Skip to main content
  • Elect Vice President Joseph Biden as President of the United States to get America back on track. 

    About the Position

    The President of the United States is the head of the Executive branch of the federal government, and the Commander-in-Chief for all branches of the armed forces. A president has the power to make diplomatic, executive, and judicial appointments, and can sign into law or veto legislation. Presidential administrations are responsible for both foreign and domestic policy priorities. Presidents are limited to serving two four-year terms in office.

    About the Race

    As of October 12th, Democratic challenger Vice President Joe Biden is leading Republican incumbent President Donald Trump in the polls by an average national margin of 9.2% (as of 10/24/20). Ten days before Election Day in 2016, Secretary Hillary Clinton held an average 4.9% polling lead over Donald Trump. Vice President Biden’s campaign has raised $952 million (as of 10/14/20) and is not funded by fossil fuel money. While his platform commits to establishing meaningful campaign finance reform, his 2020 campaign has received donations from special interest, corporate PAC, and lobbyist organizations. President Donald Trump has raised $601 million (as of 10/14/20) and has not taken any fundraising pledges. President Trump is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Citizens United, Proud Boys, and a variety of law enforcement organizations.

    About the Candidate

    Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is from Scranton, PA, and moved to Claymont, DE with his family when he was 10 years old. He has been a resident of Wilmington, DE, for most of his adult life. Vice President Biden came of age during the 1960s Civil Rights movement, which he cites as his inspiration for majoring in political science at the University of Delaware before earning his law degree at Syracuse University. His political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the New Castle County Council. Just two years later, at age 29, Vice President Biden ran for the Delaware Senate seat, and became one of the youngest people ever elected to the United States Senate. A few weeks after his election, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and his two sons were badly injured. This personal tragedy shaped Vice President Biden’s public image as an empathetic leader and committed family man. 

    Vice President Biden spent 36 years representing Delaware in the Senate. He is often critiqued as being an unremarkable, status quo Democrat, and mid-career votes in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, anti-drug legislation, and the Iraq War reaffirm that characterization. In 1991, Vice President Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and presided over the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, who had been credibly accused of sexual harassment by a former colleague, Anita Hill. Vice President Biden’s mismanagement of the hearing resulted in a targeted and unfair character assassination of Anita Hill, and remains a reminder of his complicity in the patriarchal and racist systems on which American government is built. 

    Vice President Biden has also been directly accused of unwanted contact by several women over the course of his career. Most of the accusations came to light as part of the #MeToo movement, and related to invasions of personal space that included the touching of shoulders, caressing of hair, and close whispering. He has apologized publicly for this behavior, and stated an understanding of his responsibility to conform to more modern social norms in his interactions with women. 

    Vice President Biden launched two unsuccessful campaigns for President during his time in the Senate, in 1988 and 2008. After ending his 2008 campaign, he was chosen by President Barack Obama to join his ticket as Vice President, and they served together for two terms. As Vice President, he was responsible for managing the 2009 economic recovery, helping to expand health care through the Affordable Care Act, and acting as the administration’s liaison to the Senate. In 2015, his oldest son, Beau Biden, lost his battle with brain cancer at the age of 46. Since leaving office in 2016, Vice President Biden has dedicated substantial resources to cancer research.

    Although he was rarely a trailblazer, Vice President Biden’s record does demonstrate a consistent liberal evolution on many issues throughout his career. After voting in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, he was the first member of the Obama Administration to advocate for marriage equality in 2012. After presiding over the Anita Hill hearings in 1991, he was the architect of the Violence Against  Women Act in 1994, and led the Obama Administration’s effort to reduce campus sexual assault through the It’s On Us campaign. After supporting the 1994 Crime Bill and aligning with the racist ‘tough on crime’ approach of that era, his current platform supports criminal justice reform, abolishing private prisons, and decriminalizing marijuana. 

    Vice President Biden has long been committed to building relationships with colleagues across the aisle, and bridging intra-party policy differences to establish compromise legislation for the American people. This commitment to civility resulted in Vice President Biden maintaining problematic working relationships with segregationist Senators James Eastland and Herman Talmadge during his time in the Senate. During the 2020 primary, Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Kamala Harris, both Black candidates running for President, were outward in their critique of what they viewed as Vice President Biden’s defense of the reputations and decency of these segregationists. However, Vice President Biden has not apologized for his continued defense of collaborating with these segregationist colleagues, and maintains broad support in the Black community. 

    Vice President Biden’s commitment to compromise has extended to the left in recent months, and updates to his campaign platform are reflective of his interest in connecting with progressive voters. While he was a more moderate candidate in the larger 2020 field, he has been conscientious about including the popular perspectives of his progressive rivals, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, in his platform. He has recently issued proposals that include middle-class tax cuts, lowering Medicare eligibility to age 60, new benchmarks for greenhouse gas emission limits, free college tuition for families making less than $125,000 annually, and clean energy investments. While these proposals do not embrace the full scope of progressive ideals, they are an important indicator of his capacity for collaboration. 

    The Biden/Harris campaign is endorsed by many progressive groups in the country. While the Biden/Harris platform is the most progressive platform ever adopted by a major party ticket, we encourage progressive advocates to continue to hold their administration accountable, and work to encourage progressive legislation throughout the country. With consideration to their records in public service, we unequivocally recommend Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05
    Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is from Scranton, PA, and moved to Claymont, DE with his family when he was 10 years old. He has been a resident of Wilmington, DE, for most of his adult life. Vice President Biden came of age during the 1960s Civil Rights movement, which he cites as his inspiration for majoring in political science at the University of Delaware before earning his law degree at Syracuse University. His political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the New Castle County Council. Just two years later, at age 29, Vice President Biden ran for the Delaware Senate seat, and became one of the youngest people ever elected to the United States Senate. A few weeks after his election, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and his two sons were badly injured. This personal tragedy shaped Vice President Biden’s public image as an empathetic leader and committed family man. 

    Elect Vice President Joseph Biden as President of the United States to get America back on track. 

    About the Position

    The President of the United States is the head of the Executive branch of the federal government, and the Commander-in-Chief for all branches of the armed forces. A president has the power to make diplomatic, executive, and judicial appointments, and can sign into law or veto legislation. Presidential administrations are responsible for both foreign and domestic policy priorities. Presidents are limited to serving two four-year terms in office.

    About the Race

    As of October 12th, Democratic challenger Vice President Joe Biden is leading Republican incumbent President Donald Trump in the polls by an average national margin of 9.2% (as of 10/24/20). Ten days before Election Day in 2016, Secretary Hillary Clinton held an average 4.9% polling lead over Donald Trump. Vice President Biden’s campaign has raised $952 million (as of 10/14/20) and is not funded by fossil fuel money. While his platform commits to establishing meaningful campaign finance reform, his 2020 campaign has received donations from special interest, corporate PAC, and lobbyist organizations. President Donald Trump has raised $601 million (as of 10/14/20) and has not taken any fundraising pledges. President Trump is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Citizens United, Proud Boys, and a variety of law enforcement organizations.

    About the Candidate

    Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is from Scranton, PA, and moved to Claymont, DE with his family when he was 10 years old. He has been a resident of Wilmington, DE, for most of his adult life. Vice President Biden came of age during the 1960s Civil Rights movement, which he cites as his inspiration for majoring in political science at the University of Delaware before earning his law degree at Syracuse University. His political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the New Castle County Council. Just two years later, at age 29, Vice President Biden ran for the Delaware Senate seat, and became one of the youngest people ever elected to the United States Senate. A few weeks after his election, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and his two sons were badly injured. This personal tragedy shaped Vice President Biden’s public image as an empathetic leader and committed family man. 

    Vice President Biden spent 36 years representing Delaware in the Senate. He is often critiqued as being an unremarkable, status quo Democrat, and mid-career votes in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, anti-drug legislation, and the Iraq War reaffirm that characterization. In 1991, Vice President Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and presided over the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, who had been credibly accused of sexual harassment by a former colleague, Anita Hill. Vice President Biden’s mismanagement of the hearing resulted in a targeted and unfair character assassination of Anita Hill, and remains a reminder of his complicity in the patriarchal and racist systems on which American government is built. 

