilmembers Kevin de León and Gil Cedillo to destroy Black voting power in between their racial epithets. Former LA Fed President Ron Herrera was right there joining in, and it all went down at the LA Federation of Labor, which is a federation of unions and labor groups. (By the way, the fallout of the Fed Tape scandals precipitated this push for governance reform in the first place.) And Kevin De León hid his consulting work with AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which allegedly motivated him to cover up the slum conditions in the non-profit’s residential buildings. We need robust accountability–even for non-profits and unions.
City Council (minus Raman) unanimously rejected LA Controller Kenneth Mejia’s nominee to the Ethics Commission. None of her colleagues even commented on their reasoning, which is alarming because the Commission is supposed to be an independent body that makes sure our deeply corrupt City Council doesn’t commit ethics violations. Raman was absent but did not respond when a journalist asked her how she would have voted.
What else? Nithya passed a motion to try to implement the expansion of live Spanish interpretation for City Council meetings, and the City Clerk submitted this report in response. In short, it will cost money, which will likely make it a battle to implement, but language justice is worth the fight. She also pushed to ensure Council District 6 got a special election to replace Nury Martinez after her resignation to prevent another clusterfuck situation that CD10 experienced after Councilmember Mark Ridley Thomas was indicted, leaving constituents without an elected representative for three full years.
One last issue: Nithya ran for office with a desire to expand LA’s 15 member City Council, which governs the City of LA’s nearly four million residents. Compare that to New York’s 51 councilmembers or Chicago’s 50 aldermen. This concentration of power in LA’s City Council facilitates the types of corruption mentioned throughout this guide. Unfortunately, a decision on council expansion won’t be made until at least 2026 and won’t be implemented until 2032. But an important step to expanding the council is an independent redistricting process (i.e., the people who draw the new district maps aren’t appointed by Councilmembers with personal agendas). And thanks to Raman’s advocacy, you will have the opportunity to vote for an independent redistricting commission when you cast your ballot this November.
Redistricting has become even more personal for Nithya since taking office. The Fed Tape scandal made headlines for the shockingly racist words elected officials said, but those words drowned out coverage of the corrupt actions they described. Mike Bonin detailed how Nury Martinez and her minions terrorized him and Nithya on an interpersonal level, but voters were punished by their “slice and dice” conspiring, too. On the Fed Tapes, Kevin de León expressed excitement about throwing Nithya’s district into a “blender,” and these corrupt fucks successfully cut renters out of her district, diminishing their voting power and separating them from the representative they elected. In total, Raman lost about 40% of her original district. The new Council District 4 is now whiter and more conservative, with white residents accounting for 69% of CD4’s voting-age population.
This may explain some of Nithya’s choices in her re-election campaign. She is fortunately still refusing corporate donations, but her campaign has made a noticeable shift from emphasizing grassroots movements to featuring establishment figures with moderate politics. And I understand that she has to make a case to win votes from her now more conservative constituency. But that doesn’t excuse any harmful choices she’s made, especially after Kenneth Mejia won over the majority of voters in each of LA’s 15 Council Districts in 2022 with unwavering leftist values. And I don’t think these shifts are just a reaction to redistricting or the laughably desperate failed recall attempts conservatives have led against her. In my view, her increasingly cautious political calculations combined with close alliances with centrists like Karen Bass point to ambitions for a 2030 mayoral bid when Bass terms out. That is purely speculative, but it would explain many of Nithya’s motivations. Time will tell if this prediction is correct, but Gavin Newsom is an unfortunate example of what happens when politicians seek higher office.
As long as this entry is, I couldn’t cover everything. If you’re interested, you can compare Nithya’s 2020 policies with her current platform, or scroll through her Twitter feed.
Who else is running?
Raman’s main competitor, Ethan Weaver, is a prosecutor who seems like he just really wants more people to prosecute. He’s pretty open about hating the unhoused and loves his “law and order” rhetoric (as in the Trump kind). Speaking of Trump, Weaver went on a talk show hosted by Mike “MAGA” Netter (one of the main proponents of the GOP-led Newsom recall) to express support for a racist anti-street vending ban. Speaking of Trump again, Weaver and his team were caught planning a secret event with Rick Caruso. (Update: No longer a secret.)
Weaver recently posted a banger TikTok video, garnering reactions like “ deeply unhinged” and “girrrrrl” from the people I’ve shown it to. In the video, Weaver goes on a bonkers rant, accusing his opponent of going around town and telling people he’s a closeted Republican. (I can’t imagine why anyone might think that.) Then he tries to spin his youth spent knocking on doors telling people they were going to hell and his prior Republican political affiliation as an admirable display of overcoming adversity. Sir, I am begging you to go to therapy. And if you already are, find a different therapist. Don’t take this out on the people of Los Angeles. But on a more serious note, the thin-skinned Weaver tells on himself with this video. These alleged rumors are personal to him and therefore make him feel unsafe. But the people his policies would displace, criminalize, and incarcerate? That’s not personal to him, so he doesn’t care about the safety of the primarily poor and primarily Black and Brown people his policies would target. (Black people make up just 8.6% of LA County’s population but account for 30% of people incarcerated in its jails–thanks in part to Weaver and his fellow prosecutors). Critics have mocked Weaver for this video and for admitting he’s a former Republican. I don’t necessarily think that’s fair. People make bad decisions, especially when they’re young, and sometimes people change. But Weaver certainly hasn’t. He’s no longer knocking on doors threatening people with hell. Now, he’s knocking on doors to threaten them with jail. Which, in LA, might be worse.
This man is so unappealing that he had to pay canvassers to gather signatures for him to even get on the ballot. Weaver recently told a wealthy group of homeowners that their taxes are too high without addressing the City’s impending budget crisis or explaining how he would cut their taxes, especially when the few policies he’s shared would require drastic increases to the City budget. He claims to understand what renters are going through with the high cost of housing, but the Apartment Association PAC (landlords) is one of his top campaign contributors. And one corporate landlord, who’s currently carrying out a mass eviction, donated $400k to a PAC supporting him. The other major PAC supporting him is dedicated to just two candidates: Weaver and City Council’s only Republican John Lee, who is facing multiple ethics violations and may be under federal investigation. But that’s not the only god-awful company Weaver keeps. He’s proudly touting endorsements from alleged sex pest Fiona Ma and confirmed sex pest Bob Hertzberg.
Weaver also has endorsements from police and sheriffs. In case it wasn’t clear, he wants a lot more cops. (So does the third candidate in this race, Levon Baronian, who has fundraised just a fraction of what his opponents have.) He wants to institutionalize unhoused people with mass forced treatment via CARE Courts. And while he claims to fight for domestic violence victims, none of his policies mentions a desire to increase services for them, or how he would help people experiencing homelessness due to domestic violence (up 54% year over year), or how every single domestic violence shelter in LA is constantly filled to capacity, leaving many survivors with nowhere to go.
On issue after issue, Weaver seems to have no clue what he’s talking about. His website barely features any policy, but it does state a stunning amount of blatant misinformation. Here’s a quick factcheck on some of his claims:
“Crime has skyrocketed.”
“Crime continues to increase.”
“On the City Council, I will fully fund the police.”
“On the City Council, I will fully fund the fire department.”
“Councilmember Nithya Raman voted against Mayor Bass’s plan to fully fund LAPD and wants to slash funding for law enforcement
“The [homelessness] crisis has only gotten worse under Councilmember Nithya Raman’s leadership.”
District 6: This seat was vacated in October 2022 when LA City Council President Nury “Fuck That Guy He’s With The Blacks” Martinez resigned in disgrace for her part in the LA Fed Tape scandal. Along with fellow Councilmembers Kevin de León and Gil Cedillo, Martinez infamously spewed racism and homophobia while colluding with former LA Labor Federation President Ron Herrera to destroy Black voting power during the City’s redistricting process. The Fed Tapes were so racist that even Joe Biden called on the three Councilmembers to resign. Martinez was the only one who did, and she may or may not have moved to Arizona to become a Republican. Her former staffer, Imedla Padilla, won a 2023 special election to finish her term (through 2024), which is why Padilla is already up for re-election.
You would think a scandal of the Fed Tapes’ magnitude would motivate Padilla to distance herself from Nury Martinez and her confederates, but you would be wrong. Despite Kevin de León’s central role in the Fed Tapes scandal, Padilla invited him to campaign for her–even after De León assaulted a Black activist. During her campaign, Padilla criticized senior staff with knowledge of corruption for not intervening. That didn’t stop her from hiring the same Chief of Staff as her predecessor–even though Martinez named him as an accomplice in her efforts to corrupt the redistricting process. Padilla pledged to refuse Big Oil money but hired Oil and Gas Consultant Mark Lomeli, who previously left his State Assembly position after substantiated reports of sexual misconduct.
After pledging to refuse cop money during her special election campaign, Padilla apparently changed her mind for her re-election campaign. She likes to pretend she has a nuanced perspective on policing, claiming “our public safety goals should include a preventative model rather than a reactive model that sends too many to prison.” In reality, she has a pretty cartoonish perspective on crime. Padilla ran on a platform of vilifying her district’s unhoused constituents while making it abundantly clear that she’s only concerned with seeing poverty, not lifting people out of it. Her attempts to violate her unhoused constituents’ rights have been met with resistance, which she used to justify her vote in support of the 2023 LAPD contract, which will force massive budget cuts on other City departments to increase cop pay by $1 billion over the next four years. This is in addition to the LAPD’s existing $3.2 billion budget.
A frightening sign for renters in this district: In addition to taking corporate real estate and landlord PAC money, Padilla accepted an endorsement from landlord group Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. If you rent in her district, I recommend joining your area’s LA Tenants Union local.
Padilla’s challengers don’t seem any better than her, and she’s outraised them by more than 5000%. Sometimes leaving a race blank is the best way to be heard. Better yet, write in Antoinette Scully, the leader CD6 deserved.
District 8: Cliff Smith - The incumbent Marqueece Harris-Dawson is definitely the fourth least-worst member of City Council. But that’s kind of like calling someone the fourth least-worst serial killer when over the past five years, LA City Council has consisted of elected officials who were investigated and/or indicted by the FBI (5), called on by POTUS to resign for overt racism (3), sued for sexual harassment (1) accused of rape (1), caught on video assaulting a protestor (1). And I believe the Ethics Commission has open cases against two of them. Other than calling for the resignation of the three Councilmembers at the center of the racist Fed Tapes scandal, Harris-Dawson hasn’t been particularly outspoken about this corruption (although he had no problem campaigning for Imelda Padilla alongside one of them in December 2023). But he has fallen in line to support many of his colleagues’ most harmful policies.
Those votes included support for 41.18, an ordinance that criminalizes the existence of unhoused people with a draconian ban on sitting, lying, and sleeping in most places in the city. This was an especially egregious mark on Harris-Dawson’s record because 41.18 didn’t have enough votes to pass until he changed his to support its passage at the last minute. He supported an ordinance meant to criminalize unhoused people for possessing bicycles and repeatedly voted to increase police funding in the City budget. He also recently voted in support of the new LAPD contract (i.e., raises and stipulations negotiated for officers by the Police Protective League separate from the police department’s budget). This contract will give cops $1 billion in pay raises over the next four years by raiding other City department budgets. The deal, negotiated by Mayor Karen Bass, is especially going to fuck these other, already severely-understaffed departments when the City has to reconcile its looming $350-400 million budget crisis next year. Speaking of police and bad decisions, Harris-Dawson shouted out the LAPD as the best in the nation at South LA Pride in July 2023, which earned him resounding boos from the crowd. And he’s actually sort of become known for his bizarre interviews and social media interactions.
Harris-Dawson has done some good in Council. He authored Measure HHH, which enabled City officials to issue $1.2 billion in bonds for the development of permanent supportive housing units for people experiencing homelessness. More recently, he introduced a motion to study the feasibility of implementing Democracy Vouchers in Los Angeles, which would provide voters with four $25 vouchers per election cycle to give to the candidate(s) of their choosing. This would help make campaign finance more equitable while diminishing the power of corporate PAC money.
Speaking of campaign finance…including independent expenditures (i.e., outside PAC money), the incumbent Marqueece Harris-Dawson has fundraised about 13x more than his two opponents combined. Still, this district deserves better, which is why you should vote for Cliff Smith, a South Central Neighborhood Councilmember and union organizer.
Smith supports a $25 minimum wage and a mandate for new housing developments to include at least 20% low-income units. He wants to ban LAPD cooperation with ICE and amend the city charter to enact an all-elected, all-civilian, community control board with full authority over the police department. He also supports enfranchising non-citizen residents of Los Angeles with voting rights in all City elections.
District 10: Eddie Anderson - Anderson is a pastor, community organizer, and co-founder of Partnership for Growth LA, a Black and Jewish community nonprofit that has developed a paid workforce development program, urban farms, and summer and afterschool programs. Anderson helped pass three important progressive measures: Measure J, which redirects 10% of the LA County budget into community services and alternatives to incarceration; Measure A, which increases oversight on the LA Sheriff; and United to House LA, which works to reduce homelessness, make housing more affordable, and protect low-income seniors from eviction.
Anderson is the only candidate in this race who opposes more policing, instead favoring care-first interventions (e.g., unarmed intervention, crisis response teams with mental health workers, gang intervention programs). He views the City’s budget as a moral document and wants increased community input on how funds are spent. Anderson is formerly unhoused and serves on the LA Homeless Services Authority’s Committee on Black People Experiencing Homelessness. He would champion a holistic approach to supporting the unhoused with investments in mental health services and guaranteed basic income. He wants to keep people housed by raising the minimum wage to a liveable wage and expanding renter protections, including the right to counsel for tenants facing eviction. Anderson also wants to increase green spaces and safety upgrades for pedestrians and cyclists.
Anderson refuses support from super PACs and contributions from Big Oil, lobbyists, and any kind of developer. He wants to implement Democracy Vouchers, which would help make campaign finances more equitable while diminishing the power of corporate PAC money. I encourage you to learn more about them and how to organize to make them a reality!
Anderson says he’ll combat corruption by prioritizing the expansion of LA’s 15-member City Council. That number has remained stagnant since 1925 despite LA’s population growing by ~800% to nearly four million. Meanwhile, New York has 51 councilmembers, and Chicago has 50 aldermen. This concentration of power in LA City Council facilitates the type of corruption mentioned throughout this guide. Unfortunately, a decision on council expansion won’t be made until at least 2026 and won’t be implemented until 2032.
An important part of ensuring equity and integrity during council expansion is an independent redistricting process (i.e., the people who draw the new district maps aren’t appointed by Councilmembers with personal agendas), which you will have the opportunity to vote for this November. That’s important because disgraced former District 10 Councilmember Mark Ridley-Thomas (MRT) appointed Anderson to represent this district on the 2021 Redistricting Commission. Shortly after, MRT’s Council colleagues removed him (more on that below), and the Commission created a draft map that angered many parties for a variety of reasons. The map drastically redrew some districts and didn’t even assign a number/Councilmember to two of them, diminishing the voting power of several groups and undermining Nithya Raman, the only progressive incumbent who would be seeking re-election. The map also infuriated the disgraced former Council President, and this is where two of LA’s wildest political scandals converge.
Let’s throw it back to 2013 when Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, son of the aforementioned Mark Ridley-Thomas (MRT), won a special election at 26 years old, becoming the youngest member of the California legislature. Citing unspecified chronic health issues, Sebastian abruptly resigned in December 2017. That same month, he applied to USC and sent an email inquiring about the school creating a paid position for him despite lacking a graduate degree. Just weeks later, Sebastian enrolled at USC for a dual-degree social work and public policy program with a full scholarship (worth $26k). Two months later, USC hired him with a $50k salary.
Sebastian’s resignation from the California Assembly came two months after New York Times journalists Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey published their bombshell story exposing substantial allegations of rape and sexual abuse against Harvey Weinstein that triggered the Me Too movement. Women in the state legislature began speaking out against pervasive workplace misconduct, and it turns out the younger Ridley-Thomas was the subject of two sexual harassment complaints when he resigned.
At the time, MRT was a member of the powerful LA County Board of Supervisors, and USC sat inside his district. MRT donated $100k from his campaign account to USC’s School of Social Work. Because of USC’s prominence in his district and its role as one of the largest employers in the County, this wouldn’t necessarily raise any major red flags. Unfortunately for the Ridley-Thomases, a whistleblower caught on, triggering an investigation. Initial reports speculated that MRT’s donation was a bribe for his son’s scholarship and paid position. The truth was much worse.
USC’s School of Social Work was facing a multimillion-dollar budget deficit, and its dean, Marilyn Flynn, had a quick solution. The school had an existing contract with LA County’s Department of Mental Health to provide telehealth services. Flynn sought to amend that contract to make it more lucrative, but she needed support from a high-level County official. With his son’s misconduct in danger of exposure, MRT voted on three contracts for the School of Social Work worth $9 million annually. This is especially appalling when you consider how drastically underfunded LA County mental health programs are.
If you’re concerned about the progression of Sebastian’s health, he managed just fine. In addition to his graduate school course load and becoming a professor, he also started a consulting firm and a nonprofit within a few months of his resignation. As for MRT’s donation–that money didn’t even stay at USC. As part of the quid pro quo, Flynn agreed to launder that $100k through the school into Sebastian’s new nonprofit.
In October 2021, the U.S. Attorney General indicted MRT on 19 counts for his bribery scheme. His defense tried to play off MRT as a good guy who does good things like supporting contracts for mental health programs. But MRT had a history of financial impropriety, and he’s…pretty bad at doing crime. The prosecution introduced emails from MRT that included gems like, “Please call and assure him...of the School’s commitment and that you have begun the funds transfer...Please confirm receipt and keep me in the loop🤫[shushing face emoji].” Also, Flynn pled guilty to her well-documented involvement in the scheme, squashing his bullshit defense.
Flynn’s corruption at USC implicates both LA Mayor Karen Bass and her 2022 opponent Rick Caruso. The Ridley-Thomas case is one of the less horrific scandals Caruso, who repeatedly covered up sexual violence, oversaw as Chairman of USC’s board of trustees. The MRT investigation revealed Flynn’s emails stated her intent to “give highest priority to” Sebastian, rush his acceptance, and “open every door for him, just as I did with Karen.” In 2011, Flynn awarded Karen Bass a $95,000 scholarship to USC’s School of Social Work even though then-Rep. Bass hadn’t directly applied for it. According to court filings, Flynn hoped to obtain her assistance in passing federal legislation. And Bass subsequently sponsored a bill to expand funding for social work programs at private universities, including USC. The U.S. Attorney’s Office released a statement that clarified Bass was not the subject of an active investigation, but her ethically questionable history would be used to bolster their case against Flynn. When disgraced LA Police Chief Michel Moore learned about these allegations, he allegedly instructed detectives to investigate Bass. Reports of this LAPD investigation became public in December 2023, leading to Moore abruptly announcing his resignation without announcing a successor. Marilyn Flynn is nearing the end of her 18-month sentence of home confinement. Her web connects us all.
Anyway, just ten months into his term on LA City Council, MRT announced that he would step back to fight corruption charges. Two days later, his Council colleagues voted to suspend him before eventually voting to expel him. Council leadership appointed MRT’s immediate predecessor, Herb Wesson, as his replacement. Six months after Wesson’s swearing-in, he was forced to resign when a judge ruled his reappointment violated term limit laws. Again, the Council decided to appoint a replacement–this time, Wesson’s chief of staff Heather Hutt. Because City Council made the undemocratic decision to block a special election to replace MRT, this district has been denied the opportunity to elect its representative since October 2021. It also denied CD10 constituents a real advocate on the Council during the redistricting process.
Here, the ramifications of MRT’s corruption collide with the racist LA Fed tape scandal. That’s the one where disgraced former Council President Nury “Fuck That Guy He’s With The Blacks” Martinez infamously conspired with Councilmembers Kevin De León and Gil Cedillo to gerrymander the hell out Los Angeles while spewing a bunch of racial epithets. On the tapes, Nury & co strategized the destruction of their political enemies and colluded to wipe out the Redistricting Commission’s work by combining mystery maps into a so-called “hybrid map.” This new map was still extremely undermining, especially to progressives, renters, and Black voters, but it was swiftly approved and now defines our district borders through 2032. Bringing it back to the candidate I’m recommending in this race: Eddie Anderson was an outspoken critic of Nury Martinez’s corruption. At an October 2022 Council meeting, he questioned the origin of Martinez’s mystery maps and demanded an investigation from the LA City Attorney. Condemning the racist Councilmembers’ efforts to specifically gerrymander his district, he called on them to resign.
Who else is running?
During the LA Fed tapes meeting, the three Councilmembers expressed their desire to select an appointee to replace Mark Ridley-Thomas and Herb Wesson–one who would go along with their plans. Gil Cedillo uttered a sentence damning the incumbent before she was even appointed: “The one who will support us is Heather Hutt.” Not only was Hutt’s appointment undemocratic, it was designed to undermine Black voting power and to help pass racist legislation. That alone should be disqualifying. Hutt has repeatedly voted against the interests of her constituents and supported increasing criminalization and police funding.
Aura Vásquez is easily the next best choice in this race. Vásquez organized at Standing Rock, advocated for several renewable energy policies, and was the driving force in banning single-use plastic bags in Los Angeles. In 2017, disgraced former Mayor Eric Garcetti appointed Vásquez to the Department of Water and Power’s board of commissioners. While any affiliation with Garcetti is less than ideal, this was an unpaid position, and Vásquez fought to close three gas plants during her tenure as a commissioner.
Vásquez shares several policies with Anderson, and her platform prioritizes expanding the council, establishing an independent redistricting process, and implementing Democracy Vouchers. One of Vásquez’s standout policies is public banking–the creation of a City owned and operated non-profit financial institution to serve and meet the needs of the community. That would help curb reliance on private banking, lower interest rates, focus on local funding, and generate income for community development.
Vásquez wants an Unarmed Mobile Crisis Team to respond to non-emergency situations. (The CIRCLE program is an existing version of this, but it’s limited to calls concerning the unhoused and only operates in certain areas of the City. It’s also drastically underfunded and reliant on the problematic nonprofit Urban Alchemy.) Unfortunately, the rest of her policies on policing are pretty alarming. When she says she’ll “shift the focus of public safety from reactive to preventative,” she unfortunately doesn’t mean lift people out of poverty. Vásquez wants to increase the number of police officers patrolling on foot, erroneously citing “a recent crime spree in the area,” despite the LAPD’s own statistics showing crime is down. She alarmingly supports neighborhood watch groups, which have repeatedly resulted in violent racial profiling, including the 2012 murder of Trayvon Martin. She also wants to implement community policing, a tried-and-failed reformist policy that increases police funding and expands surveillance.
Vasquez says she doesn’t accept money from cops, the fossil fuel industry, or developers. Her top donors include multiple renewable energy corporations, conservative Democratic Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, Buffy creator/human pile of allegations Joss Whedon, and the CFO of Sardelli Realty, a corporate real estate investment firm that acquires land, single-family and small multi-family properties.
Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer is another high-profile candidate in this race. He has the most PAC money supporting him ($263k) and the most targeting him ($86.5k). His policies wouldn’t do much to move the needle on the status quo, focusing on moderate reform and implementing tried-and-failed policies like requiring police to take critical race and unconscious bias training. Unfortunately, you can’t unteach racism with a seminar, especially when your audience is an inherently racist institution. Reformist policy just takes more money away from communities and increases the ever-ballooning police budget.
District 12: Republican and incumbent Councilmember John Lee, is one of LA City Council’s most corrupt members in recent years–and boy, has he had some stiff competition. Anyone with a shred of decency would be thrilled to see Lee ousted from public office, but I also have some serious reservations about his sole challenger, Serena Oberstein. Namely, few of her policies significantly diverge from Lee’s positions.
Unsurprisingly, ethics is the area where Oberstein, a former ethics commissioner, really differentiates herself from Lee. But before we get into policy differences… Picture it: Los Angeles, 2017. Former District 12 Councilmember Mitch Englander accepts an invite from a couple of friendly businessmen for a relaxing weekend getaway. They fly to a little town called Las Vegas, where the businessmen “gift” tens of thousands of dollars in fancy dinners, bottle service, hotel rooms, and sex workers to Englander and his unnamed staffer. (Apropos of nothing, did I mention John Lee used to work for Mitch Englander?) Englander and his unnamed staffer return to LA and…oops! Forget to report the “gifts,” which slightly exceed the city’s gift limits–$50 for staffers and $470 for Councilmembers.
By the way, one of these businessmen was a real estate developer, and the other did “business related to major development projects.” Also on this trip: George Esparza, then-aide to former Councilmember José Huizar. At the time, Huizar served alongside Mitch Englander on City Council’s Planning and Land Use Committee, which controls things like building safety, zoning, permits, and enforcement. See where this is going? Huizar is currently serving time for his own series of wild crimes (see the District 14 entry for more on that), and Englander has since faced seven federal charges and was sentenced to 14 months in federal prison. But Englander’s staffer, the unnamed co-conspirator referred to in FBI filings as “City Staffer B”–no indictments. Not yet. Not exactly.
Now, John Lee is Vice Chair of the Planning and Land Use Committee, and he’s actively suing the City’s Ethics Commission for accusing him of ethics violations related to the Vegas trip. Lee’s lawsuit, which claims the Commission took too long to come for him, is a desperate effort to block enforcement against him. The Commission’s response to the lawsuit was…yeah, because you hid your crimes. Lee also appears to have strategically hired lawyers, who have dealings with the City, to create conflicts of interest that have successfully delayed his hearing until April 5–exactly a month after this race will be decided.
Anyway, Obertein believes the Ethics Commission should be an independent body capable of setting its own staffing levels. She also wants to end LA’s rampantly corrupt redistricting process (as detailed by former Council President Nury Martinez when she was infamously caught on tape, spewing racism and homophobia). Instead, Oberstein supports an independent commission (i.e., the people who draw the new district maps aren’t appointed by Councilmembers with personal agendas) that increases community input. She also supports expanding the size of the council.
Like Lee, the bulk of Oberstein’s homelessness policy is limited to supporting the Mayor’s Inside Safe program, which has failed to deliver on promised services, including mental health. The program has also been remarkably ineffective in its stated goal–placing participants in permanent housing. One year and at least $93.8 million in, only 255 Inside Safe participants found permanent housing–and some of them had already obtained housing vouchers before entering the program. (For context, the City of Los Angeles is home to an estimated 46,260 unhoused people as of January 2023. An average of 227 people became unhoused in LA County every day in 2020.) More Inside Safe participants have returned to homelessness (largely due to its locations’ inhumane, unsanitary, unsafe, and carceral conditions) than were placed in permanent housing. Despite these expensive failures, Mayor Bass refuses to engage with participants to improve her signature program. And frankly, voters should be concerned that Oberstein, who’s running as an anti-corruption candidate, has made a program plagued with such serious transparency issues the foundation of her homelessness policy.
Oberstein says she would also implement Safe Parking sites in the district and hire staff focused on housing and homelessness, a role that Lee says he contracted out to a group called Volunteers of America. Oberstein plans to form an interfaith committee on City Council and utilize California’s Yes in God’s Backyard bill, which allows California religious institutions to build housing developments on their property. The fact that this is the centerpiece of her housing platform in the face of our massive housing crisis is concerning, especially when religious housing and service providers have a history of discrimination. She also calls for more “cabin communities,” a euphemism for tiny homes, 8x8 foot shacks that shelter two people (smaller than the legally required minimum space of a prison cell), which are proven fire hazards, prone to flooding, and lack kitchens or bathrooms. Since she featured this policy on her housing rather than homelessness platform, I just want to clarify: tiny homes are a form of temporary shelter, not a housing solution. Interim shelter ≠ housing.
Both candidates are awful on policing. Unfortunately, Oberstein also supports 41.18. Lee received a hard-earned endorsement and $364k in campaign contributions from the police union after snatching money away from various city funds to pay for more police every chance he had. Oberstein’s priority for policing is simply to have more cops despite 2023 becoming the deadliest year for killings by police in the United States. Even though CD12 is home to the fewest unhoused people in Los Angeles, Lee shamefully holds the title for most arrests in his district under 41.18, an ordinance that criminalizes the existence of unhoused people with a draconian ban on sitting, lying, and sleeping in most places in the city. Even though unhoused Angelenos are the victims of one-quarter of murders in the City–when politicians talk about increasing public safety, always remember whose safety they aren’t concerned about.
Relatedly, Oberstein has shared some problematic policies about The Olympics, which also contain misinformation. She claims The LA 1984 Olympics created a surplus for our city, which is unequivocally not true. Oberstein also giddily touted the 1984 games’ “lasting impacts across all communities,” which is deeply out of touch. For many Black men, that “lasting impact” was police militarization and expansion in the lead up to the games followed by a rapid acceleration of mass incarceration. And the LAPD is expected to expand and militarize again in preparation for 2028. Not to mention the thousands of people The Olympics has displaced or its disastrous ecological impact on host cities.
Speaking of…environmental policy is another area of divergence for these candidates. Los Angeles had more deaths from car crashes than homicides in 2022, which is why Oberstein wants LA to reimagine Vision Zero, the City’s commitment to eliminate traffic deaths by 2035, with more public transit and more bike and pedestrian walking paths. Otherwise, she’s pretty weak on environmental policy beyond stating support for LA’s 2019 Green New Deal, which was a cringey attempt by disgraced former Mayor Eric Garcetti to co-opt language from the movement for climate justice. The Sunrise Movement called Green New Deal (Eric’s Version) “not a Green New Deal” and criticized its immense shortcomings (e.g., 20-years-too-late net-zero emissions goal, failure to address environmental racism). In 2023, City Controller Kenneth Mejia responded to the hottest summer on record with his “This Is Not Fine” report, calling for a reboot of LA’s Climate Action Plan. And yet somehow, John Lee manages to blow Oberstein’s lack of urgency on this issue out of the water. During his 2019 campaign, Lee outright mocked Garcetti’s proposal, referring to it as “extreme left ideas,” and criticizing its plan to cut fossil fuels as “out of touch with reality.”
Anyway, here’s hoping those City Staffer B indictments drop soon–just don’t hold your breath. Or maybe do. We can’t afford the CO2.
One more thing: Oberstein has been outspoken about the Chinese government’s conduct toward Uyghurs, a predominantly Muslim Turkic ethnic group, in Xinjiang. In a February 2024 report, Human Rights Watch (HRW) stated multiple countries have determined that China’s conduct constitutes genocide under international law and that Chinese authorities have perpetrated crimes against humanity, “including arbitrary detentions[...] torture, enforced disappearances, mass surveillance, cultural and religious persecution, separation of families, sexual violence, and violations of reproductive rights.” The report details how the Chinese government has subjected Uyghurs to forced labor inside detention centers and pressured car manufacturers to apply weaker human rights standards to accept this forced labor.
You might think, this is foreign policy–what does that have to do with a candidate running for municipal office on the other side of the world? First, I would argue the values of every person seeking power should be scrutinized. But these issues are intersectional and versions of them manifest in Los Angeles, where Oberstein is seeking a seat of power. She’s worked to eliminate the use of materials produced by forced Uyghur labor, but her policies fail to even mention the forced labor in our jail system right here in LA, where we incarcerate Black people at more than 7x the rate of white people. This legacy of slavery enshrined in the 13th Amendment, forces incarcerated people to work for California’s eight cent prisoner minimum wage with no protections–all to fuel our capitalist state. Obserstein’s platform similarly fails to address our city’s continued cooperation with ICE, which continues to operate detention camps filled with constant human rights violations, which didn’t magically disappear in January 2021. Families are also regularly separated in Los Angeles Superior Court, usually for no reason except poverty. These are all policy choices.
I’m not suggesting that being outspoken about one problem but not another makes you a hypocrite. It’s obviously not possible to champion every crisis in the world. Nor is this a “what about” argument. It’s an expectation of candidates, who are seeking a seat of power in government, to analyze the systems of oppression created by that government.
Beyond these types of oversights, Oberstein seems to not understand power dynamics or at least how predatory capitalism is. In an August 2022 interview, she said, “We want people to do the right thing. We do hope that corporations ask themselves[...]if they want their products to be coming here at the cost of the genocide of an entire people.” I think 99% of people know as a general rule corporations don’t give a shit about human life. Asking nicely is never a winning strategy when you’re dealing with people who are chill about human rights abuses.
In November, Oberstein tweeted a press release on social media that condemned protestors for “storming” the California Democratic Convention and “calling for the destruction of Israel.” She also shared her own message with it: “Standing up against hate should never be a political matter. We can vehemently disagree with one another and still argue from a place of respect. Calls for the eradication of any people makes people feel unsafe. No progress can come from it- only more division.” In reality, the demonstration was co-organized by Jewish activists, who confirmed there were no calls for the eradication of any people. Hundreds if not thousands of nonviolent ceasefire protests have swept the United States over the past four months. Many Americans feel a responsibility to stand up when it’s our government funding the slaughter of tens of thousands of Gazans. As Jewish activist Seth Morrison said, “People are dying[...]our tax dollars are paying to kill children.”
I don’t fully understand why she misrepresented the intentions of these activists’ civil disobedience, seeking a ceasefire and accountability for Democratic leadership. For context, she’s a self-described “lifelong Zionist,” who received an endorsement from Democrats for Israel. But a few weeks after her tweet about protestors at the Convention, she liked this tweet, calling for an end to the war. I honestly find most of Oberstein’s politics baffling. I don’t understand why she fails to apply the framework she uses to criticize China to the policies she wants to implement in Los Angeles. I don’t understand why she chooses not to engage in tactics like boycotts against the car companies that use Uyghurs’ forced labor. What I do know is that her call to argue “from a place of respect,” also known as respectability, is a tactic moderates have long employed to silence dissent. Respectability has no place in movements against oppression, not when so many have been killed and displaced, not when there’s no end in sight. Like the majority of local and state politicians, Oberstein hasn’t publicly called for a ceasefire–at least not that I could find. That chorus of silence from elected officials underscores how deadly respectability can be.
District 14: Ysabel Jurado - First, apologies to CD14 voters for the delay on this full entry. The corruption in this district runs deeeeep. I’ve been working on a more in-depth history of its scandals, but this guide is nearing 90 pages, and I ran out of time, so I’ll have to publish the more expansive version in the November guide. Here’s a (slightly) more concise version:
Ysabel Jurado is a tenants’ rights attorney, affordable housing advocate, queer single mom, and daughter of undocumented immigrants. If elected, she would become the first Filipina American on LA City Council. According to the latest campaign filings for this race, Jurado ranks fourth in campaign contribution totals but has by far the most individual donors–about 60% from people contributing $100 or less. That indicates an impressive level of support from the community.
Jurado is a socialist, campaigning on a strong leftist platform that emphasizes strengthening people’s rights, public services, and decommodification. She boasts an impressive set of housing policies that include tying rent control to wages, implementing vacancy taxes on empty units, and charging property flippers with speculation fees. Jurado will work to expand social housing–affordable, usually publicly-owned, housing designed for mixed-income tenants. She wants the City to buy up vacant buildings and develop them into housing that’s administered by community land trusts, which keeps them permanently affordable and help prevent gentrification. Jurado understands the true root cause of homelessness is housing affordability and lack of renter protections, which is why she wants to establish a right to counsel, implement stricter eviction regulations, and invest in financial assistance for tenants who need support. She would collaborate with tenant advocacy groups to establish a comprehensive Tenant Bill of Rights and improve code enforcement on substandard housing by increasing the number of inspectors, establishing a responsive complaint system, and creating stricter penalties for bad landlords.
I should note that Jurado also has a proposal for investment in a relocation assistance program. “Cash for keys” tenant buyouts have become an increasingly common tactic that landlords use to force tenants out of rent-controlled units with paid settlements, so they can jack up the rent for new tenants. Jurado was criticized for her recent tweet celebrating this kind of settlement for a tenant client. Under the existing framework, this may be the best available option for certain tenants, and relocation assistance from the City would help them. However, “cash for keys” doesn’t just hurt individual tenants–it hurts all renters by driving up the cost of housing and that leads to gentrification. LA Tenants Union called this exploitative practice a form of “forced displacement” and described the “intense, ongoing harassment tenants face to accept cash-for-keys. Landlords routinely lie to and threaten the most vulnerable tenants in LA and the city has done NOTHING to stop it despite us sounding the alarm for years.”
Jurado wants to establish community resource hubs that help the unhoused navigate our complicated housing and services systems. These hubs would offer shelter, meals, and wraparound services like mental health counseling, job training, and social support. She wants to discontinue violent sweeps, which push unhoused people from block to block, and end 41.18, an ordinance that criminalizes the existence of unhoused people with a draconian ban on sitting, lying, and sleeping in many public areas throughout the City. (A recently leaked report about this ordinance also proves what we already knew–it’s ineffective and impedes case workers’ ability to connect the unhoused to housing and services.) Los Angeles is home to four million people, but only has 14 public bathrooms. That’s absolutely bonkers. Jurado will establish a network of accessible and well-maintained public restrooms throughout the district with a focus on areas where homelessness is most prevalent.
As a former union member during her stint in a legal services job, Jurado is a strong supporter of labor rights. She believes all LA City services should use unionized public labor rather than outsourcing contracts to private companies. That’s a great proposal, considering how many crimes Los Angeles officials have committed in league with private entities.
In Los Angeles, 80% of all low-wage workers experience wage theft, and undocumented immigrants are disproportionately targeted by employers. Jurado will expand enforcement of labor protections that already exist and temporarily revoke licenses of businesses that retaliate against undocumented immigrants, which is allowed under existing labor code. She also wants to establish an unemployment fund for undocumented workers, who can’t access unemployment benefits, and create job programs that create financial stability for formerly incarcerated workers.
Jurado opposes the contract Mayor Karen Bass negotiated to give already overpaid LAPD officers nearly a billion dollars in raises. Jurado spotlighted how much money the City spends settling police misconduct cases, and she believes taxpayers shouldn’t have to shoulder these settlements for police misconduct. Instead, she proposes those payments should be deducted from the LAPD's pension fund. She wants to end qualified immunity, demilitarize police, and remove cops from traffic enforcement, replacing them with an unarmed division in the City's public services department.
CD14 includes Boyle Heights, a neighborhood where pollution has created disproportionately high rates of child hospitalization for asthma. She wants to increase green spaces, open community gardens, and implement community-driven reforestation to reduce pollution and cool neighborhoods with more shade. She offers thoughtful plans to remediate polluted soil and unpave certain areas to increase groundwater stores, improve air and water quality, and restore ecosystems.
Making Los Angeles a sustainable city is a major priority for Jurado. She supports a just transition, which would include green jobs that offer long-term employment to the people most impacted by the climate crisis. It also means expansion of public transportation infrastructure with community input and prioritizing underserved areas. Fares currently fund just 1.7% of the transportation budget, and the overwhelming majority of revenue generated by fares pays for fare enforcement and costs associated with administration (e.g., TAP cards). It doesn’t make sense. Jurado supports fare-free transit, which would increase ridership, reduce the number of cars on the road, and decrease pollution. She also wants to expand access and safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and bus riders (e.g., on-demand crosswalks, protected bike lanes, bus shelters). I encourage you to check out the detailed environmental and transportation policies Jurado published, offering thoughtful strategies on several important issues.
Shortly after completing her undergraduate degree at UCLA, Jurado spent two years working in the office of disgraced former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. When I learned about this part of her employment history, I considered it a red flag, especially because I haven’t been able to find any record of Jurado commenting on Garcetti or her time in his office. However, given what we know about the culture of cruelty Garcetti and his top advisors fostered in that workplace, I don’t necessarily think it’s fair to hold this against Jurado, who was a young assistant at the time. Many of her former colleagues have gone on record describing their time in that office as traumatic, and that may also be the case for Jurado. However, I hope Jurado chooses to open up about working for Garcetti. Los Angeles could benefit from the critical perspective of someone who’s witnessed the way an unethical leader operated behind closed doors. These insights could help shape policies to combat corrupt workarounds and loopholes as the City works on governance reform.
Jurado has a strong set of ethics and governance policies, which include reforming the City’s Ethics Commission and expanding the 15-member LA City Council. The number of Council seats and districts has remained stagnant since 1925 despite LA’s population growing by ~800% to nearly four million. Meanwhile, New York has 51 councilmembers, and Chicago has 50 aldermen. This concentration of power in LA City Council facilitates the type of corruption covered throughout this guide. A decision on council expansion won’t be made until at least 2026 and won’t be implemented until 2032, but Jurado supports reimagining Los Angeles with at least 25 districts. Jurado also supports an independent redistricting process (i.e., the people who draw the new district maps aren’t appointed by Councilmembers with personal agendas), which you will have the opportunity to vote for this November. Speaking of ethics and redistricting…
Who else is running?
The incumbent Kevin de León garnered national infamy with Joe Biden publicly calling for his resignation during the racist LA Fed Tape scandal. That’s the one where de León joined disgraced former Council President Nury “Fuck That Guy He’s With The Blacks” Martinez and their allies in an explicit plot to decimate the voting power of Black people, renters, and progressives–in between spewing racial epithets. Since the fallout of this scandal, de León has sworn up and down that while yes, he was present, he didn’t participate in the racism. That’s not true. Listen to the recording and read the transcript. Review their harmful policies. After spending weeks in hiding, de León returned to City Council to chants of “all lives matter” from his racist supporters. To underscore just how racist de León is, he assaulted Black organizer Jason Reedy, then coordinated a media campaign to smear him, employing anti-Black tropes in an attempt to spin Reedy’s racial justice activism as somehow predatory.
Kevin de León previously served in the state legislature, and in an attempt to boost his political profile, challenged disgraced Senator Dianne Feinstein (RIP) for her seat in 2018. He then ran for LA City Council in 2020, replacing his bestie, disgraced former Councilmember José Huizar, who was arrested by the FBI and suspended from serving on the Council. (Huizar was indicted on racketeering charges for a $1.5+ million bribery scheme with real estate developers. In January 2024, he was sentenced to 13 years in federal prison. For more on Huizar and his crimes, check out Smoke Screen: The Sellout podcast.) Anyway, de León wasn’t that interested in serving on City Council. He just planned to use it as a stepping stone and boost his name recognition for the 2022 LA mayoral race. But even that was just another stepping stone–one that he didn’t come close to stepping on. De León won just 7.8% of the vote, and the Fed Tape scandal permanently derailed his planned 2026 bid for Lt. Governor of California.
Kevin de León’s voting record has been fairly conservative even though he positioned himself as progressive during his campaign. He voted for and continues to support 41.18, an ineffective ordinance designed to criminalize and displace unhoused people. CD14 is home to the largest unhoused population in the City, and de León has made a concerted effort to increase temporary housing in the wealthiest and whitest parts of his district while ignoring the growing humanitarian crisis on Skid Row–also in his district.
De León won his Council seat with an outright victory in the March 2020 primary election but wasn’t sworn in until October. In the months between, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) paid de León $110k for “consulting.” De León failed to disclose this employment history, which created several conflicts of interest, especially as he and AHF increasingly promoted the other’s interests. You might know AHF for Out of the Closet or those scary STI billboards that tell you your genitals will look like the cover of Dianetics if you get syphilis. AHF also operates pharmacies and clinics, which generate about $2 billion annually. In 2017, AHF used that revenue to start the Healthy Housing Foundation and purchase several buildings to create low-income housing, including the Madison near Skid Row. That would be great except Madison tenants filed complaints about uninhabitable, slum-like conditions. When AHF/Healthy Housing reportedly failed to rectify these problems, tenants filed a class action lawsuit over rampant mold, vermin, bedbugs, cockroaches, severe plumbing issues, a chronically broken elevator, and electrical and heating failure. The building’s chronically broken elevator was particularly horrific, trapping elderly and disabled tenants who couldn’t make it down the stairs.
De León became directly implicated when a former AHF employee contacted his office about the horrific conditions. A CD14 staffer joined the whistleblower to meet with tenants. But when they arrived at the building, staff refused to let them sign in, called the cops, and followed them with cameras. Fortunately, the staffer was able to document some of the conditions before the police arrived and kicked them out. In case you were wondering whose side cops are on, it’s the slum lords–even when you’re a City official doing your job. Anyway, the staffer received texts from de León, which the Councilmember reportedly attempted to hide from public records requests. Despite these horrific conditions, de León has refused to take action and continued to publicly support AHF, including its new housing ventures. What a guy!
A quick factcheck: On his website, de León claims he “built the most homeless housing out of any L.A. City Councilmember since he has been in office – over 2,000 units and beds.” Politicians, including de León and Karen Bass, like to refer to interim shelter as “housing.” It’s not. Many of those 2,000 units and beds are “tiny homes,” 8x8 foot shacks that shelter two people (smaller than the legally required minimum space of a prison cell). Tiny homes are proven fire hazards, prone to flooding, and lack kitchens or bathrooms. Speaking of fires and the unhoused, de León accepted several campaign contributions from Daniel Nogueira and his family members. In 2018, Nogueira set an encampment on fire in this district.
De León is a vocal critic of expanding LA City Council. He also voted for a police contract that gives cops $1 billion in pay raises–money that isn’t accounted for in the LAPD’s $3.2 billion budget. To find that extra billion dollars, Mayor Karen Bass, who negotiated the terrible deal, will raid the budgets of every other severely-understaffed City department to reconcile our looming $350-400 million budget crisis next year. To be clear, Kevin de León voted to hire 1,000 more cops to the force at the detriment of every other City service despite 2023 becoming the deadliest year for killings by police in the United States.
Even with all these damning scandals, de León managed to raise $346k–the second most of any candidate. But don’t worry. He’s found new, unethical ways to make up for his second-place finish. In 2023, de León spent $460k in public funds mailing 1.2 million pieces of mail to constituents. That’s extremely abnormal. Ysabel Jurado called this “a thinly veiled attempt to use public resources for his re-election and diverting funds from tackling the real problems our communities face.” De León counts many, many real estate developers among his top donors. If you want more gentrification, Kevin is your man.
I mentioned Kevin de Leon’s predecessor, disgraced Councilmember José Huizar was his former bestie, but you can have more than one best friend. Assemblymember Miguel Santiago was Kevin and José’s third. That’s a detail Santiago has worked hard to obscure during his campaign, but the internet saves everything. Santiago repeatedly endorsed both Huizar and de León. But after the Fed Tape scandal, Santiago turned on de León and announced he would run for this seat.
The LA Federation of Labor had the gall to endorse Santiago. And I just have to say–really? You guys didn’t think it would be a good idea to sit this one out after a massive political scandal was named after you? After disgraced former LA Fed President Ron Herrera was caught on the LA Fed tapes colluding to destroy labor-backed candidates? When the last candidate you endorsed for this position was Kevin de León? And the one before that was José Huizar? Bye!
Santiago supports criminalization of the unhoused and the Mayor’s push to add 1,000 officers to the LAPD. Using his power as Chairman of an Assembly Committee, Santiago rejected a 2018 bill that would have provided Californians with the strongest net neutrality protections in the country. That probably had something to do with him receiving more than $60k from telecom lobbyists like AT&T and Comcast. Santiago has raised the most money in this race with $500k in campaign contributions and another $700k in PAC money backing him. His top donors include landlord PACs, real estate developers, and Blue Shield. If you’ve enjoyed the gentrification, racism, misconduct, and general lack of ethics that Huizar and de León brought to this district, Santiago is the guy for you!
California Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo was a frontrunner in this race until she swerved into two parked cars with a blood alcohol content exceeding twice the legal limit. Carrillo revealed she’s attending AA and taking other measures in response to her DUI, but those are likely court-mandated. She also skirted around whether she deals with alcoholism or any form of alcohol dependency. If she weren’t an elected official, I’d say that’s her business. But in her press tour to move past the DUI, Carrillo blamed her alcohol intake on attending too many fundraising events. I believe people in recovery can hold public office, but if Carrillo isn’t an alcoholic, she should take responsibility for making a bad decision instead of touting tools for recovery to garner favorable press. Carrillo also has a history of workplace misconduct. As I state elsewhere in this guide, politicians are humans and make mistakes like anyone else–only the stakes are much higher. I believe our leaders should be held to a higher standard, and I don’t think public office is an appropriate setting to work through those issues–especially when someone exhibits a pattern of troubling behavior. I’ll also note that Carrillo supports 41.18, an ordinance meant to criminalize the unhoused for existing in public spaces. It’s pretty fucking hypocritical to support a policy that suggests someone’s mere existence is dangerous when you want to be forgiven and elevated to leadership despite your reckless actions.
The last candidate I’m covering in this race is Lalo Vargas, a 28-year-old public school teacher and socialist. He’s campaigning with a radical set of policies that I fully support. Those include canceling COVID rent debt, banning new luxury condos, and reallocating the LAPD’s massive budget to invest in our communities. Under different circumstances, I’d recommend him. Unfortunately, this is a crowded race, and the high-profile nightmare candidates I just covered have raised a lot of money. I don’t believe Vargas has the level of organizational or financial support to win enough votes to advance to a potential November runoff. Jurado might–hence the recommendation. This race makes a compelling case for ranked choice voting, and I hope Vargas runs for office again if he doesn’t win.
What does the Board of Education do?
The seven member School Board passes policy and the budget for the second largest school district in the United States. They review and have the authority to approve potential charters in the district. They also appoint (and can fire) the superintendent, who oversees operations.
Note on UTLA endorsements: I generally avoid discussing endorsements in this voter guide (unless the endorser is a red flag). Why? The endorsement process is a lot like the Golden Globes–it’s all about winning over a small group of people by any means necessary and has little to do with merit. However, UTLA (LA’s teacher union) endorsements are usually worth examining because of the specific power dynamic between UTLA workers and the Board. However, UTLA sometimes endorses candidates, who are not completely aligned with their members’ interests (e.g., UTLA endorsed incumbent Kelly Gonez in the 2022 primary despite her soft stance on charter schools, which might be related to the Charter School lobby spending over $250,000 in PAC money to support her).
(UPDATE) District 1: Christian Flagg - The UTLA (the teachers’ union) suspended its endorsement of Kahllid Al-Alim in light of a report about him liking and sharing harmful social media posts that perpetuated conspiracy theories about Jewish people, linking vaccinations to autism, and suggesting Sandy Hook was fake. Al-Alim responded to the coverage with a video, apologizing, taking responsibility for his actions, and debunking the antisemitic tropes he engaged with on social media. He also offered to make himself available for restorative justice. I think that’s the best, most genuine way to handle a situation like this. If they’re willing, I believe anyone acting in good faith deserves the space to grow and learn. I also believe people in power (and those seeking it) should be held to a higher standard. I believe restorative justice requires time, education, and action in addition to words. I’m inspired by Al-Alim’s accomplishments and policy proposals, but I’m not sure how he can truly prioritize healing while he’s focused on winning an election.
Fortunately, Christian Flagg is also running on a justice-centered platform although it lacks the same scope and focus on community schools. Flagg is a community organizer with South LA’s Community Coalition. He supports the Black Student Achievement Plan, which reallocates funding away from school police to hire counselors, social workers, and other staff to support students, specifically at schools with the most Black students. He wants community-based safety models to completely replace school policing, which results in negative outcomes for Black and Brown students (e.g., school-to-prison pipeline, use of pepper spray on students). His safety strategies include safe passage, violence intervention, and youth development. Flagg has also been critical of charter schools, stating they “should not be forced onto existing school campuses in ways that disrupt the local school community, and there should be greater mechanisms of evaluation, assessment and accountability before new charters can be approved.”
Who else is running?
Conservative forces (e.g., LA School Police Association, Charter School lobby) are top donors to other candidates like DeWayne Davis and Didi Watts, signaling a continued attempt to reverse recent progress made in LAUSD schools.
District 3: Scott Schmerelson - The UTLA-endorsed incumbent Scott Schmerelson isn’t the most progressive politician, but he’s probably the best option in this race.
Unlike most of his opponents, Schmerelson generally opposes charter schools, which is important because the charter school lobby has once again dumped a lot of money into School Board races this cycle. Why does that matter? Charter schools are publicly funded but privately run, meaning they operate with significantly less oversight. The state funds public education on a per pupil basis. When a student leaves a public school to enroll in a charter school, that funding moves with the student. You might think–if 5% of students leave, why not cut 5% of teachers? For starters, you’d eliminate union jobs that would likely be replaced with non-union positions at charter schools. You’d also fail to account for fixed costs that can’t be scaled down (e.g., building utilities; every school has a principal regardless of enrollment). Losing students creates a massive deficit that forces public schools to close, creating longer commutes for students and their parents. Charter schools also compete with public schools for resources, including actual classroom space. Thanks to a 2000 ballot measure, California public schools are legally required to co-locate with charter schools, meaning two schools worth of students are forced to share the same space. That has been a disaster for obvious reasons, but it has also undermined community schools initiatives, which offer wraparound healthcare and support services.
Charter schools have been the subject of massive fraud cases, illegally restricted enrollment, and created conditions that lead to high attrition rates for both students and teachers. As of 2019, the federal government spent an estimated $1.17 billion on charters that either never opened or that opened and have shut down–one report found 40% of all charters shutter within ten years. Despite these results, charter schools have become a pet project of billionaires seeking to completely dismantle public education, frequently under the philanthropic guise of “school choice” and “closing the education gap.” Former UTLA chief Alex Caputo Pearl cited deregulation as one major motive of the charter movement and its backers: “Part of it is ideological commitment[...]teacher unions are the last, biggest unions, and taking them down will create much more room for a broader deregulation of the economy and public sector.” LAUSD already has more charter schools than any other U.S. school district thanks in part to billionaires dumping enormous amounts of PAC money into Board of Education races.
Unfortunately, Schmerelson is a steadfast supporter of school policing. In 2020, he voted against what would become the Black Student Achievement Plan. LAUSD students’ persistent activism persuaded Schmerelson to change his vote and defund $25 million from school police–more than one-third of the department’s budget. That funding was reallocated to hire counselors, social workers, and other staff to support students, specifically at schools with the most Black students.
Unfortunately, Schmerelson continues to support school policing even in non-emergency situations. Even though a mountain of evidence proves school policing results in negative outcomes for Black and Brown students (e.g., school-to-prison pipeline, use of pepper spray on students). Even though Black students are handcuffed at twice the rate of white students. Even though California schools have more cops than social workers and more security guards than nurses. And if you’re wondering why I keep harping on this issue 1) It’s important. 2) Uvalde proved how useless school police are. 3) Schmerelson failed to publish any policy specifics for voters to assess–which is concerning, considering the many substantial challenges LAUSD faces.
Who else is running?
As I said, not great options. Andreas Farmakalidis stated his support for Community Schools and the Black Student Achievement Plan. Unfortunately, he doesn’t completely oppose school police either–or charter schools. He says he values equity and inclusivity, but he seems to value compromise more. And despite what polite society may have conditioned you to think, there’s nothing virtuous about finding common ground. Don’t believe me? Raquel Villalta was a teacher… until she was removed for her fervent anti-vax “advocacy.” She’s running on the type of transphobic, gender-essentialist policy that would thrill Ron DeSantis. Dan Chang is a teacher, whose top contributors include the conservative group New Majority PAC and the charter school lobby, which has spent almost $183,150 supporting him as of this writing. Chang helped open 17 charter schools, which could also be viewed as ripping 17 charter schools worth of per pupil funding away from public schools. And making her third bid for this seat, Elizabeth Badger is the founder of the nonprofit Minority Outreach Committee–which, based on its website, appears to have been inactive since 2016. Her campaign website is expired and redirects to an education news blog.
District 5: Karla Griego - The UTLA-endorsed Griego is an experienced special education teacher, parent to LAUSD students, and organizer in her union. She supports Community Schools, which provide wraparound services (e.g., medical and mental health care, food assistance, after school care, jobs programs, legal aid, immigration services) to meet students’ needs and address the underlying social and economic causes of the opportunity and achievement gaps. She views Community Schools as an opportunity to transform entire communities by providing vital services to both students and their families. She supports parent organizing efforts to ensure communities are engaged in decision-making. She supports the Black Student Achievement Plan because she believes real safety means improved mental health, culturally relevant curriculum, more college counselors, restorative justice, and resources that truly help Black students. Griego wants to invest in mental health support for students and training for staff. She’ll also protect LGBTQIA+ students.
Griego will demand more resources from the federal government for special education and
expand infant and early education centers. She also wants LAUSD to invest in electric buses, solar panels, shade trees and covers, lead-free pipes, clean drinking water, and flexible extreme-weather attendance policies.
Who else is running?
Fidencio Gallardo is an experienced public school teacher, adjunct professor of education at Cal State LA, and mayor of the City of Bell. He has solidly progressive policies and no major red flags that I could identify in his campaign’s finances. Gallardo supports increasing accountability for charter schools and more equitable funding for public schools, citing California as the fifth largest economy in the world yet 33rd in U.S. per-pupil funding. He takes a holistic approach to school safety, prioritizing de-escalation and restorative justice over policing. He supports the Black Student Achievement Plan and LGBTQIA+ equity in the classroom. Gallardo is an advocate for Universal Transitional Kindergarten, citing the cognitive benefits of a high-quality early education and economic benefits to families, as well as adult education. He also wants to improve the Board’s goal of reaching 33% green campuses by 2035. Why not Gallardo? He’s among the best candidates to run for School Board in recent memory, but Karla Griego is simply even better.
Their opponent, Graciela Ortiz is a Huntington Park Councilmember and former LAUSD attendance counselor. Ortiz is being sued by her former student, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by Ortiz’s associate while the minor was allegedly and improperly recruited to work on the counselor’s previous political campaign. Ortiz’s top campaign contributors include LA School Police, LCCC (a conservative-leaning PAC), and GPSN, a group that claims to focus on improving public education even though its chair and board are primarily charter school stooges.
District 7: No recommendation - Tanya Ortiz Franklin is notably the Board of Education incumbent the UTLA teacher union did not endorse this year. Probably because a charter school PAC spent $119,000 supporting her campaign as of this writing. Why is that bad? Charter schools are publicly funded but privately run, meaning they operate with significantly less oversight. The state funds public education on a per pupil basis. When a student leaves a public school to enroll in a charter school, that funding moves with the student. You might think–if 5% of students leave, why not cut 5% of teachers? For starters, you’d eliminate union jobs that would likely be replaced with non-union positions at charter schools. You’d also fail to account for fixed costs that can’t be scaled down (e.g., building utilities; every school has a principal regardless of enrollment). Losing students creates a massive deficit that forces public schools to close, creating longer commutes for students and their parents. Charter schools also compete with public schools for resources, including actual classroom space. Thanks to a 2000 ballot measure, California public schools are legally required to co-locate with charter schools, meaning two schools worth of students are forced to share the same space. That has been a disaster for obvious reasons, but it has also undermined community schools initiatives, which offer wraparound healthcare and support services.
Charter schools have been the subject of massive fraud cases, illegally restricted enrollment, and created conditions that lead to high attrition rates for both students and teachers. As of 2019, the federal government spent an estimated $1.17 billion on charters that either never opened or that opened and have shut down–one report found 40% of all charters shutter within ten years. Despite these results, charter schools have become a pet project of billionaires seeking to completely dismantle public education, frequently under the philanthropic guise of “school choice” and “closing the education gap.” Former UTLA chief Alex Caputo Pearl cited deregulation as one major motive of the charter movement and its backers: “Part of it is ideological commitment[...]teacher unions are the last, biggest unions, and taking them down will create much more room for a broader deregulation of the economy and public sector.” LAUSD already has more charter schools than any other U.S. school district thanks in part to billionaires dumping enormous amounts of PAC money into Board of Education races.
To her credit, Ortiz Franklin claims she would’ve voted in favor of defunding school police to invest in more counselors and other school staff–even if her support seemed a bit hesitant. (The vote took place a few months before she was elected.) Her only challenger, public school teacher Lydia Gutiérrez has a rather vague platform. One red flag–phrasing in her “parental rights” policy seemingly alludes to the anti-trans, gender essentialism laws taking hold in conservative states: “Every parent has the right to know what is being taught to their child and any decisions the child makes about their health and sex.” Gutiérrez has no campaign contributions as of this writing, signaling an easy win for the incumbent.
34th District: Ricardo Ortega* - Ortega is challenging the ex-cop incumbent Republican in this historically conservative district. After spending his youth in foster care, Ortega dedicated much of his adulthood to advocating for youth. At age 17, he worked on AB2247, a bill to prevent youth in foster care from experiencing unnecessary or abrupt placement changes that negatively impact their well-being. At 20, he worked on AB46 to promote direct engagement between disadvantaged youth and policymakers. He’s since become a peer advocate with the Children’s Law Center of California. His platform emphasizes community investment with a focus on improving infrastructure in the High Desert, including utilities like water supply and sewage systems, expanded highways, improved broadband, and enhanced transportation opportunities. He will also fight to expand access to healthcare facilities in his district and advocate for funding to expand community clinics and enhance existing healthcare facilities.
39th District: Juan Carrillo* - Before his election to the Assembly in 2022, Carrillo was a city planner for fifteen years and a member of the Palmdale School Board. He was also the only member of Palmdale City Council to oppose a vote of no confidence in LA District Attorney George Gascón. Unfortunately, Carillo withheld his support for multiple progressive bills in the Assembly (e.g., one bill that requires large corporations to publicly file climate-related financial risk reports; another that creates stronger protections for communities impacted by local oil well operations; and another to increase charter school accountability). His campaign finances include major contributions from Edison Energy, Chevron, Walmart, police PACs, real estate PACs, and Big Pharma. Unfortunately, his only opponent is a Republican, who claims crime is on the rise (despite the LAPD reporting crime has decreased for another consecutive year) and wants to increase police budgets.
40th District: Pilar Schiavo* - Before winning a narrow victory over the Republican incumbent in 2022 and joining the Assembly, Schiavo was a nurse advocate and small business owner. In 2022, her website said Schiavo would “make passing guaranteed healthcare for every Californian one of her top priorities,” but she has since removed any mention of this priority. Schiavo has a decent voting record but disappointingly withheld her vote from multiple pieces of progressive legislation (e.g., AB12, which now caps the security deposits for all rental units at one month’s rent; AB1306, which now prevents the transfer of incarcerated people who qualify for release under certain criminal justice reforms to ICE). Schiavo signed the No Fossil Fuel Money and Patients Over Profits pledges during her inaugural campaign, but she doesn’t appear to have signed it this go around–although I didn’t find any such donations in her campaign finances. Red flags I did find include contributions from Airbnb, a landlord PAC, a real estate PAC, and Erin Brokovich villain PG&E. While she seems to have deviated from the progressive champion she initially branded herself as, this district has a history of voting for conservatives, and her sole, Republican challenger is a retired deputy sheriff.
41st District: Jed Leano - Leano is an immigration attorney, councilmember, and former Mayor of Claremont. He says that during his first two months on Claremont City Council, he secured nearly $2 million for a housing navigator program, dedicated shelter beds, housing for transitional-age youth, motel vouchers for families, a shower program, and a homelessness prevention program for vulnerable residents. As a Councilmember, Leano also funded a team of clinical psychiatric professionals who respond to calls for service in behavioral health crises. He has an impressive record of implementing climate and sustainability initiatives, and he will continue to focus on safe streets initiatives that prioritize safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchairs. If elected, Leano will work to introduce legislation that increases housing supply for all income levels, subsidies, and housing stability. His campaign finances seem pretty clean, but he has strong support from YIMBY groups. I don’t know how aligned Leano’s policies are with that movement, but it’s worth noting that unchecked YIMBYism often paves the way for gentrification.
42nd District: No recommendation - Incumbent Democrat Jacqui Irwin is running against a Republican challenger in this safely blue district. Irwin accepted large contributions from police and prison groups and her voting record has been an unwavering atrocity. She voted against bills to allow overdose prevention programs in certain cities to combat opioid deaths, minimize the time youth spend on probation, and remove War on Drugs-era enhancements that double or triple sentencing for non-violent drug offenses. She abstained from voting on a bill that would have increased oversight of sheriffs’ departments and voted against a 2020 bill to allow previously convicted defendants to challenge racial discrimination. She also abstained from voting on the VISION Act, which would have prevented California prisons from transferring incarcerated people who have completed their sentence to ICE for deportation. Irwin is set to decisively win this race (she won her 2022 primary by a whopping 26 points), and Dems hold a 62 seat supermajority in the Assembly to the Republicans’ 18. Do not endorse her legislative racism with your vote.
43rd District: Saul Hurtado - Hurtado is a childcare worker and union organizer with Child Care Providers United. He supports education reform, child care for all, strengthening unions, and expanding social services. His campaign prioritizes transparency, community engagement, and a commitment to representing the diverse voices of Los Angeles. Through his advocacy work with Child Care Providers United, Hurtado has established relationships in the Assembly and achieved important wins that improved protections for workers and increased income eligibility levels to expand the number of families eligible for childcare subsidies.
Who else is running?
San Fernando Mayor Celeste Rodriguez has no policy specifics on her website although she does manage to squeeze “support local entrepreneurs” in there. She probably learned how to politick without actually saying anything from her time working for disgraced former LA Mayor Eric Garcetti. Rodriguez has raised the most money in this race, counting a real estate PAC, DoorDash, and retiring corporate Democrat Tony Cárdenas among her top donors.
Walter Garcia is the second most high-profile Dem in this race. He worked for one of LA City Council’s most conservative members, Monica Rodriguez, before becoming a spokesperson for the state Attorney General. Garcia claims to be passionate about environmental issues but failed to publish any stances or policies relating to climate change, oil drilling, or pollution. He lists “alternative crisis response” in the same sentence as “working with local law enforcement agencies to uplift community policing,” a tried-and-failed reformist policy that increases police funding and expands surveillance. Garcia also infuriatingly says he supports “Medicare For All with a role for private insurance and a focus on allowing people to continue seeing their current doctor if that’s their preference.” This is undermining in two ways: 1) Medicare For All would not prevent anyone from continuing to see their doctor. 2) Corporate Democrats like Pete Buttigieg, have presented a public option as a good thing–“expanding choices” for Americans–but enrollment in a public option would create barriers for people who need it most. It would also require a much more substantial (and expensive) administrative system than single-payer (e.g., Medicare for All) while undermining public healthcare’s leverage and ability to reduce costs.
44th District: Adam Pryor or Nick Schultz - Great news! In this crowded race of eight, four of the candidates support single-payer healthcare. Adam Pryor seems the most principled among them, but he’s raised the least amount of money. Pryor is a server, who’s experienced a workplace injury and lived out of his car. He understands financial hardship and will fight to make healthcare a human right with CalCare. He’ll work to provide comprehensive wraparound services (e.g., employment assistance, educational support, mental health counseling, and drug rehabilitation programs) and ban hedge funds from buying up single-family homes to artificially increase rent and housing prices. He supports ranked choice voting, which creates a more democratic system by letting voters select their real first choice rather than who they think can make it to a run-off. That would be fantastic, especially in races like this. And it shouldn’t be difficult to implement when states like Alaska and Maine already have. He also advocates for publicly funded elections, which lower the barrier of access for regular people to run for office and diminish the financial influence of corporate interests.
Nick Schultz has garnered the most organizational and financial support of the four candidates who support CalCare/single-payer, making him the most likely to advance to a November run-off. Schultz was elected to Burbank City Council in 2020 and is cycling through a one-year term as Burbank Mayor. He played a key role in passing Burbank’s greenhouse gas reduction plan, outlining the City’s path to carbon neutrality, and he helped implement policy to reallocate $2 million from the police budget to social welfare spending. He has strong progressive policies on several issues, which you can read more about here, but I did find a few red flags. He accepted a $2,500 donation from Warner Bros Discovery, which has become one of the most corrosive forces on entertainment industry unions under the recent leadership of Batman villain David Zaslav. He also accepted endorsements from Democrats for Israel and YIMBY groups, which often pave the way for gentrification.
Who else is running?
After Schultz, Steve Pierson has fundraised the second most of the four CalCare/single payer candidates. Pierson was the Southern California Field Director and National Training Manager for Swing Left, and he garnered support from high-profile figures in the entertainment industry during the 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. His campaign emphasizes Pierson’s career as a sound engineer and the lack of representation for entertainment industry workers in the state legislature. He has a pretty solid set of progressive policies that are comparable to Schultz’s. However, Pierson supports Prop 1 and CARE Courts, which the ACLU “vehemently opposes” because the program will institutionalize people with mental health disabilities, subject them to ineffective forced treatment, and strip them of rights by forcing them into conservatorships. (Unfortunately, Schultz did not respond to my email requesting information about his stance on this issue.) Pierson’s campaign finances didn’t have any red flags, but like Schultz, he also accepted an endorsement from Democrats for Israel.
You should not vote for himbo Adam Summer even though his campaign slogan is a banger: Summer Year Round! His website reads more like an audition for The Bachelor than the legislature, touting his creation of the Shred app and humble bragging about the 127 countries he’s visited. He also mentioned taking ten years of poetry classes. And honestly, thank god, because where would we be without that slogan?
46th District: No recommendation - The incumbent, Jesse Gabriel is a moderate who worked as a constitutional rights and general litigation attorney before taking office. He has a less than stellar voting record, especially on police accountability. He opposed legislation to decertify officers found to have committed serious misconduct. He also withheld his support from several important progressive bills (e.g., one to increase charter school accountability; another to allow overdose prevention centers in certain cities to combat opioid deaths; another to protect the digital records of people who travel to California for abortion or gender-affirming care from police in states that ban them). He’s running against a Republican challenger but will safely defeat her in this bright blue district. (Gabriel won by 35 points in the 2022 primary.)
48th District: Brian Calderón - Calderón is the Mayor of West Covina. He began his career as an elementary school teacher before pursuing his passion of coaching, which is why he supports a strong public education system. Calderón has taken a bold stand against charter schools, which have pillaged resources from and increased segregation in public schools, especially in marginalized communities. He believes healthcare is a human right, which is why he will work to pass single-payer healthcare via CalCare. Calderón is a strong supporter of strengthening renters’ rights and union power. He sees urban oil drilling as an example of environmental racism, and he supports a ban on new oil drilling permits in California.
Who else is running?
The incumbent, Blanca Rubio, is a conservative Democrat, whose only 2022 challenger was a write-in Republican candidate. Rubio has a poor track record on environmental and criminal justice issues, and she’s largely supported by PAC money from cops, Big Oil, insurance companies, and other corporations. She withheld her support from several progressive bills, including the VISION Act, which would have prevented California prisons from transferring incarcerated people who have completed their sentence to ICE for deportation.
49th District: Mike Fong* - Fong is the incumbent Democrat, facing a sole MAGA challenger. Despite Fong’s political alignment with the party establishment, he’s delivered a pretty solid voting record. Fong serves as Chair of the Higher Education Committee in the Assembly. He says his “priorities include reducing homelessness, protecting the environment, expanding access to higher education, and helping businesses create jobs.” However, he hasn’t published any policy specifics beyond that. Unfortunately, Fong’s top campaign donors include: California Real Estate PAC, a police PAC, and Erin Brokovich villain PG&E, which caused 30 wildfires and likely killed upwards of a thousand people without ever admitting wrongdoing.
51st District: Rick Chavez Zbur* - Zbur won this seat when he defeated progressive Louis Abramson in 2022. He’s definitely going to win re-election against two Republican challengers in this bright blue district that encompasses Hollywood, Central LA, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica. His voting record is decent, but his campaign finances are not. Among his top contributors: Cops, big insurance, California Real Estate PAC, and Erin Brokovich villain PG&E, which caused 30 wildfires and likely killed upwards of a thousand people without ever admitting wrongdoing.