    Vice President Biden has also been directly accused of unwanted contact by several women over the course of his career. Most of the accusations came to light as part of the #MeToo movement, and related to invasions of personal space that included the touching of shoulders, caressing of hair, and close whispering. He has apologized publicly for this behavior, and stated an understanding of his responsibility to conform to more modern social norms in his interactions with women. 

    Vice President Biden launched two unsuccessful campaigns for President during his time in the Senate, in 1988 and 2008. After ending his 2008 campaign, he was chosen by President Barack Obama to join his ticket as Vice President, and they served together for two terms. As Vice President, he was responsible for managing the 2009 economic recovery, helping to expand health care through the Affordable Care Act, and acting as the administration’s liaison to the Senate. In 2015, his oldest son, Beau Biden, lost his battle with brain cancer at the age of 46. Since leaving office in 2016, Vice President Biden has dedicated substantial resources to cancer research.

    Although he was rarely a trailblazer, Vice President Biden’s record does demonstrate a consistent liberal evolution on many issues throughout his career. After voting in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, he was the first member of the Obama Administration to advocate for marriage equality in 2012. After presiding over the Anita Hill hearings in 1991, he was the architect of the Violence Against  Women Act in 1994, and led the Obama Administration’s effort to reduce campus sexual assault through the It’s On Us campaign. After supporting the 1994 Crime Bill and aligning with the racist ‘tough on crime’ approach of that era, his current platform supports criminal justice reform, abolishing private prisons, and decriminalizing marijuana. 

    Vice President Biden has long been committed to building relationships with colleagues across the aisle, and bridging intra-party policy differences to establish compromise legislation for the American people. This commitment to civility resulted in Vice President Biden maintaining problematic working relationships with segregationist Senators James Eastland and Herman Talmadge during his time in the Senate. During the 2020 primary, Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Kamala Harris, both Black candidates running for President, were outward in their critique of what they viewed as Vice President Biden’s defense of the reputations and decency of these segregationists. However, Vice President Biden has not apologized for his continued defense of collaborating with these segregationist colleagues, and maintains broad support in the Black community. 

    Vice President Biden’s commitment to compromise has extended to the left in recent months, and updates to his campaign platform are reflective of his interest in connecting with progressive voters. While he was a more moderate candidate in the larger 2020 field, he has been conscientious about including the popular perspectives of his progressive rivals, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, in his platform. He has recently issued proposals that include middle-class tax cuts, lowering Medicare eligibility to age 60, new benchmarks for greenhouse gas emission limits, free college tuition for families making less than $125,000 annually, and clean energy investments. While these proposals do not embrace the full scope of progressive ideals, they are an important indicator of his capacity for collaboration. 

    The Biden/Harris campaign is endorsed by many progressive groups in the country. While the Biden/Harris platform is the most progressive platform ever adopted by a major party ticket, we encourage progressive advocates to continue to hold their administration accountable, and work to encourage progressive legislation throughout the country. With consideration to their records in public service, we unequivocally recommend Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is from Scranton, PA, and moved to Claymont, DE with his family when he was 10 years old. He has been a resident of Wilmington, DE, for most of his adult life. Vice President Biden came of age during the 1960s Civil Rights movement, which he cites as his inspiration for majoring in political science at the University of Delaware before earning his law degree at Syracuse University. His political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the New Castle County Council. Just two years later, at age 29, Vice President Biden ran for the Delaware Senate seat, and became one of the youngest people ever elected to the United States Senate. A few weeks after his election, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and his two sons were badly injured. This personal tragedy shaped Vice President Biden’s public image as an empathetic leader and committed family man. 
  • Elect Senator Kamala Harris as Vice President of the United States to get America back on track. 

    About the Position

    The Vice President is the second-highest office in the Executive branch of the federal government. The officeholder is the first in the line of succession to the presidency and holds legislative authority as the president of the Senate. In this role, the Vice President presides over Senate deliberations and can cast a tie-breaking vote in close decisions. A Vice Presidential candidate is selected directly by a Presidential nominee who has won the democratic primary process. Vice Presidential candidates are elected indirectly as a part of the Presidential ticket in the general election. A Vice President serves four year terms, and there is no term limit for this position.  

    About the Race

    As of October 12th, Democratic challenger Vice President Joe Biden is leading Republican incumbent President Donald Trump in the polls by an average national margin of 9.2% (as of 10/24/20).  Ten days before Election Day in 2016, Secretary Hillary Clinton held an average 4.9% polling lead over Donald Trump. Vice President Biden’s campaign has raised $952 million (as of 10/14/20) and is not funded by fossil fuel money. While his platform commits to establishing meaningful campaign finance reform, his 2020 campaign has received donations from special interest, corporate PAC, and lobbyist organizations. President Donald Trump has raised $601 million (as of 10/14/20) and has not taken any fundraising pledges. President Trump is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Citizens United, Proud Boys, and a variety of law enforcement organizations.

    About the Candidate

    Senator Kamala Harris grew up in Berkeley, CA, and now resides in Los Angeles. She is the daughter of a Jamiacan father and an Indian mother who both emigrated to the Bay Area in the 1960s, and established themselves as activists in the Civil Rights movement in Oakland. Sen. Harris’ interest in justice and equal rights was instilled at a young age when she participated in civil rights protests in Oakland alongside her activist parents, and was further shaped when she was included in the second class of students to be bussed as part of Berkley’s efforts toward school integration. She attended Howard University, one of America’s HBCU institutions, for undergraduate studies, and completed her law degree at the University of California, Hastings. 

    After working for the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office for 8 years, Sen. Harris transitioned to a role as a prosecutor in the San Francisco District Attorney’s office. Sen. Harris’ political career began in 2003 when she won her bid to become District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. She served two terms in San Francisco before being elected as the Attorney General for the state of California in 2010. She was the first woman and the first person of color to hold this seat. In representing the needs and interests of Californians in each of these roles, Sen. Harris’ record was both progressive for the time and complicated by her moderate approach to policing and criminal justice. She has been criticized for failing to institute comprehensive police accountability measures, for not establishing meaningful prison reform, and for taking a hands-off approach to cases related to police misconduct. However, her lenient approach to policing was often punctuated by decidedly progressive support for social justice issues, including the establishment of an education and workforce reentry program designed to diminish recidivism. Similarly, as Attorney General, she declined to defend Proposition 8, a proposition to make same-sex marriage illegal in California, in court and officiated the first wedding in the state when marriage equality was restored in 2013. 

    In 2016, Sen. Harris became the first woman of color elected to represent California in the United States Senate. Sen. Harris has sponsored legislation on climate and environmental protections, rental and housing protections, women’s health, and pandemic relief. She was also an original cosponsor of the progressive Green New Deal authored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey. Sen. Harris sits on four committees: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Budget, Judiciary, and Select Committee on Intelligence. She has been an outspoken opponent of the Trump Administration, and has deftly used her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question judicial nominees and interrogate the hypocrisy of her Republican colleagues. 

    Sen. Harris formally launched her campaign for President in January 2019 at an Oakland rally with an estimated attendance of 20,000 supporters. As a candidate, she pushed forward a platform that opposed Medicare for All, supported expansion of the Affordable Care Act, sought to expand tax benefits for middle and low-income families, supported citizenship for Dreamers, and favored a ban on assault weapons. She ended her campaign in December 2019, and was tapped to join Vice President Joe Biden’s ticket ahead of the Democratic National Convention in August 2020. 

    The Biden/Harris campaign is endorsed by many progressive groups in the country. While the Biden/Harris platform is the most progressive platform ever adopted by a major party ticket, we encourage progressive advocates to continue to hold their administration accountable, and work to encourage progressive legislation throughout the country. With consideration to their records in public service, we unequivocally recommend Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05
    Senator Kamala Harris grew up in Berkeley, CA, and now resides in Los Angeles. She is the daughter of a Jamiacan father and an Indian mother who both emigrated to the Bay Area in the 1960s, and established themselves as activists in the Civil Rights movement in Oakland. Sen. Harris’ interest in justice and equal rights was instilled at a young age when she participated in civil rights protests in Oakland alongside her activist parents, and was further shaped when she was included in the second class of students to be bussed as part of Berkley’s efforts toward school integration. She attended Howard University, one of America’s HBCU institutions, for undergraduate studies, and completed her law degree at the University of California, Hastings. 

    Elect Senator Kamala Harris as Vice President of the United States to get America back on track. 

    About the Position

    The Vice President is the second-highest office in the Executive branch of the federal government. The officeholder is the first in the line of succession to the presidency and holds legislative authority as the president of the Senate. In this role, the Vice President presides over Senate deliberations and can cast a tie-breaking vote in close decisions. A Vice Presidential candidate is selected directly by a Presidential nominee who has won the democratic primary process. Vice Presidential candidates are elected indirectly as a part of the Presidential ticket in the general election. A Vice President serves four year terms, and there is no term limit for this position.  

    About the Race

    As of October 12th, Democratic challenger Vice President Joe Biden is leading Republican incumbent President Donald Trump in the polls by an average national margin of 9.2% (as of 10/24/20).  Ten days before Election Day in 2016, Secretary Hillary Clinton held an average 4.9% polling lead over Donald Trump. Vice President Biden’s campaign has raised $952 million (as of 10/14/20) and is not funded by fossil fuel money. While his platform commits to establishing meaningful campaign finance reform, his 2020 campaign has received donations from special interest, corporate PAC, and lobbyist organizations. President Donald Trump has raised $601 million (as of 10/14/20) and has not taken any fundraising pledges. President Trump is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Citizens United, Proud Boys, and a variety of law enforcement organizations.

    About the Candidate

    Senator Kamala Harris grew up in Berkeley, CA, and now resides in Los Angeles. She is the daughter of a Jamiacan father and an Indian mother who both emigrated to the Bay Area in the 1960s, and established themselves as activists in the Civil Rights movement in Oakland. Sen. Harris’ interest in justice and equal rights was instilled at a young age when she participated in civil rights protests in Oakland alongside her activist parents, and was further shaped when she was included in the second class of students to be bussed as part of Berkley’s efforts toward school integration. She attended Howard University, one of America’s HBCU institutions, for undergraduate studies, and completed her law degree at the University of California, Hastings. 

    After working for the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office for 8 years, Sen. Harris transitioned to a role as a prosecutor in the San Francisco District Attorney’s office. Sen. Harris’ political career began in 2003 when she won her bid to become District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. She served two terms in San Francisco before being elected as the Attorney General for the state of California in 2010. She was the first woman and the first person of color to hold this seat. In representing the needs and interests of Californians in each of these roles, Sen. Harris’ record was both progressive for the time and complicated by her moderate approach to policing and criminal justice. She has been criticized for failing to institute comprehensive police accountability measures, for not establishing meaningful prison reform, and for taking a hands-off approach to cases related to police misconduct. However, her lenient approach to policing was often punctuated by decidedly progressive support for social justice issues, including the establishment of an education and workforce reentry program designed to diminish recidivism. Similarly, as Attorney General, she declined to defend Proposition 8, a proposition to make same-sex marriage illegal in California, in court and officiated the first wedding in the state when marriage equality was restored in 2013. 

    In 2016, Sen. Harris became the first woman of color elected to represent California in the United States Senate. Sen. Harris has sponsored legislation on climate and environmental protections, rental and housing protections, women’s health, and pandemic relief. She was also an original cosponsor of the progressive Green New Deal authored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey. Sen. Harris sits on four committees: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Budget, Judiciary, and Select Committee on Intelligence. She has been an outspoken opponent of the Trump Administration, and has deftly used her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question judicial nominees and interrogate the hypocrisy of her Republican colleagues. 

    Sen. Harris formally launched her campaign for President in January 2019 at an Oakland rally with an estimated attendance of 20,000 supporters. As a candidate, she pushed forward a platform that opposed Medicare for All, supported expansion of the Affordable Care Act, sought to expand tax benefits for middle and low-income families, supported citizenship for Dreamers, and favored a ban on assault weapons. She ended her campaign in December 2019, and was tapped to join Vice President Joe Biden’s ticket ahead of the Democratic National Convention in August 2020. 

    The Biden/Harris campaign is endorsed by many progressive groups in the country. While the Biden/Harris platform is the most progressive platform ever adopted by a major party ticket, we encourage progressive advocates to continue to hold their administration accountable, and work to encourage progressive legislation throughout the country. With consideration to their records in public service, we unequivocally recommend Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Senator Kamala Harris grew up in Berkeley, CA, and now resides in Los Angeles. She is the daughter of a Jamiacan father and an Indian mother who both emigrated to the Bay Area in the 1960s, and established themselves as activists in the Civil Rights movement in Oakland. Sen. Harris’ interest in justice and equal rights was instilled at a young age when she participated in civil rights protests in Oakland alongside her activist parents, and was further shaped when she was included in the second class of students to be bussed as part of Berkley’s efforts toward school integration. She attended Howard University, one of America’s HBCU institutions, for undergraduate studies, and completed her law degree at the University of California, Hastings. 
  • Re-elect Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep CA-12 on the right track.

    About the Position

    The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals. Each district elects a representative to the House of Representatives for a two-year term. California has 53 congressional representatives. There is no term limit for this position.

    About the District

    California's 12th Congressional District includes part of San Francisco County. Republicans last held this district until 1992, when Tom Lantos won and flipped CA-12 from red to blue; it has been reliably democratic in every election since. Although Nancy Pelosi has been a member of Congress since 1987, she began representing CA-12 in 2013, after the district lines were redrawn. In recent state and federal elections, this district has supported democratic candidates by overwhelming margins. Hillary Clinton earned 86 percent of the vote in 2016, and Gavin Newsom earned 87 percent of the vote in 2018.

    About the Race

    In the primary, Democratic incumbent Representative Nancy Pelosi led Democratic Socialist challenger Shahid Buttar by a margin of 61 percent. Rep. Pelosi has received corporate PAC funds from PG&E, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and FedEx, and has not pledged to refuse fossil fuel or police money in her campaign. She has also received donations from Human Rights Campaign, End Citizens United, and Everytown for Gun Safety PAC. Challenger Buttar has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money, and has not received any corporate PAC donations.

    This race is unique, as Pelosi currently leads the Democratic Caucus as the highest-ranking woman in government, and has been selected by a majority in the House of Representatives to serve as Speaker of the House. This position makes her 2nd in the line of succession to the Presidency.

    About the Candidate

    Congressional Representative and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is originally from Baltimore, Maryland, and is the daughter of former Baltimore Democratic Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro Jr. She is the incumbent, having served in Congress since 1987. She first moved to San Francisco in 1969 and started a Democratic Party club at her home. When she entered politics, it was originally behind the scenes as a fundraiser and recruiter of Democratic candidates. It wasn’t until she turned 47, after her youngest child had left for college, that she ran for office herself in 1987, raising $1 million in seven weeks to win a special election and her first term in Congress. Speaker Pelosi is the 52nd speaker of the House of Representatives. She is the first woman to serve as speaker of the House and is in her third term in this position.

    In representing the needs and interests of the 12th Congressional District, Speaker Pelosi has advanced local policy priorities that have historically pushed the country in a progressive direction. Speaker Pelosi played a role in resetting the agenda on LGBTQIA+ rights and the AIDS crisis during a time when both were vilified in the national debate. Speaker Pelosi also played a major role in designing the landmark assault weapons ban that passed in 1994 and was in effect until it expired in 2004.

    In her role as speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi decides which legislation is voted on. Under her leadership, the Democratic caucus in the House has steered a firmly moderate course, driven by deep relationships with donors and special interests and a rejection of taking bold, values-driven stances that align with broad public sentiment. Recent critiques of Speaker Pelosi’s leadership include her combative stance toward younger, more progressive, and vocal women of color in Congress, her endorsement of Joe Kennedy III over incumbent senator Ed Markey, her reluctant impeachment of Donald Trump on only the narrowest of grounds, her lack of support for a Green New Deal (or any other proposal) to avoid climate armageddon, and her choice of leadership at the DCCC--which has actively tried to protect incumbent Democrats from progressive challengers, no matter how abhorrent their records.