52nd District: Franky Carrillo - Franky Carrillo spent 20 years in prison for murder–one he didn’t commit. Born to Mexican immigrants, Carrillo grew up in the Los Angeles area. While getting ready for school one morning, Franky heard a pounding on the door and was swarmed by LA County Sheriff’s deputies, who held him and his father down. The deputies failed to communicate the reason for his arrest, and he was charged with murder for a drive-by shooting. At 16 years old, he was denied bail and couldn’t afford an attorney.
Even though Franky had an alibi, he remained incarcerated during his two years and two trials. Despite witnesses changing their testimony of the shooting, Franky received a guilty verdict. During his 20 years of incarceration, he spent hours in the library and wrote letters to anyone he thought could help get his case reviewed. Eventually, he got the attention of attorneys, who discovered a white supremacist LA Sheriff’s deputy had coerced witnesses into identifying Franky as the killer. The deputy was a member of The Lynwood Vikings, one of several LASD deputy gangs. (If you aren’t familiar with LASD gangs–LA Sheriff’s deputies commit violent crimes and get branded with tattoos to join these literal gangs, which continue to operate inside the Sheriff’s Department. Check out Cerise Castle’s “A Tradition of Violence” to learn more.)
The coerced witnesses in Franky’s case had since recanted their testimony. Another man even confessed to involvement in the shooting and stated Franky was not present in a sworn statement, but the judge refused to hear his testimony at Franky’s sentencing. If you’ve followed Adnan Syded’s case, you’ll note his case also featured an ignored alibi and witness tampering from police. These are just two examples. There are many, many more. Our “justice” system is deeply racist, corrupt, and broken.
In 2011, Franky Carrillo was exonerated, and his case later became the subject of a Netflix documentary. Carrillo earned his degree and has tirelessly advocated for justice reform and exoneration of the wrongfully convicted through his work with the LA Innocence Project and LA County’s Probation Oversight Commission, the same department that incarcerated him as a youth. He also played a key role in passing Measure A, a 2022 LA County ballot measure that increased oversight of the LA Sheriff.
If elected, Carrillo will become the first formerly incarcerated exoneree to hold office in California. Carrillo’s story makes him an undeniable advocate against systemic injustice, and he plans to utilize his experiences to implement transformative policies. He will work to shift response to traffic incidents and mental health crises to unarmed alternatives that provide services to those in need. Carrillo identifies how the existing approaches to law enforcement are punitive and often lead to increased criminalization of people of color. He wants to address police misconduct, which is badly needed when LASD gangs continue to operate unchecked and 2023 became the deadliest year for killings by police in the United States. Carrillo will work to eliminate the racist practice of mandatory minimums and sentencing enhancements meant to increase mass incarceration in our already overcrowded prison industrial complex. He wants to expand rehabilitative programs and reform legislation that has created barriers to services for people with criminal histories, so they can transition out of incarceration and grow into contributing members of the community.
Carrillo supports a single-payer health care system that would provide true universal coverage. He would also invest in community clinics and healthcare centers to reduce health disparities in underserved areas. Unfortunately, Carrillo supports Prop 1, a disastrous measure that will defund existing county mental health programs to fund Gavin Newsom’s plans for mass institutionalization and forced treatment. Why someone who was wrongfully incarcerated would support this measure is beyond me, but the other candidates in this race also appear to support Prop 1 and/or similar initiatives.
Who else is running?
This race has a few blatantly terrible candidates, but I especially urge you not to vote for Ari Ruiz or Jessica Caloza, who present themselves as progressives. Both are strong supporters of CARE Courts, a carceral program that mandates forced treatment on those deemed a “danger to themselves or others” even if they haven’t committed any harm or crime. Those who don’t comply can be stripped of their rights and placed in a conservatorship. As of this writing, Caloza’s largest donor is the California Real Estate PAC.
53rd District: Javier Hernandez - Hernandez is refusing money from corporate PACs, Big Oil, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies–and even beyond that pledge, his campaign finances look pretty spotless. His platform pairs economic solutions that address California’s affordability crisis with almost all of his progressive policy proposals. For example, Hernandez will fight corporate polluters and stop warehouse development near homes and schools while funding programs to prepare the workforce for green energy jobs. He’ll also require action plans to address environmental hazards, especially in disproportionately affected low-income communities.
His vision of public safety focuses on preventing crime by addressing its root causes. That means investing in programs that give youth educational and professional opportunities, providing mental health services, and holding cops accountable. He will strengthen tenant rights to prevent homelessness and advocate for community land trusts to protect against gentrification. He supports Medicare For All, which would make healthcare a human right. He also wants to ensure access to gender-affirming care and increase access to quality healthcare in low-income and rural communities by fully funding local clinics and hospitals.
54th District: John Yi - Yi is a pedestrian and public transit advocate with a bold platform focused on housing, income inequality, and urban climate change. His website calls out the common practice of politicians referring to housing as a human right but then offering policies that depend on the same profit-driven housing market that’s responsible for our housing crisis. “An inalienable right to housing? That’s not even on the radar.” That’s correct! And it’s exciting to hear a candidate say it. Instead of repeating the failed strategy of “trying to coax a system that has no interest in being coaxed,” Yi wants to invest in community land trusts and nonprofit community development organizations to build affordable housing. He believes our housing crisis isn’t just about a lack of housing but a lack of renter power. And again, he’s correct! Yi will work to improve rent control by repealing The Ellis Act (allows landlords the unconditional right to evict tenants to “go out of business”) and The Costa-Hawkins Act (prevents cities from extending rent control to any housing built after 1995 and vacancy control, which allows landlords to raise rent by any amount for new tenants). Relatedly, his campaign refuses donations from real estate interests.
Yi believes we need density development that makes sense for communities and will invest in more public parks, public libraries, and safe, walkable streets with more trees that provide shade. He wants California to implement single-payer healthcare and expand utility, rent, food, and transportation assistance to help close the wealth gap and ensure our most vulnerable stay housed. He supports the unionization of the working class in the tech industry (e.g., warehouse workers, delivery drivers) and wants to enshrine working class power in legislation (e.g., mandating worker seats on corporate boards, support for tenants associations).
His climate policy takes aim at the negative health impacts people in his district face, which is why he will hold corporations responsible for the impact of their production (e.g., oil and gas, plastics, forever chemicals). Yi will drastically increase investments in pedestrian, cycling, and public transit options. He also wants to replace the politically-appointed LA Metro Board with a publicly-elected body to ensure the people who ride buses and trains are making the decisions.
Who else is running?
Mark Gonzalez is an establishment Democrat and district director to Miguel Santiago, who is vacating this seat to challenge his former bestie–disgraced racist Kevin de León–for his LA City Council seat. (For more, see the LA City Council District 14 entry.) Gonzalez claims he will fight to make healthcare a right for all, but he doesn’t support CalCare or any version of single-payer healthcare–the only way to deliver on that promise. Probably because Big Insurance is a top contributor to his campaign. Also found in his campaign finance records: large donations from California Real Estate PAC, Ford Motor Company’s PAC, FOX Corporation (parent company of FOX News), and DoorDash.
55th District: Isaac G. Bryan* - Bryan is running for re-election against a Republican challenger. He has a solidly progressive voting record, especially compared to his colleagues in the Assembly. Bryan introduced AB1848, which ended the practice of prison gerrymandering in California by forcing redistricting commissions to use the last home address of incarcerated people when drawing political boundaries. He was the primary sponsor of AB1686, which ended the putative practice of forcing parents to pay for costs when their children are placed in foster care, which disproportionately impacts families of color. The bill’s passage increased family reunification, which is the primary goal of foster care. Bryan is a principal co-author of AB2200, the latest version of CalCare, which would bring single-payer healthcare to California. However, Blue Shield is among his top donors along with AirBnB–a bad sign for renters. Bryan received an endorsement from Democrats for Israel, but he subsequently called a January ceasefire demonstration at the state legislature “a powerful showing of civil disobedience.” Unfortunately, that’s the closest thing to supporting a ceasefire I’ve been able to find from any incumbent in state government.
56th District: No recommendation - The incumbent Lisa Calderon is a moderate running against two Republican challengers. She has withheld her support from several pieces of progressive legislation and accepted lots of money from oil and real estate interests. And also cops. She won her previous election against a Republican by a safe 17 points.
57th District: Greg Akili - Akili was born in the segregated South and spent a brief time in jail at the age of 19 before dedicating his life to civil rights and social justice. Akili played key roles in the Social Security Works Campaign, Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign, and Black Lives Matter Grassroots. He worked on the Campaign Against Apartheid, and he’s an outspoken supporter of an unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Akili spent many years working as a labor organizer, and he’s one of the few people of color to co-found a labor union–the United Domestic Workers (AFSCME 3090). He wants to enshrine labor protections with a Worker Bill of Rights and increase the minimum wage to a livable wage that would stay indexed to cost of living.
Akili is running for office because California is one of the richest states in the union but lacks the will and leadership to create a society that meets human needs and human rights. He believes healthcare is a human right and supports a single-payer healthcare system because it would eliminate the creation of new medical debt and provide universal access to anyone in need of medical attention. He correctly points out that single-payer is more efficient and will save millions of dollars by cutting out private insurance middlemen. Akili also believes housing should be a human right. He supports the repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Act, a law that prevents local governments from establishing any form of rent stabilization or rent control. Akili will push for investment in community land trusts, which can purchase land and keep it permanently affordable. He’ll fight to strengthen tenants’ rights statewide and advocate for the establishment of a Division of Tenants Rights in California’s Housing Department.
California’s criminal justice system is one of systemic racial violence. Here in Los Angeles, the jail system incarcerates Black people more than 7x white people per capita. Akili opposes feeding more tax dollars into this system of oppression. Instead, he wants to drastically increase funding for schools, community services, and unarmed crisis response programs. He’ll combat environmental racism, hold the fossil fuel industry and other corporate polluters responsible, and fight for a Green New Deal that creates union jobs.
61st District: Tina Simone McKinnor* - McKinnor was elected to the Assembly in 2022 and serves as Chair of the Public Employment & Retirement Committee and the Select Committee on Restorative Justice. She used these positions to advocate for important legislation, including a bill to replace the mandate on healthcare workers for reporting suspected domestic violence and abuse to police with new guidelines that direct survivors to social service agencies. She also authored AB 1310, which would allow resentencing for people who received firearm sentence enhancements, a practice that has typically targeted people of color. (The Assembly passed these bills, but both have been held in the state Senate since September 2023). McKinnor has stuck to her campaign promises and has a pretty stellar voting record. She believes housing is a human right, supports tenant protections, and pledged to fight criminalization of the unhoused. She supports single-payer healthcare, universal pre-K education, student loan forgiveness, ending qualified immunity, and increasing social equity and minority ownership of licensed cannabis businesses. She’s been an outspoken advocate against environmental racism and wants to invest in new infrastructure that ensures equitable and sustainable development, housing near transit, public green spaces, broadband access, and EV charging stations.
62nd District: Maria Estrada - Estrada is a community activist and repeat challenger for this seat, coming up seven points shy of taking it in 2020. The incumbent, an establishment Democratic leader who killed single-payer healthcare in the California legislature, is not seeking re-election. Estrada is running on a platform that includes rent control, environmental justice, single-payer healthcare for Californians, and ending political corruption.
64th District: No recommendation - The incumbent Blanca Pacheco wasted no time, building a disastrous voting record since her 2022 election to the Assembly. She supports cops using facial recognition software in body cameras, discriminatory bench warrants for minor infractions, and warrantless searches. She withheld her vote from a bill that would protect the digital records of people who travel to California for abortion or gender-affirming care from police in states that ban them. Some of her top contributors include PAC money from real estate developers, landlords, and cops. Pacheco has a sole, Republican challenger, who she beat by 23 points in the 2022 general election. This is a bright blue district, and Pacheco does not deserve your vote.
65th District: No recommendation - The incumbent, Mike Gispon, is running unopposed. He’s withheld his votes from several important pieces of legislation, so I think it’s only appropriate for you to withhold your vote from him. Real estate and police PACs are among his largest campaign donors,
66th District: No recommendation - The incumbent, Al Muratsuchi, is a conservative Democrat facing a Republican challenger. He’s a former prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General, and a former Torrance School Board member. He voted against the VISION Act, which would have prevented California prisons from transferring incarcerated people who have completed their sentence to ICE for deportation. He also withheld his vote from several important bills (e.g., that would prevent cops from using facial recognition software on body cameras; allow overdose prevention programs in certain cities to combat opioid deaths; and protect the digital records of people traveling to California for abortions and gender-affirming care from states that ban them). His top donors include Facebook, police PACs, and the guy who took a break from canceling your favorite shows/decimating public education to tell you to stop whining about transphobia.
67th District: No recommendation - Incumbent Democratic Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva is expected to beat her Republican challenger in this solidly blue district. Quirk-Silva has a trash voting record, regularly withholding her votes from important progressive bills. I suggest you do the same to her. She voted against environmental bills that would implement zero-emission lawn equipment and phase out unnecessary plastic packaging in online shopping. She also voted against public banking and a bill to require law enforcement agencies to receive approval from their governing bodies before acquiring military equipment.
69th District: No recommendation - I previously recommended Josh Lowenthal, the Democratic incumbent, who ran a relatively moderate campaign in 2022 but delivered a surprisingly progressive voting record since taking office, especially on environmental issues. However, he recently introduced AB2153, a bill intended to gut the efficacy of the California Public Records Act and decrease government transparency. His campaign accepted money from the insurance industry, Big Tech, a police PAC, and the California Apartment Association, the nation's largest statewide organization representing the rental housing industry. Lowenthal has a lone, Republican challenger, but he safely won this seat with a 19-point lead last cycle.
23rd District: Kipp Mueller - Civil rights and labor attorney, Kipp Mueller challenged this district’s Republican Senator in 2020 and came up 1.6% short. His platform’s only real highlight is his focus on environmental issues, tackling the climate crisis, and challenging Big Oil. He’s otherwise fairly moderate, emphasizing his experience as a prosecutor and tough on crime rhetoric. On the plus side, I couldn’t find any major red flags in his campaign finances.
Who else is running?
Ollie McCaulley, who placed sixth in a 2022 Assembly race, and Victorville Councilmember Blanca Azucena Gomez, who placed third in a 2022 Congressional race. Neither has a campaign website or social media account as of this writing (one week before ballots ship out).
25th District: Sasha Renée Pérez - In 2020, Sasha Renée Pérez unseated conservative cop David Mejia to become the first renter, first woman, and first queer Councilmember in Alhambra–and the city’s youngest mayor. Pérez started her career as a civic engagement educator at Cal State LA before joining the Campaign for College Opportunity, advocating for equitable policies in higher education. At her first council meeting, she took on Big Tech and passed an ordinance to cap delivery app fees on local restaurants.
I couldn’t find any major red flags in her campaign finances, but I do have some concerns. Pérez’s campaign website is conspicuously sparse on policy details–a stark departure from her fairly robust 2020 platform. She also seems a little too friendly with Alhambra’s police chief, but Pérez claims to have brought key stakeholders together to hire social workers and mental health professionals to the city’s public safety team.
Who else is running?
If you check your ballot, you’ll find Yvonne Yiu’s profession listed as “Councilmember/Small Businesswoman” under this race. While she does serve on Monterey Park’s City Council, “small businesswoman” is a euphemism for finance exec–which she was legally required to list as her actual occupation on campaign finance disclosures. That might explain how she could afford to dump $2.6 million of her own money into her campaign. Yiu is a “strong supporter of more funding and resources” for police, who–surprise–funneled a bunch of PAC money into her campaign. Other top donors include real estate management firms and SueYa, a company that brazenly touts its service to help “painlessly evict tenants” in minutes. What a gem.
Rosemead Councilmember and retired teacher, Sandra Arment, has just seven campaign contributions as of this writing. She is endorsed by two police associations. The only other Democrat, Teddy Choi, doesn’t have a website and hasn’t reported any campaign contributions.
27th District: No recommendation - The incumbent, Henry Stern is running for re-election after a failed 2022 bid for the LA County Board of Supervisors. Stern has branded himself an environmental champion, calling for an end to oil drilling in South L.A. and for the closure of the Aliso Canyon gas facility, which was responsible for the single worst natural gas leak in U.S. history in terms of its environmental impact. However, his voting record on environmental issues doesn’t quite match up. He withheld his support from multiple bills to prevent developers from exploiting environmental review loopholes and AB1395, which codified California’s goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2045 (even when 2045 is still 15+ years too late).
Stern also withheld his support from SB57, an important bill that would have allowed life-saving overdose prevention programs to open in three California cities, and AB1215, which prevents cops from using facial recognition surveillance software on body cameras. He outright voted against AB1608, which sought to separate the duties of sheriffs and coroners, which the ACLU called “a critical step in ensuring both medical and civil integrity in our criminal legal system.” Why would Stern fight against transparency when he knows the sheriff in his own county interfered with autopsy results? Maybe it’s related to the PAC money police donated to his campaign.
Stern’s most egregious offense is his role in the implementation of CARE Courts, a carceral program that mandates forced treatment on those deemed a “danger to themselves or others” even if they have not committed any harm or crime. Entry to a CARE Court starts with a referral “by a family member, behavioral health provider, first responder, or other approved party.” Meanwhile, more than 20% of people fatally shot by cops have a mental health disability. Guess who will be in charge of enforcing these referrals. If a person doesn’t successfully complete a “CARE Plan,” the Court may place them in a conservatorship. The ACLU describes this as “a draconian legal status that strips people of the right to make decisions about almost every aspect of their lives.” But this isn’t just immoral. Plenty of evidence proves forced treatment is ineffective and results in tragic outcomes.
To be clear, CARE Courts were not created to help people with mental health disabilities. The politicians pushing this program didn’t bat an eye when LA County jails were exposed for torturing thousands of people with mental health disabilities. Governor Gavin Newsom doesn’t care about helping anyone. He’s concerned with eliminating visible poverty (i.e., displacing his unhoused constituents without providing a safe place for them to go). And Newsom hasn’t exactly been shy about it.
Rather than addressing systemic failures, this carceral program targets and punishes individuals. The state budget won’t provide counties with new funding for behavioral health or tackle the crisis-level shortage of mental health professionals. Instead, CARE Courts will further strain and take funds from existing mental health programs to implement the Governor’s pet project. A lawsuit from disability and civil rights advocates has already challenged the constitutionality of CARE Courts, arguing the new court system will violate due process and equal protection rights under the state constitution. Advocates also point to existing systemic racism, which will ensure these violations “inevitably fall hardest on Black, brown, and Indigenous people, who are routinely misdiagnosed with serious mental health disabilities.” What options should we pursue? Voluntary mental health services, single-payer healthcare, and permanent supportive housing. Unfortunately, politicians have their own agendas.
Stern’s campaign finances are about as slimy as they come. His top contributors include Amazon, Fox News parent company Fox Corporation, Airbnb, Wells Fargo, insurance companies, landlord PACs, real estate PACs, police PACs, Big Tech PACs, consulting firm PACs, and charter school PACs. Despite calls from advocates, Stern failed to donate the $5,200 in campaign contributions he received from serial predator/murderer Ed Buck to funds benefiting Buck’s victims.
His sole Democratic challenger Susan Collins isn’t any better. Her policy platform claims “The ‘Housing First’ policy is failing all of us.” Even though neither L.A. City, L.A. County, nor California actually implement Housing First principles. She also claims the homelessness crisis is actually just “an addiction and mental health crisis” despite plenty of evidence to the contrary–loss of income is the primary reason 90% of unhoused Californians lost housing. Of the 71,429 eviction notices filed in Los Angeles between February and November 2023, 96% were for “non-payment of rent.” The average rent for a one bedroom apartment is $2,395 in a city with a $16 minimum wage. We have an affordability crisis.
Collins also claims “City and State representatives made the rash, ill-informed decision to reduce funding and resources for law enforcement.” This is simply untrue–the LAPD has never been defunded. Collins’s largest campaign contributions come from real estate firms and police PACs. As of this writing, Stern has outraised Collins threefold and doesn’t even appear to have a re-election website. Stern will almost certainly win re-election–he does not deserve your vote.
33rd District: Lena A. Gonzalez* - Democratic Majority Whip in the California Senate, Gonzalez is seeking re-election against a sole, Republican challenger. Specifics in her policy positions are relatively sparse, but she has a consistently progressive voting record. As a member of the Committee on Environmental Quality, she co-authored a bill to divest state pensions from fossil fuels by 2031, which passed the Senate and is expected to make its way through the Assembly this year. Her other high-profile climate bills now require large companies doing business in the state to submit accessible reports, disclosing their carbon footprints and climate-related risks. She recently authored another bill, guaranteeing most California workers a minimum of five accrued sick days annually, which went into effect on January 1, 2024.
Gonzalez signed the No Fossil Fuel Pledge when she ran in 2020 but has yet to sign it for this year’s race. As of this writing, I don’t see any such contributions made to Gonzalez on the state campaign finance database, but she has accepted donations from real estate developers, finance firms, Fox News parent company Fox Corporation, police, and various special-interest PACs.
35th District: Jennifer Williams - Williams is a CPA and wants to bring a data-driven approach to governance with an emphasis on the economy, housing, infrastructure, and the environment. Williams says she’s experienced environmental racism firsthand. The district is 76% people of color, many of whom live in communities that were developed on unregulated landfills and oil tank farms, which have caused chronic nosebleeds and migraines, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, poor birth outcomes, and premature death. Residents in her district are exposed to more diesel emissions than 90% of Californians, which is why she will fight to invest in renewable energy, carbon recapture, urban greening, and equitable electrification. She also wants policies that incentivize changed behavior without penalizing frontline communities, including a just transition for workers.
California’s affordable housing shortage is also personal to Williams, who has been unhoused twice in her life. In areas that have surplus market-rate housing, she wants to create incentives to convert extra housing stock into very low, low, and moderate-income housing. This district has a higher poverty rate than 90% of California, and Williams supports paid job training, placement programs, and financial wellness coaching programs. Williams also appears to have a clean campaign finance record.
Who else is running?
Self-described community justice advocate, Michelle Chambers, supports CARE Courts, which the ACLU “vehemently opposes.” CARE Courts institutionalize unhoused people, subject them to ineffective forced treatment, and strip them of rights with conservatorships. She’s also accepted money from a lobbyist PAC and banks. Laura Richardson is a housing advocate but is lacking in policy. Former Mayor of Carson, Albert Robles, has a spotty record, including campaign finance violations, allegations of sexual harassment, conflicts of interest, and questions about where he lives. Hawthorne Councilmember Alex Monteiro loves cops and accepted an endorsement from them.
District 23: Derek Marshall* - Marshall is a gay community organizer running to represent the high desert and Inland Empire. His platform focuses on meeting the needs of the people, and his campaign says it’s 100% funded through small-dollar donations. He pledges to support The Equality Act, which would amend existing civil rights law to guarantee non-discrimination protections for LGBTQIA+ people in areas such as employment, housing, education, and government services.
Marshall believes healthcare is a human right and will advocate for a single-payer system that includes primary care, mental health, dental, and vision coverage. He recognizes that transforming our healthcare system will be a long-term fight, so he will fight to cap pharmaceutical drug prices, cancel medical debts, and fund healthcare centers in underserved regions. He also supports codifying reproductive rights into federal law, establishing a federal program to provide contraception resources, and addressing injustices like the Black maternal mortality crisis.
Some highlights from Marshall’s environmental platform include investment in local electric bus infrastructure and commuter rail, phasing out the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035, and requiring the electrification of all railways by 2040. He will fight to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies and use those funds for renewable energy, including the construction of a solar panel highway along I-15 to Vegas as proposed by state Senator Josh Becker. Marshall wants to prohibit new oil and gas leases on federal land, phase out existing ones, and ban all fracking operations. (Sorry, RuPaul.) Marshall also wants to ensure our military, the institution with the largest carbon footprint on the planet, complies with emission reduction standards.
District 26: No recommendation - The incumbent, Julia Brownley is a moderate Democrat in a moderate district. While she’s failed to support major progressive legislation, she did pass a surface transportation bill to increase investment in infrastructure. Her platform emphasizes election finance reform and raising the minimum wage. She’s been an outspoken advocate for changes to the VA’s healthcare policy that would cover gender-affirming surgeries for trans veterans. Her only non-Republican challenger is Chris Anstead, an army veteran, whose campaign emphasizes patriotism, honoring military heroes, and “safety and security.”
District 27: Steve Hill - I’ll be upfront. Steve Hill is a Satanist. Not the moral panic baby blood drinking kind or even the Lucifer worshiping kind. This kind. Or in his words, “I don’t believe in the devil any more than I believe in God. All of it is stupid.” Unfortunately, Hill doesn’t have a website or published policy, but he’s shared his priorities and beliefs in a number of interviews and on social media. His wife is a school teacher, and Hill has been vocal about his desire to improve public education and address poverty, the over policing of people of color, and mass incarceration.
Who else is running?
The incumbent Republican Mike Garcia was an executive at weapons manufacturer Raytheon before winning this seat by just 300 votes in 2020. The Democratic Party endorsed the other candidate in this race, George Whitesides, former CEO of Virgin Galactic. Whitesides is aggressively moderate, and his website fails to provide any policy details or proposals. In a country experiencing drastic economic inequality and on a planet experiencing drastic climate change, I will cast my lot with a satirical Satanist over a privatized aerospace tourism CEO worth $11-34 million. And if you’re worried about Garcia winning, don’t be. The top-two candidates in Congressional primaries always advanced to a November run-off in California. Also, this district was recently redrawn with much more Blue-leaning voter demographics: 42% Democrat, 29% Republican.
District 28: William Patterson or Judy Chu - Patterson is running with the Peace and Freedom Party. He supports Medicare For All, universal daycare, a mandatory four-week minimum for paid time off, a ban on corporate stock buybacks, and a requirement for companies to provide pensions for employees. He wants to end the $2,000 monthly cap on disability assistance and create a system that acknowledges the diverse needs of disabled people. He’s calling for the break up of the military-industrial complex and an easy pathway to citizenship that is equal for all immigrants.
The incumbent, Chu co-sponsored Medicare for All and the Green New Deal. She authored the U.S. Citizenship Act to try to create a pathway to citizenship for 11 million immigrants. Chu has become a strong advocate for ending military hazing since her 21-year-old nephew shot and killed himself after enduring three and a half hours of discrimination-motivated assault and torture from his fellow marines in Afghanistan. Chu was one of the only Democrats to support rail workers by voting against forcing through a shitty tentative agreement in 2022. In November 2023, she called for a ceasefire in Gaza.
District 29: Angélica María Dueñas - Corporate Democrat Tony Cárdenas isn’t seeking re-election, and his two-time challenger, progressive Angélica Dueñas has a solid shot at taking this seat. Born in Sun Valley to immigrant parents, Dueñas is a mother of five (all LAUSD students) and former president of her neighborhood council. Dueñas refuses all corporate money while supporting Medicare for All and a Green New Deal with an emphasis on a just transition for workers, more jobs, and 100% clean energy by 2030.
Dueñas is a fierce advocate for inclusive immigration policies (e.g., legal status for all, DREAM Act citizenship, healthcare access, justice for asylum seekers). She’s been on the front lines of the fight for immigrant rights and was arrested outside Senator Feinstein’s Los Angeles office, protesting in defense of the DACA program and a clean Dream Act to protect undocumented people who came to the U.S. as children. Dueñas was also arrested outside a Los Angeles ICE detention center in 2018 with a group protesting family separation at the U.S./México border.
District 30: “Maebe A. Girl” Pudlo - Maebe is facing off against several terrible opponents in this race to replace Adam Schiff. Maebe previously ran for this seat twice with clean-money campaigns in stark contrast with Schiff, whose record is littered with support for increased criminalization and militarization (largely motivated by campaign contributions from weapons manufacturers like Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Boeing.) This cycle, Maebe is once again facing off against some high-profile competition. But she placed second in 2022, and with such a large field of candidates, she has a solid shot at advancing to November’s run-off.
In 2018, Maebe was elected to the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council, making history as the first drag queen elected to public office in the United States. She knows how difficult life can be for Americans because, in addition to serving on her Neighborhood Council, she juggles multiple jobs. Maebe supports single-payer healthcare because she believes healthcare (including reproductive healthcare) should be a human right, not an industry controlled by for-profit insurers that let people suffer and die. She wants to meet everyone’s needs with policies like Universal Basic Income, a monthly federal payment with an opt-out for those who feel financially secure. She supports universal tuition-free college, pre-K, and free child care. She will also fight to expand disability insurance, supplemental income, and accessibility in all public settings. Maebe thinks it’s outrageous that the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 since 2009. She believes all workers deserve a living wage and wants to raise the minimum wage to $25. She proposes fines for corporations that practice union busting and wants the federal government to discontinue business with corporations that lack union protections.
If elected, Maebe would be one of the few renters in Congress. She knows the rent is too damn high, so she supports national rent control and strengthening tenant rights. Maebe watched as the homelessness crisis grew exponentially under Adam Schiff’s tenure, which was part of what motivated her to run. She will fight to secure funding for more permanent, supportive housing and emergency shelters while advocating for a housing-and-services-first approach.
Maebe wants to leverage a Green New Deal to combat the effects of climate change while simultaneously addressing economic and racial injustice. She pledges to support investment in sustainable energy and to vote against fossil fuel subsidies and all new oil and gas drilling. Maebe supports the creation of a national, high-speed rail system, and she believes investment in public transit is necessary to reduce our carbon footprint. Most of the operating budget for public transportation systems comes from government subsidies, not rider fares. In fact, 75% of fare revenue collected by LA Metro pays for…fare enforcement. Maebe points to LA Metro’s successful elimination of fares during the height of the pandemic as an example of how we can subsidize all public transportation to improve equity and increase ridership.
Maebe will fight for the rights of the marginalized and to decrease incarceration. She wants to abolish ICE and migrant detention centers, which are still filled with constant human rights violations. That didn’t magically stop in January 2021. Maebe supports the legalization of weed and psilocybin mushrooms–and expunging records of those currently and previously incarcerated for related charges. She will work to decriminalize sex work, which will reduce stigma, assault, trafficking, and STI infections while improving the livelihood of sex workers, who are disproportionately LGBTQIA+. In response to the record 450 anti-LGBTQIA+ bills introduced in 2023–half of which specifically target trans people–Maebe would introduce the Protect LGBTQIA+ People Act. This bill would provide comprehensive federal anti-discrimination protections in several areas of life (e.g., healthcare, work, school, government, public spaces), including specific protections for intersex children.
Maebe supports restoring sovereignty and native lands to Indigenous people in the U.S. and beyond. She believes communities harmed by institutional racism, including America’s genocidal actions, deserve reparations. She advocates against war and believes the U.S. should lead through diplomacy and collaboration rather than force. Maebe has been an outspoken advocate for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. (Jirair Ratevosian, who served as legislative director to Rep. Barbara Lee, appears to be the only other candidate in this race to call for a ceasefire.) As a Jewish person, Maebe has been outspoken about the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. She believes that “‘Never Again’ means never again for anyone.”
Why not Laura Friedman?
Friedman is campaigning on her mostly progressive record in the California Assembly, where she co-authored CalCare, which would’ve brought single-payer healthcare to the state. However, she’s shied away from stating her policy priorities for Congress, which is especially concerning when she’s accepted substantial financial support from Big Oil and real estate PACs throughout her political career. She also refuses to support a ceasefire in Gaza and has taken some horrific stances. In this December 13 interview, Friedman condemned Hamas for killing Israeli children but refused to condemn Israel’s actions when the interviewers asked about Israel’s targeting of Palestinian children. Israel’s military has killed 12,300 children in Gaza as of this writing.
Why not Anthony Portantino?
State Senator Anthony Portantino has authored several pieces of progressive legislation, including a 2023 bill that would have allowed striking workers access to unemployment benefits–had Gavin Newsom not vetoed it. However, it’s impossible to tell whether any of Portantino’s support for progressive policies is just political theater when he has unilaterally slaughtered several progressive bills. How? As Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he has the power to pull a bill before a vote–and then just hold it until it dies. His casualties include improved CalFresh services for disabled and elderly people and statewide eviction protections for renters at the height of the pandemic. He also refused to support the VISION Act, which would have barred California prisons from transferring incarcerated people who have completed their sentence to ICE for deportation. Portantino has a history of accepting large financial contributions from police, the charter school lobby, Big Oil, and especially real estate interests.
Why not Mike Feuer?
Former LA City Attorney Mike Feuer is one corrupt motherfucker (allegedly). He was implicated in a bribery scandal that landed the former head of LADWP a six-year federal sentence. He publicly proclaimed his support for Black Lives Matter when it was politically popular but repeatedly tried to prosecute its activists and leaders. In 2022, Feuer ran for mayor on a platform that focused on hiring more cops but withdrew from the race before the primary concluded, endorsing Karen Bass. Did he broker a deal with Bass in exchange for her endorsement in this race? Who can say? Feuer received $18,400 in campaign contributions from serial predator and murderer Ed Buck, but he only donated $250 of that money to funds supporting Buck’s victims. As of this writing, Feuer hasn’t published much policy and is instead campaigning as a generic establishment figure. A vote for Feuer will get you more of the same–someone who stands by and lets the world burn.
Why not Nick Melvoin?
Melvoin has consistently shown himself to be a politician, emphasizing photo ops and his credentials. Yes, he went to Harvard and wants you to know it. The UTLA (teachers union) didn’t endorse his 2022 School Board campaign even though he was an incumbent running against conservative challengers. Likely due to his troubling history with the charter school lobby, which is among the top donors to his campaign this cycle. The charter lobby also funneled $1.4 million in PAC money to support his 2022 run despite Melvoin facing no significant opposition. With his sights on Congress, we may now know why. His campaign finances are littered with dirty money from finance firms, Big Real Estate, and insurance companies. Melvoin presents himself as a progressive, but he supports policies like a public healthcare option. Politicians, including Pete Buttigieg, have presented a public option as a good thing–“expanding choices” for Americans–but enrollment in a public option would create barriers for people who need it most. It would also require a much more substantial (and expensive) administrative system than single-payer while undermining public healthcare’s leverage and ability to reduce costs. Wins for Melvoin’s private insurance buddies! On his website, Melvoin states his support for Israel and its people. He does not mention the Israeli military’s war crimes or the 28,000 people they killed in Gaza.
Why not Ben Savage?
Following some questionable voter registration history and placing seventh in his 2022 bid for WeHo City Council, Boy Meets World star turned conservative “Democrat” Ben Savage is back! What does he list first on his “priorities” page? Entrepreneurship. Followed by tried-and-failed police reform proposals…followed by tried-and-failed homelessness policies. What’s last on Savage’s list? Environmental protections–featuring some choice phrasing like “encourage car manufacturers to reduce carbon emissions” and “reasonably regulate” Big Oil. As of summer 2023, Savage loaned his campaign $877k.
District 31: No recommendation - Gil Cisneros was laid off from his job at Frito-Lay then won $266 million playing Mega Millions a few weeks later. He and his wife donated a bunch of their winnings, and their wealth caught the attention of Obama, who appointed Cisneros to the Advisory Committee on the Arts for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Being rich, Cisneros did what an increasing number of rich people do: he decided to run for office. He won a Congressional seat in 2018, representing an Orange County district…then lost re-election in 2020. Not to worry! He landed on his feet, accepting an appointment as Biden’s Undersecretary of Defense. But he was itching to get back to Congress, so he left Virginia and moved to El Monte, a community that he has no apparent ties with. But who cares? He’s rich, and it’s convenient for his renewed electoral aspirations! With 30,000 Gazans dead, Cisneros continues to misrepresent Israel’s genocidal actions as self-defense and refuses to call for a ceasefire.
His two most high-profile opponents, Bob Arucheleta and Susan Rubio, have a lot in common. Neither supports a ceasefire. They’re both state Senators, whose careers have been funded by Big Oil, real estate, the insurance industry, and cop money. Which is probably why both Archuleta and Rubio received failing scores on The Sierra Club’s environmental legislation report card and have shameful records, abstaining from votes on important progressive legislation (e.g., a bill codifying California’s carbon neutrality goal for 2045; The VISION Act, which would’ve prevented California prisons from transferring incarcerated people who have completed their sentences to ICE for deportation). An ex-cop, Archuleta was also the subject of a 2021 sexual harassment lawsuit filed by his former staffer. Other Dems running for this seat include self-described moderate Greg Hafif and Mary Ann Lutz, who supports increasing police budgets and access to surveillance technology.
District 32: Christopher Ahuja - In short, incumbent Brad Sherman is one of the shittiest corporate Democrats in Congress, where he’s been festering since 1996. Meanwhile, Chris Ahuja believes healthcare is a human right and supports Medicare For All. Ahuja also supports paid family and medical leave for all workers, raising the minimum wage, tuition-free public college for all students, and measures to reduce or forgive student loan debt. Ahuja wants comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and protections for DACA recipients. He wants the U.S. to take aggressive action to combat climate change with a Green New Deal that also addresses economic inequality by creating millions of clean energy jobs. He believes a world-class city like Los Angeles should have world-class transportation infrastructure, which is why he supports the Sepulveda Transit Corridor project linking the San Fernando Valley to the Westside with heavy rail. Ahuja believes in military restraint with a foreign policy platform that emphasizes diplomacy, negotiation, and avoiding long-term military commitments. Unlike Sherman, Chris Ahuja has called for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
District 34: David Kim - This man is so close to unseating the corporate Democrat currently representing this district. David Kim tallied an impressive 47% of the vote in 2020 when he ran for this seat, before reaching 49% in 2022! Kim has been a children’s court attorney, immigration attorney, labor advocate, corruption investigator, member of the Los Angeles Tenants Union, activist, and board member serving on a neighborhood council. Working directly with some of LA’s most vulnerable has shaped his politics and his policies.
Kim wants to institute life-empowering policies that meet people’s basic needs so that everyone can thrive. Los Angeles has the worst air quality in the country, and the majority of people who live here are highly vulnerable to major consequences of climate change (e.g., extreme heat, wildfires, drought, sea level rise). Kim believes the best way to combat the impacts of dirty energy and the political influence of Big Oil is a Green New Deal. We need urgent action to reach the critical 2030 deadline that scientists set to reach zero emissions, and a Green New Deal can meet that urgency while creating 20 million union jobs that pay Americans a living wage. Kim wants to hold dirty energy corporations accountable for their environmental damage and shift all fossil fuel subsidies to support clean energy solutions. Kim will address environmental racism by prioritizing communities disproportionately affected by pollution (e.g., Indigenous populations, communities of color, people with disabilities) and uplift the voices of energy-industry workers to ensure they transfer to clean energy careers.
Housing has become unaffordable for a record half of U.S. renters. Kim proposes building 12 million new social/publicly-funded housing units that would charge rent according to real costs-based or income-based formulas. This type of housing eliminates exploitative profiteering from the housing market and combats segregation through mixed-income housing. Kim wants to pass a tenant bill of rights that would protect renters from predatory practices, discrimination, predatory rent increases, and no-fault evictions. He also would work to give tax breaks to renters spending more than 30% of income to rent, establish a federal housing program for formerly incarcerated Americans, and eliminate all legal barriers to federal housing assistance for undocumented immigrants.
Kim wants to meet other basic needs, too. He believes healthcare is a human right and supports a national program like Medicare For All that would provide comprehensive healthcare to every American. That includes no-premium, no-deductible coverage for vision, hearing, dental, mental health, substance use treatment, reproductive care, prescription drugs, and disability care. Because this plan will take time to implement, Kim wants Congress to pass initiatives that provide vouchers to pay for mental health; end predatory hospital charges; invest in medical facilities; and more. Kim will fight for social safeguards, including Universal Income (UI). His proposal would establish a free public bank that distributes $1,000 from the federal government to every American adult each month, which will cost less to implement than existing inefficient, means-tested relief programs. (Means testing is very expensive and creates major roadblocks that prevent people most in need from accessing resources!) Kim lays out a persuasive argument for UI that I think is worth reading rather than me trying to summarize. I do want to point out that unlike Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend, Kim explicitly states that his UI proposal would not undermine existing welfare programs (e.g., housing, food, and disability assistance).
The other main tenets of Kim’s platform are co-governance and people centered politics. That means prioritizing people over corporate interests and proactively partnering with local activists, community organizations, and residents to create legislation that works for the people. In addition to setting office hours to hear directly from constituents, Kim will introduce a Responsive Representation Bill, which would require U.S. Representatives to host public town hall meetings in their districts, create a database for easily accessible constituent resources, and help make the legislative process more accessible through education. He’s also running a 100% clean-money campaign.
In the face of growing voter suppression, he will fight to pass legislation that bans unnecessary voter ID requirements, consecrates mail-in ballot voting, establishes a federal election holiday, ends Gerrymandering nationwide, and restores civil liberties to formerly incarcerated Americans. Kim will work to combat Citizens United while working to make politics more equitable. He staunchly supports democracy vouchers, which would provide every voter with vouchers to donate to candidate(s) who represent their values and help mitigate corporate influence. He also supports ranked choice voting, which creates a more democratic system by letting voters select their real first choice rather than who they think can make it to a run-off. That would be fantastic, and it shouldn’t be difficult to implement when states like Alaska and Maine already have.
Kim identifies the harm that the United States has caused globally and believes in transforming our nation’s foreign policy. He will prioritize diplomacy instead of military intervention, reining in Presidential war powers, and cutting the defense budget to reinvest in our communities. Kim also wants the U.S. to lead on global climate action and advocate for human rights accountability by rejoining the International Criminal Court.
You can read his policies specific to several countries here, but I want to cover his proposals on Israel and Gaza. Kim swiftly called for a ceasefire and continues to demand wide-scale humanitarian support for Gaza as well as an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine. He wants the U.S. to leverage its “diplomatic and economic influence to pressure the Israeli government to replace its far-right government, enabling more productive two-state negotiations.” Kim supports the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, which prevents purchases of products made in occupied Palestine. He also believes in the establishment of an international criminal court through the UN Security Council to prosecute illegal settlers in the West Bank and deliver justice to Palestinian families.
Who else is running?
The incumbent Jimmy Gomez is an establishment Democrat, who claimed to be a progressive when he first ran for office but has pretty much abandoned all his stated progressive priorities in favor of corporate interests. 98.8% of his campaign is funded by large dollar donors and corporate PACs, including insurance and pharmaceutical companies, debt collectors, and weapons manufacturers–probably why he has dismissively refused to support a ceasefire.
Gomez has an alarming history of cozying up to corrupt, racist, and violent allies. He traded endorsements with disgraced former Councilmember Jose Huizar, who was recently sentenced to 13 years in federal prison for bribery and corruption charges. He also traded endorsements with Huizar’s successor, disgraced Councilmember Kevin de León, who assaulted a protestor, colluded to undermine Black voting power, and was caught spewing racism in the leaked LA Fed Tapes scandal. Gomez accepted $3,000 from serial predator and murderer Ed Buck but ignored calls from advocates demanding that he donate that money to funds benefiting Buck’s victims.
Peace and Freedom Party candidate Aaron Reveles is also running for this seat. Reveles is a public school teacher, socialist, and community organizer, who ran for Montebello Unified School Board in 2022. He’s running on a broad set of radical policies (e.g., income tax reform that exempts the bottom 90% of earners; abolition of state and federal senates and the electoral college; the immediate release of all non-violent, parole-eligible, and at-risk inmates; land restoration and full recognition of Indigenous sovereignty; financial reparations to descendants of enslaved Africans; a Universal Bill of Rights that guarantees living wages, paid leave, healthcare, citizenship, retirement security, and universal suffrage). I appreciate and fully support these policies and hope you do, too. I also acknowledge that short of a full-on revolution, it’s difficult to imagine these proposals gaining traction at the federal level anytime soon, and Reveles doesn’t offer much in the way of policies that seem achievable in the near term. Anyway, wouldn’t it be great if we had ranked choice voting?
District 35: Melissa May - I only have one nice thing to say about the moderate incumbent, Norma Torres. She was one of the only Democrats who refused to force rail workers to take a shitty tentative agreement in 2022. That’s it. In December 2023, Torres joined 94 Democratic colleagues in supporting a Republican resolution that conflated all anti-Zionism with antisemitism despite Jerry Nadler, the senior Jewish member of the chamber, speaking out against it. "The resolution… states that all anti-Zionism is antisemitism. That's either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong,” Nadler said. Why would Torres do this? Probably because she accepted $19,650 from pro-Israel lobbying groups this election season. Many of her decisions appear to be driven by PAC money rather than the needs of her constituents, 14% of whom live in poverty.
Melissa May challenged Torres because she knows how broken this country is, living with thousands of dollars in student loan and medical debt. She’s running to advocate for the working class and will fight to bring more federal dollars to the district to invest in housing, public education, and economic opportunities.
District 36: No recommendation - This race will be an easy win for Democratic incumbent Ted Lieu, but he doesn’t deserve your vote. Lieu has a terrible voting record on military spending and foreign policy—largely motivated by massive campaign contributions from the Pro-Israel America PAC, American Israel Public Affairs Cmte, and arms manufacturer Raytheon.
District 37: Juan Rey or John Parker - Juan Rey is a train mechanic for LA Metro, running as an independent, calling out both Democrats and Republicans for catering to the needs of the wealthy. Rey is outspoken about the exploitation of workers and will fight for labor protections. He believes decent housing and healthcare should be human rights.
The Peace and Freedom Party’s John Parker is a working class advocate, running on a People’s Platform. That includes ending the occupation and genocide in Palestine, calling for a state of emergency to address police violence, demanding community control of police, and diverting billions in military spending to social programs that reverse poverty and environmental damage. Parker wants to increase minimum wage to $30 and codify basic necessities as human rights (e.g., education, food, housing, healthcare, jobs).
Who else is running?
The incumbent Sydney Kamlager-Dove won the seat Karen Bass vacated when she ran for mayor. Her top campaign contributors include a pro-Israel lobbying PAC and Vistria Group, which touts its growing business in healthcare on its website. That would explain why she hasn’t called for a ceasefire in Gaza and why she’s stayed quiet about Medicare For All despite campaigning on her support for single-payer healthcare. The other Democrat in this race is a veteran, who directly conflates homelessness with with drug use and crime, while opposing housing-first policy.
District 38: The incumbent, Linda Sánchez is a relatively moderate Democrat in a reliably blue district. Unfortunately, she has not supported a ceasefire in Gaza, and she has consistently supported increases in military spending. She has also accepted a ton of money from the insurance industry, lobbyists, and big real estate.
District 42: Nicole López - López refuses donations from corporate PACs, oil execs, real estate developers, anything harmful to immigrants, or anyone whose business doesn’t align with her platform. She knows how difficult life can be for Americans facing financial uncertainty and mounting student loan debt. López has been underinsured and resorted to traveling to Mexico to seek medical care that wasn’t covered. She believes healthcare should be a fundamental human right and supports Medicare For All, including coverage for vision, dental, hearing, elder care, gender-affirming care, and reproductive care. While the incumbent Robert Garcia claims to support Medicare For All, he hasn’t done anything to advance single-payer healthcare since taking office. That’s probably why an employer-based health insurance PAC has spent $10k supporting his re-election campaign.
Nearly 85% of residents in this district are renters, and López is determined to support their rights by expanding federal anti-discrimination protections, eviction protection programs, and government-owned housing. Meanwhile, the incumbent has a glaring history of opposing rent control, and he’s taken more than $35k from real estate developers this election cycle.
López will fight to institute a $20 minimum wage that’s indexed to keep up with inflation, pass The PRO Act to provide workers with comprehensive federal protections, and advocate for a $60k minimum school teacher salary. In addition to holding corporate polluters accountable, she wants a Green New Deal to create thousands of green energy jobs, invest in sustainable infrastructure, and revitalize the transit industry in her district. She also supports tuition-free college and trade schools and the cancellation of all student debt.
A proud daughter of a Mexican immigrant mother, López supports bold and comprehensive immigration reform. That means creating a simple pathway to citizenship, abolishing ICE, closing detention centers, ending family separation, and ensuring dignity and respect at ports of entry. She will prioritize fully funding our immigration system so that people are afforded due process in court and the backlog of citizenship applications gets processed.