    As the leader of the House, Speaker Pelosi’s priorities in recent months have been focused on pushing for additional stimulus and support funding in response to COVID-19. If re-elected, she promises to prioritize rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, enhancing the Affordable Care Act, allowing the federal government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, and defending our democracy from foreign attacks.

    While challenger Democratic Socialist Shahid Buttar has committed to pushing a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and voting, disability, and digital rights, his campaign has been accused of toxic workplace conditions with a particularly hostile environment for women working on this team. As a result, local progressive groups have stepped back from his campaign.

    Speaker Pelosi has been endorsed by many statewide and local progressive groups, including End Citizens United, Planned Parenthood, EMILY’s List, and SF Rising Action. According to our analysis, Speaker Pelosi remains the strongest choice for representative leadership in office in this election despite a troubling legacy of moderate leadership during a time when the country deserves a bold, progressive vision. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Nancy Pelosi

    Re-elect Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep CA-12 on the right track.

    About the Position

    Re-elect Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep CA-12 on the right track.

    About the Position

    The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals. Each district elects a representative to the House of Representatives for a two-year term. California has 53 congressional representatives. There is no term limit for this position.

    About the District

    California's 12th Congressional District includes part of San Francisco County. Republicans last held this district until 1992, when Tom Lantos won and flipped CA-12 from red to blue; it has been reliably democratic in every election since. Although Nancy Pelosi has been a member of Congress since 1987, she began representing CA-12 in 2013, after the district lines were redrawn. In recent state and federal elections, this district has supported democratic candidates by overwhelming margins. Hillary Clinton earned 86 percent of the vote in 2016, and Gavin Newsom earned 87 percent of the vote in 2018.

    About the Race

    In the primary, Democratic incumbent Representative Nancy Pelosi led Democratic Socialist challenger Shahid Buttar by a margin of 61 percent. Rep. Pelosi has received corporate PAC funds from PG&E, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and FedEx, and has not pledged to refuse fossil fuel or police money in her campaign. She has also received donations from Human Rights Campaign, End Citizens United, and Everytown for Gun Safety PAC. Challenger Buttar has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money, and has not received any corporate PAC donations.

    This race is unique, as Pelosi currently leads the Democratic Caucus as the highest-ranking woman in government, and has been selected by a majority in the House of Representatives to serve as Speaker of the House. This position makes her 2nd in the line of succession to the Presidency.

    About the Candidate

    Congressional Representative and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is originally from Baltimore, Maryland, and is the daughter of former Baltimore Democratic Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro Jr. She is the incumbent, having served in Congress since 1987. She first moved to San Francisco in 1969 and started a Democratic Party club at her home. When she entered politics, it was originally behind the scenes as a fundraiser and recruiter of Democratic candidates. It wasn’t until she turned 47, after her youngest child had left for college, that she ran for office herself in 1987, raising $1 million in seven weeks to win a special election and her first term in Congress. Speaker Pelosi is the 52nd speaker of the House of Representatives. She is the first woman to serve as speaker of the House and is in her third term in this position.

    In representing the needs and interests of the 12th Congressional District, Speaker Pelosi has advanced local policy priorities that have historically pushed the country in a progressive direction. Speaker Pelosi played a role in resetting the agenda on LGBTQIA+ rights and the AIDS crisis during a time when both were vilified in the national debate. Speaker Pelosi also played a major role in designing the landmark assault weapons ban that passed in 1994 and was in effect until it expired in 2004.

    In her role as speaker of the House, Speaker Pelosi decides which legislation is voted on. Under her leadership, the Democratic caucus in the House has steered a firmly moderate course, driven by deep relationships with donors and special interests and a rejection of taking bold, values-driven stances that align with broad public sentiment. Recent critiques of Speaker Pelosi’s leadership include her combative stance toward younger, more progressive, and vocal women of color in Congress, her endorsement of Joe Kennedy III over incumbent senator Ed Markey, her reluctant impeachment of Donald Trump on only the narrowest of grounds, her lack of support for a Green New Deal (or any other proposal) to avoid climate armageddon, and her choice of leadership at the DCCC--which has actively tried to protect incumbent Democrats from progressive challengers, no matter how abhorrent their records.

    As the leader of the House, Speaker Pelosi’s priorities in recent months have been focused on pushing for additional stimulus and support funding in response to COVID-19. If re-elected, she promises to prioritize rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, enhancing the Affordable Care Act, allowing the federal government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, and defending our democracy from foreign attacks.

    While challenger Democratic Socialist Shahid Buttar has committed to pushing a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and voting, disability, and digital rights, his campaign has been accused of toxic workplace conditions with a particularly hostile environment for women working on this team. As a result, local progressive groups have stepped back from his campaign.

    Speaker Pelosi has been endorsed by many statewide and local progressive groups, including End Citizens United, Planned Parenthood, EMILY’s List, and SF Rising Action. According to our analysis, Speaker Pelosi remains the strongest choice for representative leadership in office in this election despite a troubling legacy of moderate leadership during a time when the country deserves a bold, progressive vision. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

    Nancy Pelosi

    Re-elect Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep CA-12 on the right track.

    About the Position

No Recommendation

Based on our analysis, there is no progressive candidate to recommend for your vote in this race.

About the Position

State Assembly Members form part of the California State Legislature, and work alongside the governor to establish laws and a state budget. They hold the power to pass bills that affect public policy, set state spending levels, raise and lower taxes, and uphold or override the governor’s vetoes. The California State Assembly has 80 districts. Each represents a population of at least 465,000 Californians. Representatives are elected to the Assembly for a two-year term. Every two years, all 80 seats are subject to election. Members elected before 2012 are restricted to three two-year terms (six years) in the Assembly. Those elected in or after 2012 are allowed to serve 12 years total across both the State Senate and Assembly. This term, Democrats currently hold a two-thirds supermajority of 61 seats in the California State Assembly, while Republicans hold 17 seats. One seat is held by an Independent, and one seat is currently vacant.

About the District

California’s 14th Assembly District includes parts of Contra Costa and Solano County. Notable cities within the district include Concord, Vallejo, Pittsburg and Martinez. Democrats typically hold this district. Most recent election results show AD-14 voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Gavin Newsom in 2018, both with large victory margins. The district is composed mostly of middle-class and working-class families.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Tim Grayson led Republican challenger Janell Proctor by a nearly 41 percent margin. Grayson’s campaign has raised upwards of $216,000 and is largely funded through significant donations from law enforcement, corporations, and fossil fuel industries. Republican opponent Janell Proctor is funded through individual contributions.

About the Incumbent

Tim Grayson is the incumbent, having served as assemblymember since 2016. Grayson holds regressive positions on issues of environmental protections, police accountability, and decarceration. Grayson refused to vote on AB 965, which aimed to allow incarcerated youth to earn time off toward their earliest parole date. He has also abstained or voted no on legislation in support of workplace rights (AB 749, AB 1066, AB 51, AB 403, AB 218).

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Grayson is currently working on passing a cap on interest rates on consumer loans that target financially vulnerable families with unaffordable loans they cannot repay. He has also authored legislation that aims to increase transparency and accountability in the University of California system and to streamline the development of areas affected by military base closures into commercial and residential areas. Assemblymember Grayson currently serves as chair of the Select Committee on Streamlining Services for Victims of Interpersonal Violence, and is a member of other committees, including Banking and Finance, Business and Professions, and Insurance. Prior to his election to the State Assembly, he served as a councilmember and mayor of Concord, and he founded the Family Justice Center to support victims of domestic violence, child and elderly abuse, and human trafficking in the Concord area. He also worked as the City of Concord’s police chaplain, directly working with survivors of violent crimes, their families, and first responders.

A significant area of concern is Grayson’s stance on law enforcement. Of the cities located within AD-14, Vallejo has a significant minority population that is roughly evenly split between Black, Latino, Asian, and white residents. Vallejo is currently the city with the highest per capita police-killings rate in Northern California, resulting in 19 deaths since 2010. The recent death of Sean Monterrosa in June and Willie McCoy in 2019 sparked national outrage, and have brought attention to the lack of police accountability in the district. Despite this, Grayson has voted against legislation aimed at improving police accountability (AB 1600). He has received thousands of dollars of law-enforcement funding, and is officially endorsed by Peace Officers Research Association of California, the largest law-enforcement organization in the state.