López has called for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the genocide in Gaza, which has killed more than 28,000 people. She supports the complete liberation of Palestine and its people, and she wants the U.S. to provide substantial humanitarian aid while ending its funding of Israel's military. In November, Garcia called for a conditional ceasefire, but he failed to support Rep. Cori Bush and Rep. Rashida Talib’s ceasefire resolution. He did, however, sign a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken in January, expressing “disgust” at South Africa’s suit accusing Israel of genocide. Garcia accepted an endorsement and more than $60k from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee during his 2022 campaign.
Before winning his 2020 Congressional Race, Garcia was a Long Beach City Councilmember and Mayor. In recent years, he’s positioned himself as a progressive while climbing the political ladder, but he’s a former Reagan idolizer, coordinator for George W. Bush’s campaign, and co-founder of the Long Beach Young Republicans. Progressives criticized some of Garcia’s stances when he was on Long Beach City Council, including his effort to prohibit marijuana. His continued failure to meaningfully support progressive policies while fueling his campaign with Big Real Estate and lobbyist money shows just how compromised his politics still are. Vote for Nicole López.
District 43: Chris B. Wiggins - The incumbent, Rep. Maxine Waters garnered national media attention as an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, but she has strong ties to the Democratic establishment and corporate donors. Her top contributors include corporate PACs (e.g. Walmart, Target, Ford) and special interest PACs (e.g., mortgage brokers, real estate developers, health insurance industry). That last one might explain why she, like many of her establishment colleagues, co-sponsored Medicare for All but has otherwise stayed silent on the issue.
Some of her constituents have been critical of her lack of involvement in addressing issues in Inglewood, including the city’s lack of transparency around how they’re spending federal funds meant for low-income and unhoused residents. Waters came under fire in March 2022, when unhoused residents showed up to an event after a nonprofit erroneously promised permanent, subsidized housing in a social media post. Waters shouted for “everybody to go home,” and someone in the crowd yelled back, “We don’t got no home, that’s why we’re here. What home we gonna go to?” Is Waters to blame for this misunderstanding or the homelessness crisis? Not exactly. Did this incident illustrate an unfortunate lack of awareness from one of the highest-ranking Democrats in Congress that speaks to systemic failures of the party? Yes.
Chris Wiggins has slightly better policies than Waters. He supports expanding the Affordable Care Act with a public option, which is typically an undermining tactic presented by moderates like Pete Buttigieg as “expanding choices” for Americans. But enrollment in a public option would create barriers for people who need it most. It would also require a much more substantial (and expensive) administrative system than single-payer while undermining public healthcare’s leverage and ability to reduce costs. However, Wiggins separately states his support for a single-payer system, and it’s unclear whether single-payer is his actual preference or if he wants these policies to co-exist long-term (which we should not support). Wiggins wants a $20 minimum wage for large employers with some unfortunate carve-outs. He proposes a federal tax on vacant apartments and homes, starting at $2-10k per year, that doubles each subsequent year, incentivizing property occupancy. He wants to grant citizenship to all adults with green cards and provide permanent residency to individuals with Federal Tax IDs (a population of more than six million). He supports ending qualified immunity for cops, enabling the prosecution of police misconduct, and eliminating the racist and classist cash bail system for nonviolent offenders to ensure fair treatment in the criminal justice system.
Gregory Cheadle, the other Dem in this race, has some frankly bizarre religious freedom/anti-vax policies.
District 44: No recommendation - Despite being a cosponsor of Medicare for All, the incumbent Nanette Diaz Barragán is a moderate and has since removed all references to it from both her congressional and campaign websites—possibly because Blue Cross/Blue Shield is among her top donors. Her other top donors include political consultants, the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, and the American Israel PAC. She has refused to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. Because she only has one challenger (a Republican), both candidates will advance to November’s general election, meaning the results of this primary are inconsequential. However, she will likely win re-election in this solidly Democratic district.
District 45: Cheyenne Hunt - Most of the Democratic candidates in this race are running on a platform that consists of “I’m not a Republican, and I’m pro choice!” Both are important qualities, especially when the Republican incumbent is decidedly anti-choice. But when you’re running for Congress, voters deserve a little more information about your values. Cheyenne Hunt, like her Democratic opponents, believes access to reproductive healthcare is a right, but offers a little more. While she unfortunately hasn’t stated support for Medicare For All or single-payer healthcare (no one in this race has), she wants to lower prescription drug prices, cap the cost of insulin at $35, and lift the ban on Medicare drug price negotiation. She wants to create rental assistance programs for people on the verge of losing housing, and she’ll fight for federal subsidized permanent supportive housing that would include intensive supportive services (e.g., case management and connections to substance use, mental health, and medical treatment). Hunt also wants to hold Big Tech accountable by creating protections for personal data and regulatory oversight for AI, and by helping workers impacted by AI and automation.
Note: This ballot measure requires a majority vote (50% + 1) to pass.
Measure HLA: YES - If voters approve HLA, the City of Los Angeles would be required to implement enhancements from its long-approved Mobility Plan 2035 any time it makes substantial improvements to streets (e.g., repaving at least one-eighth of a mile). That would mean more features like protected bike lanes, enhanced crosswalks, sidewalk widening, and reduced crossing length throughout the city with prioritization determined by factors like equity and injury data. Simple improvements like painted bike lanes would complement an enhanced city-wide bike network to keep cyclists safe. Hundreds of miles of dedicated bus and transit lanes along with safety upgrades would improve commutes for an estimated 400,000 riders. These enhancements would increase safety along 2,500 miles of streets, creating better public transportation and mobility options that will free up roads, reduce traffic, and decrease pollution–everybody wins!
Implementing these enhancements during routine street maintenance cuts down on any short-term inconvenience and decreases the ecological footprint. This consolidation also minimizes costs and eliminates the need to raise taxes. What does cost money are unsafe streets: LA paid out an estimated $196 million in traffic-related liability claims between 2015 and 2021. HLA creates an enforcement mechanism, allowing residents to sue if officials fail to install improvements. As a ballot initiative, its passage would protect against City Council reversing or watering it down. That’s important because…
Mobility Plan 2035 set out to complete the aforementioned improvements and more by 2035. As we approach that deadline’s halfway point, LA has only delivered on enhancements along 5% of the envisioned thousands of miles of streets. At the current rate, the City would take 160 years to finish its goal; HLA’s strategy would only take an estimated 10-15 years. The Mobility Plan also adopted Vision Zero, a goal to eliminate traffic deaths in Los Angeles by 2035. But in 2023, the City’s traffic deaths reached a 20-year high with 337 people killed and 1,559 people severely injured. (Check out the interactive traffic incident map on the Yes on HLA website to see where.) Traffic-related deaths have also become the number one killer of children in LA County.
Like most initiatives disgraced former Mayor Eric Garcetti has taken credit for, this obviously hasn’t gone according to plan. Some LA City Councilmembers voted against the Mobility Plan when it passed in 2015 and several others blocked its implementation in their districts because whatever potential short-term inconvenience these improvements might cause wasn’t worth the hundreds of lives they could save each year. In 2022, organizers gathered enough signatures to put the Healthy Streets LA initiative on the ballot. The City’s charter allows City Council to adopt such initiatives before they go on the ballot, but our electeds declined. Now, 18 months and ~500 deaths later, you can vote to save lives by forcing LA to follow its own law.
Worth noting: In America, Black cyclists are killed in vehicle collisions at 4x the rate of white cyclists, and Black pedestrians are disproportionately victims of traffic fatalities. Former City Council President Nury “Fuck That Guy He’s With The Blacks” Martinez tried to weaponize this disparity when she blocked HLA’s passage in Council, stating, “Some neighborhoods have smooth sidewalks and streetlights, while other neighborhoods people have to walk in the dark on dirt sidewalks. We need to make sure that the neighborhoods that have gone without are invested in first.” She then introduced her own motion, citing data that identified LA’s deadliest streets, but lacking any mechanism to move enhancements forward. As Council President, Martinez appointed the Public Works Committee, which oversees City policies about streets, their construction, improvement, and maintenance. She could have approved HLA and passed a motion setting priorities. A year and a half later, LA City Council still hasn’t advanced Healthy Streets (Nury’s Version), but they still can and should prioritize racial equity and implement improvements where they’re needed most when HLA takes its victory lap on March 6.
What does the County Board of Supervisors do?
The Board of Supervisors is a five-member body that governs LA County. Each Supervisor represents nearly two million people in districts that range from 162 to 2,807 square miles. If you’re one of more than a million people living in unincorporated LA County (e.g., East LA, Altadena, Universal City), Supervisors have authority over most aspects of government. If you live in an incorporated city (e.g., Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Burbank), they have limited influence.
The Board oversees the budget and provides some level of direction for departments, including the LA County Sheriff, the jail system, public health, mental health, social services, and foster care. They hire the County CEO, who coordinates departments that submit recommendations and agenda items to the Board for approval with a three-fifths vote. Each Supervisor is also guaranteed a seat on the LA Metro Board, and they appoint half of the commissioners to the LA Homeless Services Authority. (The Mayor of LA appoints the rest). Supervisors can serve up to three consecutive four-year terms.
2nd District: Holly Mitchell - After serving in the California Assembly and Senate, Mitchell positioned herself as a progressive champion when she ran for Supervisor and won in 2020. Her proudest accomplishments include a ban on new oil drilling in the unincorporated parts of LA County (with a plan to phase out existing drilling). She helped launch Breathe, a guaranteed income program, which she incorrectly identifies as “universal” income despite the program’s limited, means-tested reach. Even still, the independent research study gives participants $1,000 a month for three years, serving as a pilot program. Hopefully, that study’s findings will lead to more. Mitchell has also been a solid proponent of LA Metro’s unarmed ambassador program.
Unfortunately, Mitchell’s campaign website lacks any real policy specifics, which is worrying, considering how powerful yet ineffective the Board of Supervisors is. What’s worse is she’s gone quiet on most of the policies she campaigned on in 2020 (e.g., a 20% affordable housing requirement on all new developments and a laundry list of criminal justice reforms). Like most of her Board colleagues, Mitchell seems to now err on the side of whatever generates the least amount of criticism. And that is frequently inaction.
Thanks to activists’ significant pressure and organization, Mitchell and her colleagues introduced a plan in March 2021 to shut down Men’s Central Jail within 18-24 months. The 60-year-old jail has been the subject of multiple human rights investigations, and its deadly conditions led to 49 in-custody deaths last year. The ACLU reported that the jail routinely denies clean water, functioning toilets, showers, adequate food, and essential medication to most incarcerated people, many of whom are awaiting trial and have not been convicted. Despite these well-documented horrors, the Board continues to drag its feet. A year past the closure deadline, Men’s Central Jail remains open, and the Supervisors’ inaction is killing people.
In February 2023, Mitchell and fellow Supervisor Lindsey Horvath introduced a motion to hire a consultant to explore expanding the five-member Board with the goal of creating a more equitable and representative county government. The motion passed unanimously, but before you get too excited, just know that hiring consultants and commissioning studies are common tools to indefinitely delay action.
In October 2023, the Board voted unanimously for Mitchell’s measure to crack down on “vanlords.” What now? “Vanlords” are RV landlords accused of creating unsafe living conditions because their RVs can’t be regulated the way apartments are. We know landlords are predatory, and I’m sure some of the RVs they rent out aren’t great, but Mitchell and her colleagues never showed anything but unwavering support for the Inside Safe program when it placed their unhoused constituents in unsafe motel rooms. Or when the LA Homelessness Authority has directed them to hazardous tiny homes. Mitchell isn’t motivated by safety concerns. She told on herself when she introduced this motion, citing the dozens of daily complaints her office received about RV encampments. This is about banishing poor people. And those calls Mitchell’s office received were spurred by an influx of RVs moving into unincorporated parts of the county…because LA City Council instituted its own RV bans that drove them out of the City. This is about appeasing NIMBYs and removing visible poverty. It’s heartless, and it results in displacement–not housing. The Supervisors and City Councilmembers instituting RV bans know this, and they don’t care. Whatever quiets the ugliest reactionaries, I guess.
In December 2023, the Board of Supervisors voted to delay implementation of state legislation (SB43), which allows a wider range of people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorder to be held against their will. This decision wasn’t motivated by concerns about violating rights. Mitchell and three of her colleagues claimed the County would be incapable of expanding services and infrastructure quickly enough to increase forced treatment, so they decided to revisit the vote in 2026. And while I’m glad they decided not to immediately expand institutionalization, kicking the vote two years down the road illustrates the avoidant way Mitchell and the Board operate.
Indicative of her willingness to compromise on values, Mitchell endorsed her sole Republican colleague Kathryn Barger over progressive challengers. As of this writing, Mitchell has fundraised $417k in campaign contributions–roughly 50x her three opponents combined.
Who else is running?
Mitchell’s main challengers are running to increase criminalization of the unhoused.
4th District: Janice Hahn - Nepo baby incumbent Janice Hahn is seeking a third term on the Board of Supervisors. Hahn previously represented District 15 on the LA City Council before losing a 2010 bid for Lt. Governor to Gavin Newsom. She then girlbossed her way to Congress where she joined Republicans in a successful effort to block Syrian and Iraqi refugees from resettling in the U.S. Since joining the Board of Supervisors, Hahn supported the appointment of Nicole Tinkham as interim leader of the LA Public Defender’s Office, despite a letter signed by 390 public defenders, expressing concerns about Tinkham’s lack of criminal law experience and her conflict of interest in having represented the LA Sheriff’s Department. Hahn and her fellow Supervisors’ actions (and inaction) on criminal justice only get worse from there.
Thanks to activists’ significant pressure and organization, Hahn and her colleagues introduced a plan in March 2021 to shut down Men’s Central Jail within 18-24 months. The 60-year-old jail has been the subject of multiple human rights investigations, and its deadly conditions led to 49 in-custody deaths last year. The ACLU reported that the jail routinely denies clean water, functioning toilets, showers, adequate food, and essential medication to most incarcerated people, many of whom are awaiting trial and have not been convicted. Despite these well-documented horrors, the Board continues to drag its feet. A year past the closure deadline, Men’s Central Jail remains open, and the Supervisors’ inaction is still killing people.
In December 2023, the Board of Supervisors voted to delay implementation of state legislation (SB43), which allows a wider range of people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorder to be held against their will. This decision wasn’t motivated by concerns about violating rights. Hahn’s four colleagues voted to push a decision on implementation until 2026, claiming the County was incapable of expanding services and infrastructure quickly enough to increase forced treatment. Hahn cast the sole dissenting vote, citing the urgent need to violate more people’s rights now.
Indicative of her willingness to compromise on values, Hahn endorsed her sole Republican colleague Kathryn Barger over progressive challengers. Not surprising, considering how Hahn’s staffers regularly like tweets disparaging abolitionist LA City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez. As of this writing, Hahn has received $640k in campaign contributions. Each of her two opponents has raised $80k.
Who else is running?
Fox News regular and former LA Sheriff Alex Villanueva garnered a reputation as the “Trump of LA,” and now he’s challenging one of his political nemeses. Villanueva repeatedly refused to respond to subpoenas or hand over information to the inspector general. He bought Facebook ads to dox and harass private citizens and held a press conference to declare that the all-woman LA County Board of Supervisors “need to be taken to the shed, and they need to be beat down.” He rehired deputies who were fired for cause, including domestic violence. (Go Google “40% of cops.”) The number of deputy shootings of civilians increased to over 100 under Villanueva’s tenure. The California Attorney General launched a civil rights investigation, following allegations of excessive force, retaliation, and other misconduct under Villanueva’s leadership. Villanueva retaliated against whistleblowers and the few officials with any authority to hold him accountable. He intimidated journalists with investigation for reporting his corruption and covered up/repeatedly lied about one of his deputies kneeling on a man’s neck. This list isn’t even close to comprehensive. (Here’s a Twitter thread with more.) Villanueva and his department regularly harassed and threatened the families of people who deputies harassed, assaulted, and murdered. The ACLU and the Civilian Oversight Commission called for his resignation. After exhaustive attempts to hold him accountable, the County Board of Supervisors, including Hahn, passed an amendment to the county charter to allow for his removal (via Measure A).
Angelenos voted Villanueva out of office before Measure A needed to be utilized. He is disgusting and was extremely harmful, but his removal didn’t improve the LA Sheriff’s Department. He was only a symptom of the department’s systemic violence and corruption. Villanueva described LASD as 80% "conservative and far right,” which is to say, extremist and racist. Some deputies even participated in the January 6 Capitol riots.
In 2021, Cerise Castle published the investigative series “A Tradition of Violence,” exposing decades of violence, coercion, intimidation, and murder committed by LASD deputies, who operate in deputy gangs. LASD deputies literally commit violent crimes (e.g., executions) and are branded with tattoos (e.g., swastikas) to join these gangs. If you think this is an exaggeration, it’s not. This isn’t just a few deputies. There are at least 18 deputy gangs based out of different departments throughout the county, and Villanueva has done everything in his power to prevent accountability for their actions. Villanueva’s successor Robert Luna campaigned on reforming LASD, but he has predictably failed to enact any meaningful changes. It sure seems like LASD will never be reformed and should just be abolished.
Now that voters booted her nemesis, Hahn no longer cares about LASD’s continued rampant violence. Instead, she wants more of these violent deputies patrolling public transit, and she has giddily worked to increase the department’s $3.8 billion budget, which now exceeds Ukraine’s entire 2020 military budget. In September 2023, Hahn touted an additional $15.6 million in funding for an LASD organized retail theft unit to stop “smash-and-grabs and root out the criminal organizations behind them.” Meanwhile, corporations admitted to manufacturing the organized shoplifting hysteria, but politicians and corporate media continue amplifying this myth without scrutiny. Crime rates remain near 30-year lows.
The third candidate in this race “strongly support[s] our Sheriffs.” Even though, well, see above.
5th District: Konstantine Anthony - Many of the most pressing political issues in Los Angeles are personal for Konstantine Anthony. He’s experienced employment discrimination, watched his wages fall when he was a full-time Uber driver, and lived out of his car. He drew from his lived experiences to educate, advocate, and lead on several important issues even before he took office. In 2020, he was elected to Burbank City Council before cycling through one-year terms as the city’s Vice Mayor and Mayor. Now, Anthony wants to bring his experience and successes in championing workers, renters, and disabled people to the rest of LA County.
Anthony supported a 2020 ballot measure that would have brought rent control to Burbank, and he co-founded the Burbank Tenants’ Rights Committee to help cultivate healthy housing and affordability for renters. Supervisors create policy on tenant protections, so renters could use an advocate like Anthony on the Board. He will push for investment in social housing, especially on government property, which would create affordable housing designed for mixed-income tenants. Anthony recognizes that a lack of affordable housing and an unlivable minimum wage are responsible for our homelessness crisis. That’s why he’s fighting for an $18 county minimum wage, universal free childcare, and improved pre-K education options. (He’s also unabashedly pro-public education and opposes charter schools.)
While his opponents support increased criminalization of the unhoused, Anthony wants to remove policing from outreach and homelessness solutions because no amount of enforcement will ever create new housing or increase services. Especially when systemic discrimination and inequities negatively impact people of color, specifically Black Angelenos, at much higher rates. Instead, he will work to hire more social workers with increased pay and fund reparations projects to help rectify historical injustices. In 2017, LA County voters approved Measure H, a ballot measure that added a .25% sales tax to fund initiatives that “prevent and combat homelessness” (e.g., affordable housing, rental subsidies, healthcare, mental health services, job training). Measure H expires in 2027, and Los Angeles would benefit from someone with Anthony’s lived experience helping design a replacement measure. (Konstantine, if you’re reading–please work to replace the sales tax with a wealth tax in the follow-up measure. LA County is home to 42 billionaires. They can foot the bill!)
Anthony has been an outspoken supporter of CalCare, which would bring single-payer healthcare to California. On the county level, he’ll work to create programs that provide free access to vision, dental, and hearing care for low-income residents. Before Anthony became the first diagnosed-autistic mayor in the country, he served on the Burbank Advisory Council on Disabilities, bringing disability issues to the attention of city officials and guiding policy discussion. He’s raised important concerns in his opposition to Gavin Newsom’s CARE Courts, a carceral program that mandates forced treatment on those deemed a “danger to themselves or others” even if they haven’t committed any harm or crime. Those who don’t comply can be stripped of their rights and placed in a conservatorship.
Anthony wants to expand mental health treatment options like local outpatient centers and outreach to underserved, low-income and rural communities. In December 2023, the Board of Supervisors voted to delay implementation of related state legislation (SB43), which allows a wider range of people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorder to be held against their will. Although this decision was motivated by the County’s inability to abruptly expand services rather than concerns about rights violations, Anthony would be a much-needed advocate on the Board when it takes a follow-up vote on the matter in January 2026.
CARE Courts weren’t the first time Anthony stood up to Newsom and other high-profile Democrats. He’s called out the Governor for turning his back on trans kids, immigrants, and union workers. He also withdrew his endorsement for Adam Schiff after the Congressman refused to support a ceasefire in Gaza. Anthony has since endorsed Barbara Lee. When he was Mayor of Burbank, Anthony called on the Board of Supervisors to file an injunction against the City of LA to block the Olympics, citing smaller cities’ exclusion from the decision to host the 2028 games. For those who aren’t aware, the Olympics create mass displacement and disastrous ecological impacts on host cities. In preparation for the 1984 Olympics, Los Angeles militarized and expanded its police force, leading to a rapid acceleration of mass incarceration. And the LAPD is expected to expand and militarize again in preparation for 2028.
Anthony says he’s a proud abolitionist and pledges to “work every day to end the carceral state and the school-to-prison pipeline,” favoring investment in resources for communities. The Board of Supervisors controls the LASD budget and appoints members to the underwhelming Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, so hopefully, Anthony will bring some abolitionist energy to the mix. He supports closing Men’s Central Jail, which the current Board has dragged its feet on despite the jail’s well-documented human rights abuses and generally horrific conditions. The ACLU reported that the jail routinely denies clean water, functioning toilets, showers, adequate food, and essential medication to most incarcerated people, many of whom are awaiting trial and have not been convicted. Anthony also supports closing remote sheriff’s stations, which are breeding grounds for violent and often deadly LASD deputy gangs. Anthony promised to eradicate corruption in the LA Sheriff’s Department and decertify deputies with conduct violations. However, Anthony says he’ll deliver “comprehensive reforms” by working closely with District Attorney George Gascón, who has repeatedly declined to prosecute killer cops, and with LA Sheriff Robert Luna, who has predictably abandoned his promises to reform the department.
Anthony supports replacing LASD deputies on LA Metro with unarmed response units. Because Supervisors are guaranteed a seat on the LA Metro Board, he could have a strong hand in making transportation better and more accessible for riders. He’s an advocate for fare-free transit, and you should be too because 75% of fare revenue collected by LA Metro pays for…fare enforcement. It doesn’t make sense. Anthony will also improve Metro Micro’s speed and convenience for disabled transit. He’s unwavering in his urgency to meet the deadline climate scientists set to meet net-zero emissions by 2030. He supports a Green New Deal-inspired mobilization to battle climate change while rejuvenating the economy and cleaning up pollutants that cause negative health outcomes.
Right-wing media has repeatedly targeted Anthony for his outspoken advocacy. In addition to causes mentioned throughout this entry, he’s also championed immigration issues and LGBTQIA+ rights. You can check out more of his policies here. Anthony’s campaign refuses donations from corporations, corporate PACs, property developers, realtors, landlords, fossil fuel executives, and police associations.
Who else is running?
The incumbent, Kathryn Barger, is the only registered Republican on the Board of Supervisors, yet she somehow garnered an endorsement from Planned Parenthood. (I’m begging you not to base your votes on endorsements, folks!) She also has the endorsement of Sheriff Robert Luna and his deeply racist deputies. In 2017, Barger was the only Supervisor to oppose eliminating the draconian "registration fee," which charged defendants for access to…a public defender. Do not be fooled–Barger is a monster. Her campaign website lacks any real policy specifics, which is worrying, considering how powerful yet ineffective the Board of Supervisors is. Barger mostly highlights the need for more (forced) mental health and substance use treatment. She fails to mention that as a Supervisor since 2016, she has overseen the LA County Department of Mental Health, which is supposed to provide mental health services to unincorporated LA County, City of LA, and other municipalities in the county. Meanwhile, countless people living outside or in interim shelters are desperate for mental health services but cannot access them. Barger and her Board colleagues are responsible for failing to provide these services.