Assemblymember Grayson also has regressive stances on issues of environmental conservation. He has repeatedly voted no and abstained from voting on legislation to protect California waters, prevent oil spills and drilling, and increase environmental protections. His campaign is largely funded through contributions from the fossil fuel industry, resulting in a concerning conflict of interest.

Assemblymember Grayson’s campaign finances are incredibly regressive. In the 2016 election, IEs spent more than $7.2 million helping him get elected. Over $4.5 million of that came from just four sources: IE committees that spent millions every year on behalf of Chevron, PG&E, and other corporate giantslizards. Grayson’s biggest cheerleader was EdVoice, the billionaire-backed for-profit charter-school lobby, which spent a whopping $2.5 million on his behalf. His current campaign has  raised more than $216,000 and is largely funded through significant donations from law enforcement, corporations, and fossil fuel industries.

Because the Democratic candidate in this race is considered to be a safe win in this district, we feel comfortable providing no recommendation in this race. Keep reading for progressive recommendations in other key races and on ballot measures where your vote can make a critical difference.

 

No Progressive Candidate - AD14

Based on our analysis, there is no progressive candidate to recommend for your vote in this race.

About the Position

State Assembly Members form part of the California State Legislature, and work alongside the governor to establish laws and a state budget. They hold the power to pass bills that affect public policy, set state spending levels, raise and lower taxes, and uphold or override the governor’s vetoes. The California State Assembly has 80 districts. Each represents a population of at least 465,000 Californians. Representatives are elected to the Assembly for a two-year term. Every two years, all 80 seats are subject to election. Members elected before 2012 are restricted to three two-year terms (six years) in the Assembly. Those elected in or after 2012 are allowed to serve 12 years total across both the State Senate and Assembly. This term, Democrats currently hold a two-thirds supermajority of 61 seats in the California State Assembly, while Republicans hold 17 seats. One seat is held by an Independent, and one seat is currently vacant.

About the District

California’s 14th Assembly District includes parts of Contra Costa and Solano County. Notable cities within the district include Concord, Vallejo, Pittsburg and Martinez. Democrats typically hold this district. Most recent election results show AD-14 voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Gavin Newsom in 2018, both with large victory margins. The district is composed mostly of middle-class and working-class families.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Tim Grayson led Republican challenger Janell Proctor by a nearly 41 percent margin. Grayson’s campaign has raised upwards of $216,000 and is largely funded through significant donations from law enforcement, corporations, and fossil fuel industries. Republican opponent Janell Proctor is funded through individual contributions.

About the Incumbent

Tim Grayson is the incumbent, having served as assemblymember since 2016. Grayson holds regressive positions on issues of environmental protections, police accountability, and decarceration. Grayson refused to vote on AB 965, which aimed to allow incarcerated youth to earn time off toward their earliest parole date. He has also abstained or voted no on legislation in support of workplace rights (AB 749, AB 1066, AB 51, AB 403, AB 218).

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Grayson is currently working on passing a cap on interest rates on consumer loans that target financially vulnerable families with unaffordable loans they cannot repay. He has also authored legislation that aims to increase transparency and accountability in the University of California system and to streamline the development of areas affected by military base closures into commercial and residential areas. Assemblymember Grayson currently serves as chair of the Select Committee on Streamlining Services for Victims of Interpersonal Violence, and is a member of other committees, including Banking and Finance, Business and Professions, and Insurance. Prior to his election to the State Assembly, he served as a councilmember and mayor of Concord, and he founded the Family Justice Center to support victims of domestic violence, child and elderly abuse, and human trafficking in the Concord area. He also worked as the City of Concord’s police chaplain, directly working with survivors of violent crimes, their families, and first responders.

A significant area of concern is Grayson’s stance on law enforcement. Of the cities located within AD-14, Vallejo has a significant minority population that is roughly evenly split between Black, Latino, Asian, and white residents. Vallejo is currently the city with the highest per capita police-killings rate in Northern California, resulting in 19 deaths since 2010. The recent death of Sean Monterrosa in June and Willie McCoy in 2019 sparked national outrage, and have brought attention to the lack of police accountability in the district. Despite this, Grayson has voted against legislation aimed at improving police accountability (AB 1600). He has received thousands of dollars of law-enforcement funding, and is officially endorsed by Peace Officers Research Association of California, the largest law-enforcement organization in the state.

Assemblymember Grayson also has regressive stances on issues of environmental conservation. He has repeatedly voted no and abstained from voting on legislation to protect California waters, prevent oil spills and drilling, and increase environmental protections. His campaign is largely funded through contributions from the fossil fuel industry, resulting in a concerning conflict of interest.

Assemblymember Grayson’s campaign finances are incredibly regressive. In the 2016 election, IEs spent more than $7.2 million helping him get elected. Over $4.5 million of that came from just four sources: IE committees that spent millions every year on behalf of Chevron, PG&E, and other corporate giantslizards. Grayson’s biggest cheerleader was EdVoice, the billionaire-backed for-profit charter-school lobby, which spent a whopping $2.5 million on his behalf. His current campaign has  raised more than $216,000 and is largely funded through significant donations from law enforcement, corporations, and fossil fuel industries.

Because the Democratic candidate in this race is considered to be a safe win in this district, we feel comfortable providing no recommendation in this race. Keep reading for progressive recommendations in other key races and on ballot measures where your vote can make a critical difference.

 

No Recommendation

Based on our analysis, there is no progressive candidate to recommend for your vote in this race.

About the Position

State senators represent and advocate for the needs of their district at the California State Capitol. They are responsible for creating legislation that addresses issues within their district, as well as voting and debating on preexisting laws. The California State Senate has 40 districts. Each represents a population of about 930,000 people. Representatives are elected to the Senate for a four-year term. Every two years, half of the Senate's 40 seats are subject to election. Members elected before 2012 are restricted to two four-year terms (eight years) in the Senate. Those elected in or after 2012 are allowed to serve 12 years total across both the State Senate or Assembly. This term, Democrats currently hold a two-thirds supermajority of 29 seats in the California State Senate, while Republicans hold 11 seats.

About the District

California's 7th Senate District includes portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Democrats typically hold this district. Democratic incumbent Senator Steve Glazer has held this office since he was elected in 2015. The most recent election results show 64.3 percent of SD-07 overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, and 63.1 percent voted for Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Senator Steve Glazer led Republican challenger Julie Mobley by a margin of 21.1 percent. Senator Glazer’s campaign is funded by corporate PACs, fossil fuels, and police PACs. Mobley’s campaign has also not committed to any of the funding pledges.

About the Candidate

Glazer is the incumbent, having served as a state senator since 2015.  Based on his track record as the Senate’s lowest-scoring Democrat on Courage Score, with a lifetime score of 32/100, Senator Glazer is likely to provide no progressive leadership in office.

Senator Glazer names his priorities for SD-17 this year as education and the environment, despite having consistently voted to allow various environmental review loopholes for development and housing construction. He failed to support bills like SB 142 and SB 551, which called for the reduction of lead-acid battery pollution and increased accountability for the management of abandoned oil wells. Senator Glazer currently sits on the Agriculture, Education, Governmental Organization, and Insurance Committees, and serves as chair of the Business Committee and Select Committee on Student Success. Senator Glazer has sponsored 46 bills about health, taxes, and business this year, of which eight have successfully passed. Senator Glazer is endorsed by the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and received funding from them, as well as the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

Republican challenger Julie Mobley, an engineer and 2019–2020 Civil Grand Juror, is running to update infrastructure, reduce costs for housing and health care, invest in new technologies, and to support innovative policing. Mobley has lived in the East Bay for over 20 years and believes her experiences as a woman in the male-dominated field of STEM and as a mom gives her an understanding of what the people of SD-07 want and need.

While Senator Glazer is a stronger choice than Republican challenger Julie Mobley, neither demonstrates a commitment to equitable or representative leadership. Because the Democratic candidate in this race is considered to be a safe win in this district, we feel comfortable providing no recommendation in this race. Keep reading for progressive recommendations in other key races and on ballot measures where your vote can make a critical difference.

 

Depending on where you live, you may have the below county-districted races on your ballot.

  • Elect Vinnie Bacon to push Alameda County in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Each of the 58 counties in California is governed by a five-person board of supervisors. A board of supervisors has legislative and executive power to manage county services and resources, including courts, jails, public health, and public lands. They also have quasi-judicial powers, which gives them the right to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and make decisions in a manner similar to judicial courts. Laws passed by Boards of Supervisors are generally called ordinances. Because counties include both incorporated cities, which are administered by their own city councils and unincorporated areas, which are directly administered by the county, ordinances may or may not apply in different areas of the county. Supervisors are typically ‎limited to three terms, or 12 years in office total.

    About the District

    Alameda is California's 7th most populous county. Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors oversees the needs of 1.53 million people and manages an estimated budget of $3.5 billion annually. According to the County Charter, Alameda County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors directly elected by voters in their respective districts. District 1 includes the cities of Fremont, Livermore, and Dublin.

    About the Race

    In the primary, challenger Vinnie Bacon led challenger David Haubert by a margin of 1.3 percent. Bacon’s campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC and fossil fuel money, but has yet to pledge to refuse police money. Haubert’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Neither campaign has made any campaign finance filings.

    About the Candidate

    Vinnie Bacon, an environmental engineer with experience in city planning, has lived in Fremont for more than 20 years. Bacon has served as Fremont City Councilmember since 2016. According to campaign materials, Vinnie Bacon is running to bring integrity, independence, and representation to the district.

    Vinnie Bacon’s priorities for Alameda County this term include the construction of affordable housing, to push for a Green New Deal, and to bring smart traffic and transit planning to the county. His campaign emphasizes clean money and not bowing to deep pockets and special interests. According to campaign materials, Bacon is the only candidate in this election who stands up unambiguously for LGBTQIA+ equality and a woman’s right to choose.

    Councilmember Vinnie Bacon grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and worked as an environmental engineer after college. After moving to Fremont, Bacon worked as transportation planner for several years. Before becoming councilmember, Bacon served on the City of Fremont’s Economic Development Advisory Commission. Councilmember Bacon serves on the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter Executive Committee. As Fremont City Councilmember, Bacon has fought for affordable housing, opposed encroachment on open spaces, demanded an acceleration of the $15 minimum wage, and stood up for DACA recipients against the bigotry of the Trump administration.

    Vinnie Bacon is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. According to our analysis, Vinnie Bacon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

     

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vinnie Bacon

    Elect Vinnie Bacon to push Alameda County in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Each of the 58 counties in California is governed by a five-person board of supervisors. A board of supervisors has legislative and executive power to manage county services and resources, including courts, jails, public health, and public lands. They also have quasi-judicial powers, which gives them the right to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and make decisions in a manner similar to judicial courts. Laws passed by Boards of Supervisors are generally called ordinances. Because counties include both incorporated cities, which are administered by their own city councils and unincorporated areas, which are directly administered by the county, ordinances may or may not apply in different areas of the county. Supervisors are typically ‎limited to three terms, or 12 years in office total.

    About the District

    Alameda is California's 7th most populous county. Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors oversees the needs of 1.53 million people and manages an estimated budget of $3.5 billion annually. According to the County Charter, Alameda County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors directly elected by voters in their respective districts. District 1 includes the cities of Fremont, Livermore, and Dublin.

    About the Race

    In the primary, challenger Vinnie Bacon led challenger David Haubert by a margin of 1.3 percent. Bacon’s campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC and fossil fuel money, but has yet to pledge to refuse police money. Haubert’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Neither campaign has made any campaign finance filings.

    About the Candidate

    Vinnie Bacon, an environmental engineer with experience in city planning, has lived in Fremont for more than 20 years. Bacon has served as Fremont City Councilmember since 2016. According to campaign materials, Vinnie Bacon is running to bring integrity, independence, and representation to the district.

    Vinnie Bacon’s priorities for Alameda County this term include the construction of affordable housing, to push for a Green New Deal, and to bring smart traffic and transit planning to the county. His campaign emphasizes clean money and not bowing to deep pockets and special interests. According to campaign materials, Bacon is the only candidate in this election who stands up unambiguously for LGBTQIA+ equality and a woman’s right to choose.

    Councilmember Vinnie Bacon grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and worked as an environmental engineer after college. After moving to Fremont, Bacon worked as transportation planner for several years. Before becoming councilmember, Bacon served on the City of Fremont’s Economic Development Advisory Commission. Councilmember Bacon serves on the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter Executive Committee. As Fremont City Councilmember, Bacon has fought for affordable housing, opposed encroachment on open spaces, demanded an acceleration of the $15 minimum wage, and stood up for DACA recipients against the bigotry of the Trump administration.

    Vinnie Bacon is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. According to our analysis, Vinnie Bacon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

     

    Elect Vinnie Bacon to push Alameda County in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Each of the 58 counties in California is governed by a five-person board of supervisors. A board of supervisors has legislative and executive power to manage county services and resources, including courts, jails, public health, and public lands. They also have quasi-judicial powers, which gives them the right to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and make decisions in a manner similar to judicial courts. Laws passed by Boards of Supervisors are generally called ordinances. Because counties include both incorporated cities, which are administered by their own city councils and unincorporated areas, which are directly administered by the county, ordinances may or may not apply in different areas of the county. Supervisors are typically ‎limited to three terms, or 12 years in office total.

    About the District

    Alameda is California's 7th most populous county. Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors oversees the needs of 1.53 million people and manages an estimated budget of $3.5 billion annually. According to the County Charter, Alameda County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors directly elected by voters in their respective districts. District 1 includes the cities of Fremont, Livermore, and Dublin.

    About the Race

    In the primary, challenger Vinnie Bacon led challenger David Haubert by a margin of 1.3 percent. Bacon’s campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC and fossil fuel money, but has yet to pledge to refuse police money. Haubert’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Neither campaign has made any campaign finance filings.

    About the Candidate

    Vinnie Bacon, an environmental engineer with experience in city planning, has lived in Fremont for more than 20 years. Bacon has served as Fremont City Councilmember since 2016. According to campaign materials, Vinnie Bacon is running to bring integrity, independence, and representation to the district.

    Vinnie Bacon’s priorities for Alameda County this term include the construction of affordable housing, to push for a Green New Deal, and to bring smart traffic and transit planning to the county. His campaign emphasizes clean money and not bowing to deep pockets and special interests. According to campaign materials, Bacon is the only candidate in this election who stands up unambiguously for LGBTQIA+ equality and a woman’s right to choose.

    Councilmember Vinnie Bacon grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and worked as an environmental engineer after college. After moving to Fremont, Bacon worked as transportation planner for several years. Before becoming councilmember, Bacon served on the City of Fremont’s Economic Development Advisory Commission. Councilmember Bacon serves on the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter Executive Committee. As Fremont City Councilmember, Bacon has fought for affordable housing, opposed encroachment on open spaces, demanded an acceleration of the $15 minimum wage, and stood up for DACA recipients against the bigotry of the Trump administration.

    Vinnie Bacon is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. According to our analysis, Vinnie Bacon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

     

    Vinnie Bacon

    Elect Vinnie Bacon to push Alameda County in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Each of the 58 counties in California is governed by a five-person board of supervisors. A board of supervisors has legislative and executive power to manage county services and resources, including courts, jails, public health, and public lands. They also have quasi-judicial powers, which gives them the right to hold hearings, conduct investigations, and make decisions in a manner similar to judicial courts. Laws passed by Boards of Supervisors are generally called ordinances. Because counties include both incorporated cities, which are administered by their own city councils and unincorporated areas, which are directly administered by the county, ordinances may or may not apply in different areas of the county. Supervisors are typically ‎limited to three terms, or 12 years in office total.