California Assemblymember Chris Holden has a mixed voting record. He supported SB770 aka the “CalCare Killer” bill, which undermined efforts to bring single-payer healthcare to California. He authored AB1228, which will increase minimum wage for fast food workers to $20/hour in spring 2024. He also helped pass legislation that would’ve banned the use of solitary confinement for some vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant, elderly, and disabled people) before Gavin Newsom vetoed it. A Holden-sponsored bill that Newsom did sign, clarified the definition of “general neglect” in California’s child welfare system to prevent unnecessary family separation and surveillance, which disproportionately impact families of color. Other red flags in Holden’s voting record include withholding support from bills to mandate the closure of the disastrous Aliso Canyon gas facility, protect low-income Californians from eviction, regulate charter schools, cap interest rates on predatory lenders, and limit probation periods for minors. He also withheld his vote from a California net neutrality bill.
Unfortunately, Holden is a police reformist, and he’s accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from cops, corporate real estate, Big Oil, and the insurance industry. As of this writing, his website doesn’t have a page dedicated to his policy priorities. However, he did share his plan to address homelessness: “I’ll lock arms with Mayor Karen Bass and work with her to rapidly house those living on our streets and prevent more families from falling into homelessness.” This is a poor strategy because Bass has failed to rapidly house people. In the first year of her signature Inside Safe program, she infamously housed just 255 people with a price tag of at least $ 93.8 million–and some of those people had already obtained housing vouchers before entering her program. (For context, LA County had an estimated unhoused population of 75,518 as of January 2023.) Despite its massive budget, the program provided temporary shelter to fewer than 2,000 people, failed to deliver on promised mental services, and obstructed the release of transparency reports. More Inside Safe participants have returned to homelessness (largely due to its locations’ inhumane, unsanitary, unsafe, and carceral conditions) than have been placed in permanent housing.
District Attorney: George Gascón - No one except Dan Kapelovitz is running to the left of George Gascón. Let me translate: Gascón’s other ten challengers got so mad about the anti-racist policies he implemented at the District Attorney’s office that they decided to run for office to reverse them. Specifically, these ten challengers want to stuff our overcrowded LA County jail system–the largest in the world–with even more people. Mostly Black people, who make up just 8.6% of LA County’s population but account for 30% of people incarcerated in its jails. That’s more than 7x the incarceration rate of white Angelenos, who make up 25.2% of the county’s population but only 12% of its jail population.
These numbers pose a simple question: Do you think Black people are inherently 7x more criminal than white people? OR do you think we live in a deeply unjust country that systematically oppresses and criminalizes them? If your answer is the former, we have a term for that: white supremacy. If your answer is the latter, then congratulations–you aren’t so obsessed with jailing more people that you decided to run for District Attorney. I’ll say it again: Gascón’s ten challengers decided to run for office to force more Black people, more brown people, and more poor people into our barbaric, inhumane, deadly, racist jail system.
Some history: Ex-cop and former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón became a symbol of hope in the fight for criminal justice reform in 2020 when he unseated his predecessor Jackie Lacey. At his swearing in, Gascón said, “I’m not the same man that I was when I once put on a uniform. Those days continue to haunt me[...]how did we fail multiple generations of the same families?” And then he immediately implemented criminal justice reforms, including directives to ban the death penalty, end cash bail for minor offenses, and eliminate the racist practice of charging juveniles as adults. (A staggering 61% of children transferred to adult courts are Black. Again, this is the status quo Gascón’s ten challengers are fighting to restore.)
Critics, conservatives, and corporate media reacted with shock even though Gascón had just spent a year campaigning on these policies. Cops and prosecutors, including many candidates in this race), expressed outrage, spinning these reforms as a “slap in the face to crime victims — both past victims and the ones to come.” All while ignoring the very tangible harm they and the system they work for actively cause (e.g., mysterious in-custody deaths, sheriff gangs, solitary confinement, wrongful convictions, coerced plea deals). This also ignores Gascón’s directive that eliminated the requirement on victims to testify in order to receive county services. Not to mention, the majority of crime victims think there should be a greater emphasis on rehabilitation over increased incarceration.
In the time since, Gascón implemented even more sweeping directives and initiatives like dismissing 60,000 cannabis charges. He’s faced growing reactionary backlash, including multiple failed recall attempts, which notably gathered hundreds of signatures from ghosts. Over the past few years, you’ve probably been inundated with news stories about a crime wave. But the LAPD’s own statistics show crime is down even with poor people not sitting in jail just because they can’t afford cash bail. Even when kids aren’t tried as adults. Even when LAPD staff levels are at their lowest in decades.
Unfortunately, Gascón hasn’t delivered on all of his promises. He ran on increasing accountability for police, and the DA’s office has charged (or in many cases undercharged) cops for certain misconduct, including drug smuggling, perjury, filing false police reports, threatening to kill civilians, assault, concealing excessive force, and vandalism. However, Gascón declined to charge the cops, who shot and killed Mely Corado at the Silver Lake Trader Joe’s in 2018. And the LASD deputy gang member, who executed 18-year-old Andres Guardado then destroyed evidence in West Rancho Dominguez in 2020. And the deputy, who fatally shot Fred Williams III in the back in Willowbrook in 2020. In October 2023, Gascón’s office declined to charge police for 18 incidents in which they shot civilians. He’s failed to hold cops accountable pretty much every time they’ve killed someone.
What about Dan Kapelovitz? His policies are similar to Gascón’s in 2020, and his campaign is sort of an indirect critique of Gascón’s shortcomings. Would Kapelovitz more successfully combat the DA office’s army of deputy district attorneys, who have done nothing but undermine Gascón’s efforts from the jump? I don’t know. If Kapelovitz is running a more principled campaign, why not just recommend him instead? Under different circumstances, I absolutely would. But Kapelovitz doesn’t have much support, and he placed low in previous races. If Gascón doesn’t win this primary with an outright majority, he will advance to a November run-off with one of his other ten challengers, who will likely consolidate enough support to win.
Gascón certainly isn’t perfect, but losing the progress we’ve made is a terrifying prospect. Remember all those nightmare statistics and news stories I shared at the top of this entry? Those represent where we are now–three years after Gascón took office. Gascón’s directives have positively impacted tens if not hundreds of thousands of thousands of lives. But even without pushback, a district attorney cannot end systemic corruption and racism. Regular people started to envision, educate, and organize to make these policy changes a possibility long before George Gascón ran for office, and abolitionist groups like Justice LA continue the work of reclaiming, reimagining, and reinvesting money away from incarceration and into community-based systems of care.
Update: TV writer and Vice Chair of the WGA Disabled Writers Committee Jamey Perry reached out with concerns about another of Gascón’s policies that I wanted to share. Perry is a paraplegic wheelchair user, who supported Gascón until 2022. That’s when he accused a law firm of fleecing small businesses with “baseless” disability rights suits. Gascón asked a judge to halt the use of the Unruh Act, a California law that protects against discrimination from business establishments on the basis of disability and other protected classes, in lawsuits enforcing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. “When disability laws are improperly used to target small businesses for financial gain, it not only hurts business owners but also harms the people whom this law was enacted to protect,” Gascón claimed.
A representative from the firm countered: “There is no dispute that the businesses that have been subject to our claims violated the law. Instead, the fingers are being pointed at our clients, the victims, for noticing.” Jamey Perry noted that no coverage of this story included comment from Disabled people or activists.
Perry was disgusted by Gascón framing “the issue as Disabled scammers vs. the poor mom-and-pop immigrant businesses they were ‘extorting.’ Pitting two oppressed minorities against one another for political reasons.”
A judge dismissed Gascón’s lawsuit, but a related case made its way to the Supreme Court in late 2023. That case had the potential to do away with “testers,” people who investigate whether businesses are ADA-compliant. The stakes of this case were extremely high because lawsuits are the only mechanism for disabled people to enforce the ADA. "If the Supreme Court narrows who can enforce the ADA, there will be no ADA enforcement,” said Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund’s Michelle Uzeta. That organization’s website shared this helpful post debunking myths about ADA lawsuits. SCOTUS ultimately dismissed this case.
“Nobody wants to be sued, no matter how righteous the reason,” Perry shared. By making disabled people the face of ADA enforcement, the existing system vilifies them and produces more ableism. “They misplace their anger onto us, instead of their own failure to comply with a 33-year-old civil rights law. Or the federal government. They almost never take any responsibility or show real remorse.” Perry said she dreams about Congress finally creating a Bureau of ADA Enforcement. That would put the onus of ADA compliance on government officials instead of individual disabled people, who are currently spending a lot of energy, resources, and emotional labor righting wrongs. And unfortunately, there are still a lot of glaring wrongs that Gascón has failed to champion.
With Perry’s permission, I wanted to share an excerpt from her message about this issue:
“You know that phenomenon, where you listen to someone you think is really smart begin to take on a topic you happen to know a lot about? And you suddenly realize they’re not as smart as you thought they were? Which probably means they were wrong about a bunch of other stuff too? As an occasional ADA plaintiff myself, I am in a position to tell you Gascón is so far in the wrong here that it’s difficult for me to imagine that he spoke to any Disabled activists or ADA plaintiffs before filing a lawsuit against one of the biggest ADA firms in the country. I have a love/hate relationship with Potter Handy (the ADA firm being sued). On one hand, they are kind of a machine that chugs out ADA suits, some of which are poor quality. On the other hand, I filed my very first ADA suit with them years ago, and their size and specialty made it very easy for me.
“But none of that matters, because the lawsuit would have set a horrifying precedent that would have severely affected all ADA firms and my day-to-day life as a paraplegic wheelchair user. Worst of all, this 6-3 SCOTUS that loves to take away civil rights has made it clear that they would love to roll back the ADA the second they get the chance. That means any lawsuit involving the ADA could potentially end up at the Supreme Court, resulting in its gutting. My personal ADA attorney has to be extremely wary these days about which cases he files, terrified of the unintended consequences he may set into motion. Gascón’s case was thrown out, but it was incredibly reckless of him to do what he did in this climate. It shows me he neither knows nor cares about Disabled people.”
By the way, Los Angeles has a municipal code that legally requires businesses and public buildings with restrooms to provide access to it whenever “…an individual who requests the use of the restroom facilities…states that because of a physical infirmity he or she requires immediate access to restroom facilities.” No purchase necessary. Even if it’s for employees only. That’s the law on the books in Los Angeles. Activist Adrian Riskin even travels to businesses and acts as a tester with a printed copy of the ordinance, but it’s never enforced. Both issues are about increasing accessibility and meeting people’s very basic needs. Enforcement should not fall to the people who are trying to have those needs met, but while it still is, our elected officials should support them. Given the state of Congress, a federal Bureau of ADA Enforcement could take decades to establish, but our municipal governments could and should establish local approximations. Such a department could also provide ADA guidance to new establishments and resources for small businesses to meet compliance.
For more information on the history of Disability Rights, I recommend checking out Crip Camp.
What do Superior Court Judges do?
The Superior Court operates 37 courthouses across LA County with an annual budget of $1+ billion. The court’s 431 judges serve six-year terms, overseeing criminal and civil court and adjudicating a range of cases (e.g., family, contract disputes, probate, small claims). Judges hear arguments, enforce adherence to court rules (or at least their interpretation of them), and are required to rule according to existing law. However, most laws contain ambiguities that require interpretation. Judges have some level of discretion in handing down penalties (e.g., amount owed in civil cases, length of sentencing, alternatives to incarceration). Every judge enters the courtroom with a pre-existing perspective that either challenges systemic biases (e.g., exclusion of people of color in jury selection, stacking charges on Black defendants) or perpetuates these injustices.
Note on Bar Association ratings: We live in the most carceral country in the world. Yet short of a major scandal, The Bar Association always rates prosecutors as more qualified than public defenders. Because our judicial system prioritizes criminalization, prosecutorial experience holds significantly more weight in these ratings than a candidate’s ability as an attorney.
Note on judicial candidate restrictions: The California Committee on Judicial Ethics bars candidates from speaking about how they will act on the bench. As a result, voters rarely know what a candidate stands for, creating an advantage for judicial candidates with wealthy donors—most often, deputy district attorneys. But no matter how neutral a judge (or any person) tries to be, they’re still human, which means any given set of facts will be interpreted based on their experiences. In most instances, candidates who work in the district attorney’s office are more focused on criminalization than rehabilitation or restorative justice (e.g., The Association of Deputy District Attorneys overwhelmingly voted to support the recall of their boss, District Attorney George Gascón, opposing his progressive directives such as banning the death penalty; refusing to charge minors as adults; ending cash bail; and discontinuing sentence enhancements). Public defenders tend to have a more holistic understanding of the system and its many, catastrophic flaws because they directly serve the people it harms. Before Holly Hancock and Patrick Hare’s 2022 victories, a public defender had never been elected judge in LA County. Electing more is an important step in transforming the judiciary.
Office No. 12: Rhonda Haymon - A graduate of Tuskegee University, Haymon was an activist in the movement to abolish Alabama’s archaic and inhumane chain gang system. Her passion for human rights continued as she became an attorney, law professor, and deputy public defender. If elected, Haymon pledges to work with legal scholars, policymakers, and community leaders to dismantle systemic biases in the criminal justice system. She hopes to combat recidivism by implementing individual treatment plans and sentencing alternatives that are tailored to the needs of each defendant.
Office No. 39: George Turner - Turner’s campaign website notes how California constructed 23 prisons over the past 50 years but only three colleges. As a public defender, he’s worked toward alternative solutions that meet community needs. As a judge, he’s committed to acknowledging the limitations of the current system and offering more compassionate and effective approaches to justice. He also wants to modernize the court, implementing e-filing, maintaining accurate statistics on basic demographic information, and centralizing post-conviction work. Turner’s opponents include a deputy DA focused on prosecution, a defensive white man, and an attorney with a bunch of fight pose photos on her website–all of the qualities I’m looking for in a prospective judge!
Turner is running alongside Ericka Wiley (Office No. 48) and La Shae Henderson (Office No. 97) as the Defenders of Justice, a slate of Black public defenders. Why does that matter? Check the numbers: 63% of LA Superior Court judges are white compared to 25.6% of the county’s population and 12% of its jail system. Meanwhile, Black people make up just 8.6% of LA County’s population but account for 30% of people incarcerated in its jails. To be clear, elevating Black lawyers to judgeships alone will not fix the judiciary. Representation doesn’t mean much without principled action. Fortunately, the Defenders of Justice offer both.
The office of judge puts a premium on impartiality, but like objectivity, impartiality is a myth. Every judge chooses to challenge systemic biases (e.g., exclusion of people of color in jury selection, stacking charges on Black defendants) in our legal system or chooses to ignore those injustices. There’s nothing impartial about choosing an unjust status quo, especially when Los Angeles operates the world’s largest jail system, incarcerating 12,851 people. As public defenders, this slate already advocates for alternatives to incarceration and resources to help people successfully reintegrate into society. As judges, they will further address the root causes of crime (e.g., socioeconomic disparities, mental health challenges) rather than perpetuate cycles of incarceration.
Office No. 48: Ericka Wiley - Wiley served as a deputy public defender for more than 23 years, advocating for alternatives to incarceration and ways to better her clients’ lives. Like her Defenders of Justice slatemates, Wiley is dedicated to criminal justice reform, fair sentencing, and ending cycles of mass incarceration. She’s proven her dedication to her community, helping formerly incarcerated people expunge their records and educating youth about their rights. Wiley is running against a deputy district attorney. (For more information on the Defenders of Justice and the importance of electing public defenders, see the Office No. 39 entry on George Turner).
Office No. 93: Natasha Khamashta - I previously labeled this race “no recommendation” because Deputy District Attorney Victor Avila appeared to be running unopposed. However, I just learned Deputy Public Defender Natasha Khamashta launched a campaign to challenge him as a write-in candidate. Khamashta has worked in the LA County Public Defender’s Office for 24 years and spent much of that time representing juveniles. She’s been working closely with fellow candidates Kim Repecka and the Defenders of Justice slate. Khamashta is Palestinian, and one of her younger brothers had a stroke and died in the West Bank at the end of October due to the massive stress of suddenly becoming unemployed and seeing his dreams smashed. (Note: Please make sure you spell “Natasha Khamashta” correctly on your ballot so that your vote will count.)
Office No. 97: La Shae Henderson - Henderson served as a deputy public defender for 18 years. Like her Defenders of Justice slatemates, she believes in healing communities through restorative justice and plans to develop restorative programs. Henderson believes perspectives and experiences like hers can lead to more in-depth analysis of court cases. She thinks judges need to be cognizant of the court system’s disparate treatment of Black and Latine litigants to ensure fair proceedings. She conducted trainings with attorneys across the state, developing legal strategies to fight cases under the Racial Justice Act, which prohibits discrimination in charging, conviction, and sentencing based on a defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. Both of Henderson’s opponents are deputy district attorneys. (For more information on the Defenders of Justice and the importance of electing public defenders, see the Office No. 39 entry on George Turner).
Office No. 115: Christmas Brookens - Both candidates in this race are Deputy DAs, and I initially planned to not recommend either. Brookens is a Navy vet, who posted this Eisenhower quote on her website: “The rule of law ensures justice between man and man.” The idea that our judicial system ensures justice would normally be laughable–by design, America incarcerates more people than any country in the world. Coming from an experienced prosecutor, seeking the office of judge? Yikes. Her opponent, Keith Koyano seems a tad worse, claiming to have the unanimous endorsement of police organizations. He also received an endorsement from the failed Recall Gascón campaign, which opposes progressive policies such as banning the death penalty, refusing to charge minors as adults, ending cash bail, and discontinuing sentence enhancements.
Office No. 124: Kim Repecka - In 2007, Repecka volunteered for the ACLU’s Jails Project where she first witnessed LA County jails’ inhumane and unconstitutional conditions, which have unfortunately persisted. Her meaningful volunteer work continued, helping vulnerable people clean up legal records and navigate public assistance benefits, and preventing targeted police harassment. She worked at the Children’s Law Center, representing children in foster care proceedings, but transitioned to representing parents and guardians, feeling she could make a greater impact by keeping families together. Now a public defender, Repecka advocates for the rights of the accused and holds law enforcement accountable.
These experiences helped shape the values she will bring to the Superior Court. She believes in “reframing the way we approach criminal justice to a ‘care first, incarceration last’ standard in legally eligible cases.” She cites the financial cost to California taxpayers–$106,000 per year to keep one person in prison–totaling $14.5 billion in 2023. In LA County, the jail budget has increased 44% since 2011. But cost-effectiveness isn’t the only reason she supports rehabilitation over incarceration. It’s more humane and is proven to reduce recidivism.
Repecka aims to provide treatment as an option to those who need and are willing to accept it–an approach that aligns with the desires of most crime victims. She pledges to ensure trials are fair, reverse systematic exclusion of people of color in jury selection, and work to remove bias and discrimination in court. Whenever it can be done safely and legally, she will preserve parental rights to prevent family separation.
Who else is running?
Then there’s her opponent, Judge Emily Spear, whose re-election website–brought to you by Angelfire–includes an “In the News” section. Which is certainly a choice considering this news item about her improper behavior inspired Repecka to challenge her. In September 2023, Spear was publicly admonished by the Commission on Judicial Performance for “numerous unauthorized and undocumented absences and early departures from court; disparaging remarks about a judicial colleague; discourteous conduct toward, and false statements to her supervising judge; and manipulation of her calendar for personal benefit.”
These “false statements'' refer to Spear repeatedly lying in order to extend her vacation by a week, despite failing to accumulate enough vacation days for the additional time off. (Her taxpayer-funded salary is $369,840, not including pension and health, and California judges are allotted 24 vacation days plus two personal days per year.) On a related note, the overwhelming majority of criminal cases end with plea bargains — a practice that prizes efficiency over fairness or innocence, according to the American Bar Association. This practice proliferated at least in part because our judicial system is overburdened with more cases than it could ever send to trial, which isn’t helped by loading judicial benches with prosecutorial-minded deputy DAs–or sitting judges who scam extra vacation days. Despite this public scandal, the Long Beach Police Association still endorsed Spear.
Office No. 130: No recommendation - Garnering national fame for co-prosecuting the O. J. Simpson trial might be good for book sales, but it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence when seeking judgeship. That hasn’t stopped Christopher Darden, now a law professor, media pundit, and attorney. Darden made news in April 2020, representing a man, who allegedly held a television news crew at knifepoint, forcing them into a van to delete footage of him at an anti-lockdown protest. Darden insisted it was a misunderstanding–that his client just didn’t want to be associated with the “Live Free or Die” rally while he was searching for a job. "When and if the opportunity arises he intends to offer his personal apology to the cameraman,” Darden told press. Why the fuck do people become private attorneys? Oh, right. Money.
Deputy DA Leslie Gutierrez received an endorsement from the failed-George Gascón recall campaign, and she’s married to an LA County Sheriff’s Sergeant. If you don’t understand why that’s concerning, Google LASD gangs.
Osman M. Taher is an attorney, who volunteers as a temporary judge (Judge Pro Tem), helping the Superior Court’s Traffic and Small Claims departments–because again, our judicial system is overburdened thanks to over policing. Taher was admitted to the State Bar in 2010 but graduated from Santa Ana’s Trinity Law School, which is not accredited by the American Bar Association.
Office No. 135: No recommendation - Retired Deputy District Attorney Georgia Huerta ran for a different Superior Court office in the 2022 primary and placed fourth. Her opponent, Deputy District Attorney Steven Yee Mac is also a Lt. Colonel in JAG. Their perspectives on the criminal justice system seem indistinguishable. Both want to advance their careers but not grapple with the deeply unjust flaws in the system. I asked the third candidate, Mohammad Ali Fakhreddine, his opinion on CARE Courts and if he had any information that he would like to share about his bid for Superior Court Judge. He declined to comment on CARE Courts and directed me to his website, which features an unusual emphasis on small business owners’ rights.
Office No. 137: Luz Herrera - This race lacks great or even good options, but attorney and law professor Luz Herrera at least communicates some perspective on how inaccessible courts are for most people. In her two decades helping individuals, non-profits, and small businesses navigate legal issues, she gleaned that most people who walk into courtrooms are intimidated by the process and confused by the language. As a law professor, she encourages her students to remember this when interacting with clients. That might seem super obvious, but remember, all of these candidates are lawyers. Having read through all of their campaign sites, I can tell you precious few spare a thought for anyone else or admit to flaws in the system.
I reached out to candidates in this race to ask if they support CARE Courts, a carceral program that mandates forced treatment on those deemed a “danger to themselves or others” even if they have not committed any harm or crime. Herrera initially responded with a statement of support for CARE Courts: “I think they are quite important and necessary for the segment of the population that they are designed to assist.” I responded, urging her to review the ACLU’s criticisms of the program and explained how CARE Courts will strip people with mental health disabilities of their rights, placing them in conservatorships. Herrera seemed unaware of this information and pledged to “do more research” to “understand all aspects.” Could she be paying me lip service? Sure. But the possibility of open-mindedness is more than we’ll get from her opponents.
What is the County Central Committee?
It’s essentially a committee of local delegates that decide endorsements for and help set a political party’s platform. But as someone who served as a delegate at the 2020 Democratic National Convention, I can tell you politicians usually end up doing what politicians do, and California Democratic Party officials tend to fall in line, often undermining delegates.
Note: You can vote for up to seven candidates in your Assembly district, but information about candidates is sparse. Hence, the lack of explainers in this section. Most recommendations are based on slates, a great guide by Olga Lexell (a CA Democratic Party delegate), and information reported by LAist. In most cases where I don’t recommend a candidate with the rest of their slate, it’s because I’ve learned that individual has voted or otherwise acted against their purported progressive politics.