    About the District

    Alameda is California's 7th most populous county. Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors oversees the needs of 1.53 million people and manages an estimated budget of $3.5 billion annually. According to the County Charter, Alameda County is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors directly elected by voters in their respective districts. District 1 includes the cities of Fremont, Livermore, and Dublin.

    About the Race

    In the primary, challenger Vinnie Bacon led challenger David Haubert by a margin of 1.3 percent. Bacon’s campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC and fossil fuel money, but has yet to pledge to refuse police money. Haubert’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Neither campaign has made any campaign finance filings.

    About the Candidate

    Vinnie Bacon, an environmental engineer with experience in city planning, has lived in Fremont for more than 20 years. Bacon has served as Fremont City Councilmember since 2016. According to campaign materials, Vinnie Bacon is running to bring integrity, independence, and representation to the district.

    Vinnie Bacon’s priorities for Alameda County this term include the construction of affordable housing, to push for a Green New Deal, and to bring smart traffic and transit planning to the county. His campaign emphasizes clean money and not bowing to deep pockets and special interests. According to campaign materials, Bacon is the only candidate in this election who stands up unambiguously for LGBTQIA+ equality and a woman’s right to choose.

    Councilmember Vinnie Bacon grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and worked as an environmental engineer after college. After moving to Fremont, Bacon worked as transportation planner for several years. Before becoming councilmember, Bacon served on the City of Fremont’s Economic Development Advisory Commission. Councilmember Bacon serves on the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter Executive Committee. As Fremont City Councilmember, Bacon has fought for affordable housing, opposed encroachment on open spaces, demanded an acceleration of the $15 minimum wage, and stood up for DACA recipients against the bigotry of the Trump administration.

    Vinnie Bacon is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. According to our analysis, Vinnie Bacon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

     

  • Endorsed By: Bay Rising
    Courage Score: https://couragescore.org
  • No Position

    Vote on Stem Cell Research Funding

  • Voters will be asked to vote YES to authorize $5.5 billion in bonds to continue a large-scale, long-term stem cell research funding initiative or vote NO to not authorize bond funding and let the initiative lapse.

    Proposition 14 asks voters to authorize a total of $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to continue the California stem cell agency that funds research, therapy, and grants to educational, nonprofit, and private entities for Alzheimer’s, Parkison’s, epilepsy, strokes, and other central nervous system and brain conditions and diseases. Prop 14 is an extension of Prop 71, which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in 2004. The CIRM ran out of the original Prop 71 funds in 2019 and has not been funding new projects since then.

    YES on Prop 14 Supporters Say

    Vote YES to continue the CIRM, a state agency that has distributed a significant source of funding to scientific research programs and enterprises across the state, both nonprofit and for-profit.

    • Funding from the CIRM has been available for 15 years, and ending the program could have a limiting impact on research programs in areas that include central nervous system and brain conditions, but also immunotherapy trials, cancer research, and vision-loss research currently funded by the CIRM.
    • In 2018 (the last year it was fully funded), CIRM-funded companies raised more than $1 billion in funding from outside investors; a sign of validation not just for the companies and their therapies, but also for CIRM and its judgment.
    • Stem cell research has the potential to lead to groundbreaking medical treatments, which we need more than ever in the face of COVID-19.
    • CIRM has changed its policies for those who receive CIRM funding through an academic or nonprofit institution to require project proposals to address considerations of racial, ethnic, sex, and gender diversity, which is an important step in remedying past inequities in medical research. It is important to note that this policy change does not appear to apply to for-profit entities funded by the CIRM.
    NO on Prop 14 Supporters Say

    Vote NO to not authorize the sale of $5.5 billion in state bonds for the CIRM and eliminate a financially burdensome stem cell research program that no longer has significant impact on medical research.

    • The federal government provides significantly more funding for stem cell research now  than it did 16 years ago, which makes the CIRM less necessary as a source of stem cell research funding. According to National Institute of Health estimates, the federal government will spend $2,129 billion on stem cell research just this year alone, while the CIRM has granted a fraction of that, $2.7 billion, in its entire 16-year history. Private-sector funding is also growing for stem cell research.
    • There is a lack of accountability and transparency around the funds distributed to the various research entities, as there is no legislative oversight in the program design, and the program has built-in conflicts of interest that Prop 14 does not address. In fact, multiple sources state that the majority of the board overseeing the CIRM come from institutions that have received the bulk of the CIRM’s spending.
    • Prop. 71 was designed to kick-start the research at a time when federal funding was blocked. Opponents say the CIRM should continue its work as a self-sustaining nonprofit organization or close down and allow federal grants and venture funding to push the industry forward.
    • The California Constitution prevents the state from holding equity, and Prop 14 is designed in such a way that any returns the state could generate are then used to improve the affordability of stem cell treatments, with no possibility of paying back the interest being paid back over many years by the state.
    • Prop 14 will add billions of dollars in debt through bond financing tied to the state's General Fund. The bond interest has to be paid first, which makes the overall General Fund budget smaller for other services for years, even while the debt from Prop 71 still hasn't been paid back.
    Top Funders of Prop 14

    Robert N. Klein II, a Silicon Valley real estate developer and the top donor for Prop 14, was also the chief author of Proposition 71, which authorized $3 billion in bonds to create and maintain the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in 2004. There is no registered financial opposition.

    Misinformation

    There is no notable misinformation about Proposition 14.

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Voters will be asked to vote YES to authorize $5.5 billion in bonds to continue a large-scale, long-term stem cell research funding initiative or vote NO to not authorize bond funding and let the initiative lapse.

    Proposition 14 asks voters to authorize a total of $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to continue the California stem cell agency that funds research, therapy, and grants to educational, nonprofit, and private entities for Alzheimer’s, Parkison’s, epilepsy, strokes, and other central nervous system and brain conditions and diseases. Prop 14 is an extension of Prop 71, which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in 2004. The CIRM ran out of the original Prop 71 funds in 2019 and has not been funding new projects since then.

    YES on Prop 14 Supporters Say

    Vote YES to continue the CIRM, a state agency that has distributed a significant source of funding to scientific research programs and enterprises across the state, both nonprofit and for-profit.

    • Funding from the CIRM has been available for 15 years, and ending the program could have a limiting impact on research programs in areas that include central nervous system and brain conditions, but also immunotherapy trials, cancer research, and vision-loss research currently funded by the CIRM.
    • In 2018 (the last year it was fully funded), CIRM-funded companies raised more than $1 billion in funding from outside investors; a sign of validation not just for the companies and their therapies, but also for CIRM and its judgment.
    • Stem cell research has the potential to lead to groundbreaking medical treatments, which we need more than ever in the face of COVID-19.
    • CIRM has changed its policies for those who receive CIRM funding through an academic or nonprofit institution to require project proposals to address considerations of racial, ethnic, sex, and gender diversity, which is an important step in remedying past inequities in medical research. It is important to note that this policy change does not appear to apply to for-profit entities funded by the CIRM.
    NO on Prop 14 Supporters Say

    Vote NO to not authorize the sale of $5.5 billion in state bonds for the CIRM and eliminate a financially burdensome stem cell research program that no longer has significant impact on medical research.

    • The federal government provides significantly more funding for stem cell research now  than it did 16 years ago, which makes the CIRM less necessary as a source of stem cell research funding. According to National Institute of Health estimates, the federal government will spend $2,129 billion on stem cell research just this year alone, while the CIRM has granted a fraction of that, $2.7 billion, in its entire 16-year history. Private-sector funding is also growing for stem cell research.
    • There is a lack of accountability and transparency around the funds distributed to the various research entities, as there is no legislative oversight in the program design, and the program has built-in conflicts of interest that Prop 14 does not address. In fact, multiple sources state that the majority of the board overseeing the CIRM come from institutions that have received the bulk of the CIRM’s spending.
    • Prop. 71 was designed to kick-start the research at a time when federal funding was blocked. Opponents say the CIRM should continue its work as a self-sustaining nonprofit organization or close down and allow federal grants and venture funding to push the industry forward.
    • The California Constitution prevents the state from holding equity, and Prop 14 is designed in such a way that any returns the state could generate are then used to improve the affordability of stem cell treatments, with no possibility of paying back the interest being paid back over many years by the state.
    • Prop 14 will add billions of dollars in debt through bond financing tied to the state's General Fund. The bond interest has to be paid first, which makes the overall General Fund budget smaller for other services for years, even while the debt from Prop 71 still hasn't been paid back.
    Top Funders of Prop 14

    Robert N. Klein II, a Silicon Valley real estate developer and the top donor for Prop 14, was also the chief author of Proposition 71, which authorized $3 billion in bonds to create and maintain the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in 2004. There is no registered financial opposition.