**Denotes that a candidate is a member of the cross-district Democratic Party Reformer slate.
Assembly District 40: The first five recommendations are part of a slate focused on prioritizing CalCare (single-payer healthcare).
Isaac Lieberman** (Hospital Nurse/Environmentalist)
Melissa Garcia Mardoyan (Therapist/Union Representative)
Margaret Finnstrom (Certified Public Accountant)
Christine Farabaugh (Public School Teacher)
Christine LaMonica (University Professor)
Betty Doumas-Toto (Health Care Advocate)
Michelle Fowle (Racial Justice Organizer)
Assembly District 41: Individual recommendations.
Todd Jones (NASA Scientist)
Kathy Patterson (Youth Civics Leader)
Assembly District 43: Individual recommendations.
Angelica Dueñas (Congressional Candidate)
Clifford Tasner** (Nonprofit Organization President)
Amy Sue Fall** (Teacher/Health Aide)
Karen Almanza (Registered Nurse/Environmentalist)
Veronica De Lara (Health Labor Advocate)
Cynthia Becerra (Tenant Rights Organizer)
Assembly District 44: Individual recommendations.
Carolyn Hoff (Incumbent)
Jerilyn Stapleton (Incumbent)
Assembly District 46: More information on this slate.
Michelle Verne (Community Organizer)
Jason Small (Contractor/Community Organizer)
Yessica Manabe (Health Care Worker)
Chris Manabe (Community Organizer)
Assembly District 48: More information on this slate.
Stephen Pritchard (Community Advocate, supports CalCare)
Celenia Calderon (Teacher)
Therese Garcia (Consumer Attorney)
Pablo Morales (Supervisor’s Field Deputy)
Ryan Serrano (Community Organizer)
Denis Recendez (Healthcare Advocate)
Assembly District 49: Individual recommendations.
Katie Chan** (District Case Worker for LA City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez)
Paul Cole Padilla** (Educator/ Director/ Environmentalist)
Melissa Mia Michelson** (Teacher/Community Advocate)
Samantha Lau** (Non-Profit Director/Environmentalist)
Patricia Hernandez** (Teacher/Health Advocate)
Jefferson Crain** (Teacher/Governance Educator)
Assembly District 51: Individual recommendation.
Deana Igelsrud (Community Organizer)
Assembly District 52: More information about this slate. Although Jessica Craven is a member of this slate, I recommend that you vote for Theresa Montaño instead. Craven voted to endorse corporate Democrat Jimmy Gomez over progressive challenger David Kim. She also fundraised for Assembly candidate David Girón, who was a senior advisor to disgraced former LA City Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell. Girón also voted to remove Stonewall Democrats’ endorsement of progressive former LA City Councilmember Mike Bonin. Endorsements are a dirty business.
Mia Livas Porter (Gun Safety Advocate, California Assembly Candidate)
Nicolas Gardner Serna (Climate Justice Organizer, Sunrise Movement LA)
Luis Lopez (Nonprofit Healthcare Director)
Koreen Cea (Teacher/Language Advocate)
Jeanine Rohn (Union Manager/Journalist)
Dr. Rocío Rivas (School Board Member)
Assembly District 53: No recommendations.
Assembly District 54: The first four recommendations are part of the United Progressive Democrats slate.
Carlos Montes (Labor Education Advocate)
John Yi (Non-Profit Transit Advocate, California Assembly candidate)
Esther “Bester” Lim (Senior Justice Advisor)
Sara Hernandez (Community College Trustee)
Samuel Sukaton (Labor Union Organizer)
Assembly District 55: Individual recommendations. Some of these candidates are running with a slate, but I do not recommend their entire slate.
Leah Pressman (Child Psychologist)
Freddy Puza (Councilmember/University Administrator)
Jeff Schwartz (Public Librarian)
Aaron Ordower (Environmental Policymaker)
Assembly District 56: The first three candidates are from this slate. The remaining candidates are members of this slate.
Ricardo Martinez (Community Advocate/Researcher)
Jaime Vega (Small Business Owner)
Cynthia Patino Talmich (Therapist/Union Representative)
Zenaida Huerta (Incumbent)
Christian Israelian (Student Organizer)
Stephanie Terrazas (Veterans Advocate)
Rachel Valenzuela Kirk (Community Organizer)
Assembly District 57: No recommendations.
Assembly District 62: Individual recommendations.
Andrés Ramos (Social Justice Advocate/Racial Justice Nonprofit Legal Counsel)
Juan Muñoz-Guevara (Labor/Community Organizer)
Assembly District 64: Individual recommendations.
Martha Camacho Rodriguez** (Health Water Educator)
Elizabeth Alcantar (Vice Mayor of Cudahy/Community Educator)
Fidencio Gallardo (LAUSD Candidate, Teacher, Bell City Councilmember)
Jorgel Chavez (Mayor of Bell/Union Organizer)
Miguel De La Rosa (Planning Commission Chairperson)
Evelyn Nuño (California Board of Environmental Safety)
Paula Mejia (College Education Advocate)
Assembly District 65: More information on this slate.
Fatima Iqbal-Zubair (Youth Mentor)
Jana Abulaban (Children Behavioral Aid)
Crystal La Toya Fairley** (Social Worker)
Jennifer Flores** (Operations Manager)
Carrie Scoville** (Incumbent)
Faraz Rizvi (Clean Communities Advocate)
Tifanie Noelle Smith (Special Education Teacher)
Assembly District 66: The first three recommendations are part of the South Bay People Power slate.
Margie Hoyt (Community Advocate)
Jane Affonso (Non-Profit Director/Environmentalist)
Susan Brooks (Non-Profit Director)
Nichelle Henderson (LA Community College District Trustee)
Wade Kyle (Teacher/UTLA Organizer)
Assembly District 69: Individual recommendations. Some of these candidates are running with the People’s Voice slate, but I do not recommend their entire slate.
Joseph Luis Piñon** (Teacher)
Naida Tushnet** (Long Beach City Commissioner)
Alene Brown Harris (Community Advocate/Researcher)
April O’Connor (Teacher/President of Teachers Association of Paramount)
Janice Schaefer (Medical Researcher/Nurse)
Janet Foster (Housing Advocate/Businesswoman)
Note: This ballot measure requires a majority vote (50% + 1) to pass.
Prop 1: NO - More funding for mental health services and housing sounds great...but alas, there’s a big catch. Critics say Prop 1 will cause extreme damage to existing mental healthcare programs and abruptly discontinue mental health services for thousands of people across the state while laying off healthcare workers. And that’s true. In 2004, voters passed the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), a measure that taxes 1% of income above $1 million to fund county mental health programs. Unfortunately, these programs are so underfunded and understaffed that it frequently takes county mental health professionals hours to respond to a person experiencing a mental health crisis in Los Angeles. Prop 1 would exacerbate these shortages by ripping $140 million in MHSA funding from county programs each year and giving it to the state. The state would then issue grants and loans to local governments to build “housing and personalized support services,” but local governments would still have to cover operating costs. This bureaucratic nightmare would remove local avenues for accountability and create a one-size-fits-all program for regions with drastically different populations and needs. The measure features built-in audits that will actually diminish oversight, transferring authority from an independent commission to a huge state agency. And frankly, the promise of audits doesn’t mean much when Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blocked transparency reports built into her massively expensive homelessness program without consequence.
Some Prop 1 supporters have claimed existing law prohibits people from accessing addiction services. That’s not true. Prop1 would just allow substance and alcohol treatment programs to specifically access MHSA money–but at the expense of mental health funding. The measure also mandates counties spend 30% of their remaining MHSA funds on housing programs, which would force local governments to forfeit matching funds the federal government provides for healthcare spending. We obviously need more housing and resources, but stretching MHSA funding at the expense of county mental health programs would be gravely irresponsible. Especially when the Yes on 1 coalition straight up lies about what it will deliver, including a claim that it will build 11,000 supportive housing units–and several news outlets have repeated these fabricated numbers. California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office reports the measure’s massive budget, including a $6.4 billion bond, would build just 4,350 units with no specification as to whether that housing will include supportive services. The analysis also states this “would reduce statewide homelessness by only a small amount."
In fact, two-thirds of Prop 1 funding is earmarked for facilities with limited-term treatment beds. These types of facilities have helped fuel an uptick in forced treatment, a dangerous trend that studies show is ineffective and drastically increases suicide rates. These facilities don’t even create a pathway to permanent housing, so unhoused patients are typically released onto the street without support or housing.
And here, we can start to understand Prop 1’s true purpose. Donald Trump Jr.’s fiancé’s ex turned California Governor Gavin Newsom has spent the past few years campaigning for his imminent 2028 presidential bid. You may have heard about his efforts to appeal to voters in swing states with campaign-funded billboards and a televised debate with GOP presidential (no longer) hopeful, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Meanwhile, California is in the midst of several socioeconomic and environmental crises. Newsom has preemptively tried to make himself more palatable to moderate swing voters (and corporate donors) by becoming a grim reaper of progressive legislation that would have established life-saving overdose prevention programs (SB57); unemployment insurance for striking (SB799); basic safety protections for domestic workers (SB686); juror pay to create a more equal justice system (AB881); decriminalization of psychedelics (); social housing and transitional housing for unhoused LGBTQIA+ youth (AB957); protections for trans youth in custody disputes (SB58); a requirement for human drivers to be onboard self-driving trucks (AB316)…and much more.
Even with these sleazy tactics, Governor Greaseball knows he will rightfully be dragged to hell for claiming he’s the best option to run the country when under his leadership, California is the epicenter of the nation’s housing affordability and homelessness crisis. Our state is home to 30% of America’s unhoused population compared to just 12% of the country’s total population. Loss of income is the primary reason 90% of unhoused Californians lose housing. And of the 71,429 eviction notices filed in Los Angeles between February and November 2023, 96% were for “non-payment of rent.” The average rent for a one bedroom apartment is $2,395 in a city with a $16 minimum wage. We very clearly have a housing affordability crisis. But Newsom won’t address root causes like rent stabilization, tenants rights, or a living wage because that would piss off the landlord lobby, Big Real Estate, and corporations. Instead, Newsom has erroneously tried to frame this as a mental health and addiction crisis despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Prop 1, his pet project this election season, even adopted the slogan “treatment not tents,” underscoring his superficial focus on visible poverty rather than lifting his constituents out of it.
“Forced treatment, not tents” would be more accurate. Prop 1 was able to initially garner broader support by ensuring that funding would be limited to “unlocked,” voluntary facilities. But a last-minute bait and switch stripped the measure of language prohibiting its money from being used on involuntary confinement. Federal law prohibits hospitals from restraining psychiatric patients except to prevent them from harming themselves or others, but Newsom chose to unveil Prop 1 at LA County General the same month the hospital made headlines for its practice of restraining psychiatric patients 50x more than the national average. It’s on the nose, but Newsom isn’t known for his subtlety.
Prop 1’s forced treatment beds are the final puzzle piece in Newsom’s statewide scheme to resurrect mass institutionalization. The enforcement mechanism is his signature program, CARE Courts, a carceral program that mandates forced treatment on those deemed a “danger to themselves or others” even if they have not committed any harm or crime. If a person doesn’t successfully complete a “CARE Plan,” the Court may place them in a conservatorship. The ACLU describes this as “a draconian legal status that strips people of the right to make decisions about almost every aspect of their lives.”
A lawsuit from disability and civil rights advocates has already challenged the constitutionality of CARE Courts, arguing the new system will violate due process and equal protection rights under the state constitution. Advocates also point to existing systemic racism, which will ensure these violations “inevitably fall hardest on Black, brown, and Indigenous people, who are routinely misdiagnosed with serious mental health disabilities.” On top of Prop 1 swiping funding from county mental health programs, CARE Courts will further strain on their resources, further diminishing existing services. But hey, at least Gavin Newsom will have a place to forcibly warehouse the poor.
Who else supports this measure?
-Cops, including sheriff gang apologist and homophobe LASD Sheriff Robert Luna. Entry to a CARE Court starts with a referral “by a family member, behavioral health provider, first responder, or other approved party.” Meanwhile, more than 20% of people fatally shot by cops have a mental health disability. Guess who will be in charge of enforcing referrals.
-National Alliance on Mental Illness, a group founded by family members of people diagnosed with mental illness. Emphasis on “family members of” instead of people with mental health disabilities, mental health professionals, or even advocates.
Who opposes this measure?
-Cal Voices, California’s oldest mental health advocacy agency. Cal Voices is dedicated to improving lives through advocacy, education, and research. They provide peer services that foster recovery, reduce stigma and discrimination, and improve cultural competency through self-help, education, and culturally relevant research.
-Mental Health America of California, a group dedicated to addressing the needs of those living with mental illness and promoting overall mental health.
-California Association of Mental Health Peer-Run Organizations, a group that works to eliminate stigma, and advance self-determination for all those affected by mental health issues.
-The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a conservative group, representing the interests of wealthy hoarders, opposes Prop 1 because it would allow the state government to borrow $6.4 billion. Which begs the question–why doesn’t Newsom just increase that bond to $7 or $8 billion and raise taxes for California’s 186 billionaires to pay for it instead of raiding mental health programs?
Note: California voters once again have two Senate races on their ballots, which are confusingly for the same seat. When Senator Dianne Feinstein died in September 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Laphonza Butler as California’s temporary replacement in the U.S. Senate (even though Butler was no longer a California resident.)
U.S. Senate (short term and full term): Barbara Lee - Lee is the only candidate in this race who supports a permanent, unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. During her decades in Congress, Lee has consistently shown up on the right side of history with a record of scrutinizing the Bush administration's lies and opposition to the Patriot Act. She was the only member of Congress to vote against 2001’s Authorization for Use of Military Force, which created a blank check for endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond.
Lee understands people’s struggles because she’s lived them. She escaped an abusive marriage, has lived unhoused, and raised two sons on public assistance. Before she ran for office, Lee dedicated her life to combating America’s broken systems. In 1968, she began volunteering with the Black Panther Party at its Oakland Community Learning Center, providing universal services to the community. The FBI surveilled her for this association.
Lee invited Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to U.S. Congress, to speak at her college campus, and their meeting inspired Lee to register to vote for the first time. She would later work on Chisholm’s historic presidential campaign and serve as her delegate at the 1972 Democratic National Convention. Lee opened a community mental health center while earning her graduate degree in social work. For most of the 1990s, she served in the state legislature, where she worked to defeat the racist Three Strikes Law, wrote California’s first Violence Against Women Act, and supported gay rights. Lee was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998, where she continues to fight for the interests of the people.
Lee wants to slash our country’s nearly trillion-dollar defense budget, but more importantly, she wants us to imagine a world where that money is spent on what truly matters: affordable housing, healthcare, childcare, climate action, and lifting people out of poverty. A few years ago, Lee joined a coalition fighting to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, but she believes that the minimum wage should be significantly higher. She knows the only way to guarantee healthcare for everyone is a single-payer system, which is why she’s a strong supporter of Medicare For All. Lee was one of the original co-sponsors of The College For All Act, which would make public colleges free and eliminate $1.6 trillion in student debt for 45 million Americans. Lee pledges to continue her fight to expand housing, food, and childcare benefits, and she supports universal pre-K, which improves outcomes and has a transformative impact on low-income families.
Lee authored the OLIGARCH Act, which would ensure corporations and the 1% pay their fair share while closing the wealth gap, combating tax evasion, and holding billionaires accountable. She’s introduced legislation to decrease criminalization (e.g., her 2019 Marijuana Justice Act) and co-sponsored bills to address environmental racism.
Lee has the most aggressive policies to tackle our climate crisis. She will continue her fight to hold fossil fuel corporations accountable, ban offshore drilling, and end new federal oil permits. Lee was an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, which she believes is needed to kickstart a clean energy revolution to save our planet while generating millions of high-wage jobs. She also co-sponsored legislation to provide $1 trillion in federal funding for state and local climate action.
Lee refuses corporate PAC money. And I’ll say it again: Barbara Lee is the only candidate in this race who supports an unconditional, permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The Israeli military has killed 30,000 Gazans as of this writing.
Why not Adam Schiff?
Schiff gained national fame for his role in Trump’s impeachment. Then social justice groups thwarted his quiet bid for California Attorney General when the position was vacated by Xavier Becerra’s appointment to Secretary of Health and Human Services. Why? Schiff’s record is littered with support for several major racist policies that have increased criminalization and incarceration. Schiff has authored bills that:
Schiff consistently votes to increase military spending—and he’s well compensated for those votes with major campaign contributions from weapons manufacturers. He has specifically stated his unwavering support for continued funding and equipment to supply the Israeli military with missile capabilities–again, those missiles were used to kill at least 30,000 Gazans in the past few months. That might mean something to a person who isn’t a war profiteer/career-long supporter of systemic racism–not Adam Schiff.
Of all Congressional candidates running across the U.S. this election season, Schiff is the #1 recipient of corporate real estate money. He’s supported by massive donations from investment firms. Schiff co-sponsored Medicare For All, but he’s since fallen silent on the issue–likely due to large donations from Blue Shield. After amassing a war chest over the course of a decade with no significant challenge to his seat in the House, Schiff finally signed the no fossil fuel money pledge…last year.
Schiff hired Lis Smith as a senior comms advisor on his campaign. Smith previously worked for disgraced former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who propositioned, forcibly touched, and sexually harassed several of his former employees. A report from the New York Attorney General exposed Smith’s role in covering for Cuomo, including reports of Smith gloating about her successful smearing of his victims on television. There’s a special place in hell for people who profit from covering up sexual violence. And for those who knowingly hire them.
Schiff and his allies have spent a fuck ton of money to elevate his Republican opponent in this race. Why? He wants to obfuscate the fact that both of his Democratic challengers are significantly more progressive than he is rather than owning up to his shitty politics. Schiff is about as slimy as politicians come.
Why not Katie Porter?
Known for her whiteboard Congressional hearing smackdowns, Porter made a name for herself as an anti-corruption progressive. However, she has not called for a permanent, unconditional ceasefire in Gaza. And to quote Barbara Lee, “A conditional ceasefire is not a ceasefire at all.” Porter has a poor voting record on foreign policy, and she’s taken a concerningly hawkish stance on Iran. Similar talking points notably came up in her meeting with far-right Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. After the meeting, sponsored by zionist group J Street, Porter stated she was “extremely impressed” with Netanyahu.
I have a lot to say about Joe Biden, especially his complicity in Israel’s war crimes against Gaza. You’ll hear more punditry about the presidential election than you can handle in the months to come, so I’ll spare you mine. (Here’s some guidance from CalMatters on how California voters can protest Biden’s Israel policy in the primary.)
I will point out that as a California resident, your vote in presidential elections is extremely diminished by the population of our state, by the electoral college, and by immense amounts of dark money. Corporate media is incentivized to turn national elections into a circus, but I’m begging you not to take the bait. I’m not telling you to stop caring–the presidency is a powerful position. I’m asking you to recognize your power. More specifically, recognize how your power–your voice–amplifies exponentially the more local your focus.
I spend hundreds of hours researching and writing this guide each election because I care about Los Angeles and because I want you to. I could write a much shorter version of this guide–and I’m sure some of you wish I would–but I want you to better understand how our city, county, and state governments work for and against us. I believe we can change Los Angeles together, so I’m asking you to get involved. For real. I added a “Get Involved” section at the bottom of this document. It’s a work in progress, but if you learned something in this voter guide that made you angry, take a few minutes to browse through and see if there’s a group doing something about it. Find out how you can organize to make your community a better, more just place. Find your power.
This guide was prepared by Kris Rehl, a writer, organizer with LA Street Care, and 2020 DNC delegate. If you’d like to show your support, consider buying Kris a coffee (Venmo: krisrehl) and subscribe to their newsletter.
Federal
California
Los Angeles
Note: If you live in a municipality other than LA City, contact your city clerk/visit their website for campaign finance information on your city’s candidates.
Federal
California
Los Angeles
Trustworthy Independent & Public News Outlets
Local Reporters
Local Watchdogs
CalCare - Despite healthcare spending in the U.S. far exceeding other high-income, industrialized countries that offer a publicly financed single-payer system, we consistently report
worse health outcomes and disparities among vulnerable populations. CalCare is a proposed single-payer health care coverage system in California for all residents, regardless of citizenship status. By streamlining payments and lowering per-capita health care spending, CalCare guarantees quality health care and long-term care without creating barriers to care or out-of-pocket costs.
Community schools - A local engagement strategy that creates and coordinates opportunities with its public school to accelerate student success. It serves as a vehicle for hyper-local decision-making that responds to the unique needs of each community.
Environmental racism - The institutional rules, regulations, policies, or government and/or corporate decisions that deliberately target certain communities for locally undesirable land uses and lax enforcement of zoning and environmental laws, resulting in communities being disproportionately exposed to toxic and hazardous waste based upon race. Environmental racism is caused by several factors, including intentional neglect, the alleged need for a receptacle for pollutants in urban areas, and a lack of institutional power and low land values of people of color. It is a well-documented fact that communities of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by polluting industries (and very specifically, hazardous waste facilities) and lax regulation of these industries.
Food desert - Geographic areas where residents’ access to affordable, healthy food options (especially fresh fruits and vegetables) is restricted or nonexistent due to the absence of grocery stores within convenient traveling distance.
Green New Deal - The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution to mobilize every aspect of American society to 100% clean and renewable energy, guarantee living-wage jobs for anyone who needs one, and implement a just transition for workers and frontline communities—all in the next ten years.
Harm reduction - A set of practical strategies and ideas aimed at reducing negative consequences associated with drug use that include safer use, managed use, abstinence, meeting people who use drugs “where they’re at,” and addressing conditions of use along with the use itself. Harm reduction is also a movement for social justice built on a belief in, and respect for, the rights of people who use drugs.
Indexed minimum wage - Indexing the minimum wage to inflation means adjusting it automatically to keep pace with the rising cost of living so that minimum-wage workers do not lose purchasing power each year.
Latine/Latinx - Non-gendered alternatives to “Latino.”
Just transition - A just transition moves our economy off of fossil fuels, and toward clean energy, while providing just pathways for workers to transition to high-quality work with integrity. A just transition leaves no worker behind. Workers impacted by climate policies must receive financial assistance, education or training, and a job that provides a family-sustaining wage, healthcare, retirement plans, and a voice on the job.
Mass incarceration - Despite making up close to 5% of the global population, the U.S. has more than 20% of the world’s prison population and spends $80B on incarceration each year. Since 1970, our incarcerated population has increased by 500%—two million people in jail and prison today, far outpacing population growth and crime. It’s no surprise that people of color—who face much greater rates of poverty—are dramatically overrepresented in the nation’s prisons and jails. These racial disparities are particularly stark for Black Americans, who make up 38% of the incarcerated population despite representing only 12% of U.S. residents.
Single-payer healthcare - Also known as “Medicare for All” on a federal level or “CalCare” at the state level. A system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes healthcare financing, but the delivery of care remains largely in private hands. Under a single-payer system, all residents of the U.S. would be covered for all medically necessary services, including doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive healthcare, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. The program would be funded by combining our current, considerable sources of public funding (such as Medicare and Medicaid) with modest new taxes based on ability to pay. Over $500B in administrative savings would be realized by replacing today’s inefficient, profit-oriented, multiple insurance payers with a single streamlined, nonprofit, public payer. Premiums would disappear, and 95% of all households would save money. Patients would no longer face financial barriers to care such as co-pays and deductibles, and would regain free choice of doctor and hospital. Doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.
Social housing - A public option for housing. Typically, it is rental housing provided at below-market rates. Rents are charged according to either real-costs-based or income-based formulas. Social housing is permanently off the private market: in some cases, it can be owned and operated by municipal governments or nonprofit housing providers. In other cases, as with limited-equity cooperatives, land trusts, or mutual housing associations, residents may own a stake in their homes at subsidized rates, and they cannot sell them for exorbitant profit. Models for social housing exist in several other countries and can serve as a basis for designing an American program.
Submit additional organizations here.
Los Angeles Democracy Vouchers
LA Forward