    Misinformation

    There is no notable misinformation about Proposition 14.

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape

    Voters will be asked to vote YES to authorize $5.5 billion in bonds to continue a large-scale, long-term stem cell research funding initiative or vote NO to not authorize bond funding and let the initiative lapse.

    Proposition 14 asks voters to authorize a total of $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to continue the California stem cell agency that funds research, therapy, and grants to educational, nonprofit, and private entities for Alzheimer’s, Parkison’s, epilepsy, strokes, and other central nervous system and brain conditions and diseases. Prop 14 is an extension of Prop 71, which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in 2004. The CIRM ran out of the original Prop 71 funds in 2019 and has not been funding new projects since then.

    YES on Prop 14 Supporters Say

    Vote YES to continue the CIRM, a state agency that has distributed a significant source of funding to scientific research programs and enterprises across the state, both nonprofit and for-profit.

    • Funding from the CIRM has been available for 15 years, and ending the program could have a limiting impact on research programs in areas that include central nervous system and brain conditions, but also immunotherapy trials, cancer research, and vision-loss research currently funded by the CIRM.
    • In 2018 (the last year it was fully funded), CIRM-funded companies raised more than $1 billion in funding from outside investors; a sign of validation not just for the companies and their therapies, but also for CIRM and its judgment.
    • Stem cell research has the potential to lead to groundbreaking medical treatments, which we need more than ever in the face of COVID-19.
    • CIRM has changed its policies for those who receive CIRM funding through an academic or nonprofit institution to require project proposals to address considerations of racial, ethnic, sex, and gender diversity, which is an important step in remedying past inequities in medical research. It is important to note that this policy change does not appear to apply to for-profit entities funded by the CIRM.
    NO on Prop 14 Supporters Say

    Vote NO to not authorize the sale of $5.5 billion in state bonds for the CIRM and eliminate a financially burdensome stem cell research program that no longer has significant impact on medical research.

    • The federal government provides significantly more funding for stem cell research now  than it did 16 years ago, which makes the CIRM less necessary as a source of stem cell research funding. According to National Institute of Health estimates, the federal government will spend $2,129 billion on stem cell research just this year alone, while the CIRM has granted a fraction of that, $2.7 billion, in its entire 16-year history. Private-sector funding is also growing for stem cell research.
    • There is a lack of accountability and transparency around the funds distributed to the various research entities, as there is no legislative oversight in the program design, and the program has built-in conflicts of interest that Prop 14 does not address. In fact, multiple sources state that the majority of the board overseeing the CIRM come from institutions that have received the bulk of the CIRM’s spending.
    • Prop. 71 was designed to kick-start the research at a time when federal funding was blocked. Opponents say the CIRM should continue its work as a self-sustaining nonprofit organization or close down and allow federal grants and venture funding to push the industry forward.
    • The California Constitution prevents the state from holding equity, and Prop 14 is designed in such a way that any returns the state could generate are then used to improve the affordability of stem cell treatments, with no possibility of paying back the interest being paid back over many years by the state.
    • Prop 14 will add billions of dollars in debt through bond financing tied to the state's General Fund. The bond interest has to be paid first, which makes the overall General Fund budget smaller for other services for years, even while the debt from Prop 71 still hasn't been paid back.
    Top Funders of Prop 14

    Robert N. Klein II, a Silicon Valley real estate developer and the top donor for Prop 14, was also the chief author of Proposition 71, which authorized $3 billion in bonds to create and maintain the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in 2004. There is no registered financial opposition.

    Misinformation

    There is no notable misinformation about Proposition 14.

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape

    Voters will be asked to vote YES to authorize $5.5 billion in bonds to continue a large-scale, long-term stem cell research funding initiative or vote NO to not authorize bond funding and let the initiative lapse. Proposition 14 asks voters to authorize a total of $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to continue the California stem cell agency that funds research, therapy, and grants to educational, nonprofit, and private entities for Alzheimer’s, Parkison’s, epilepsy, strokes, and other central nervous system and brain conditions and diseases. Prop 14 is an extension of Prop 71, which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in 2004. The CIRM ran out of the original Prop 71 funds in 2019 and has not been funding new projects since then.
  • VOTE YES

    Yes to Schools and Communities First

  • Vote YES on Prop 15 to provide between $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in additional funding to local schools and governments. 

    Proposition 15 asks California voters to raise an estimated $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in funding for local schools and governments by increasing property taxes on commercial and industrial properties based on current market value instead of the price they were purchased for. Based on the most recent report by Blue Sky Consulting Group, 10% of the biggest corporate property owners will pay 92% of the funding and more than 75% of total revenues will come from properties that have not been reassessed since prior to 1990 -- just 2% of all commercial and industrial properties! Proposition 15 will maintain the existing commercial and industrial property tax at a 1% limit and will also maintain existing exemptions for small businesses, homeowners, agricultural lands, and renters.

    Why voting YES on Prop 15 matters
    • Proposition 15 closes a corporate tax loophole by taxing all large commercial properties of $3 million or more at fair market value – not purchase price. This reform will restore $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion of critically needed funds for schools and local community services without raising taxes on homeowners, renters, or small businesses.
    • Prop 15 also cuts taxes for small business owners who have been especially harmed by the pandemic.
    • Prop 15 is a way to invest in our communities without having to raise taxes on small businesses, renters, and homeowners. Closing the corporate tax loophole will restore billions to underfunded public schools that serve low income and communities of color.
    • California schools have the largest class sizes in the nation, and California ranks 41st (with adjusted cost of living) out of all states and Washington, D.C. in spending per K-12 student (California Budget & Policy Center). 
    • California is ranked 51st in three categories: number of K-12 students per teacher, number of K-12 students per guidance counselor, and number of K-12 students per librarian (National Education Association / National Center for Education Statistics).
     
    Misinformation about Prop 15 includes
    • "It hurts small businesses" -- FALSE. Prop 15 exempts small businesses, homeowners, renters, and agricultural land.
    • "It taxes working families" -- FALSE. 92% of the revenue comes from only 10% of large commercial properties that have been undertaxed for decades.
    • "It is a step towards repealing Prop 13" -- FALSE. – This is scare tactic used by large commercial property owners to avoid paying their fair share. Prop 15 protects homeowners, renters and small business owners.
    • "Small business operations from home aren’t protected under Prop 15" -- FALSE. Prop 15 not only clearly exempts small businesses, but helps them by exempting the first $500,000 of business equipment from being taxed. This eliminates this tax for nearly all small businesses.
     
    Primary Funders of Prop 15 include

    Prop 15’s main opponents include realty and industrial property owners, while the California Teachers Association and SEIU California State Council are main supporters.

    Top Funders of Prop 15

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 15

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote YES on Prop 15 to provide between $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in additional funding to local schools and governments. 

    Proposition 15 asks California voters to raise an estimated $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in funding for local schools and governments by increasing property taxes on commercial and industrial properties based on current market value instead of the price they were purchased for. Based on the most recent report by Blue Sky Consulting Group, 10% of the biggest corporate property owners will pay 92% of the funding and more than 75% of total revenues will come from properties that have not been reassessed since prior to 1990 -- just 2% of all commercial and industrial properties! Proposition 15 will maintain the existing commercial and industrial property tax at a 1% limit and will also maintain existing exemptions for small businesses, homeowners, agricultural lands, and renters.

    Why voting YES on Prop 15 matters
    • Proposition 15 closes a corporate tax loophole by taxing all large commercial properties of $3 million or more at fair market value – not purchase price. This reform will restore $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion of critically needed funds for schools and local community services without raising taxes on homeowners, renters, or small businesses.
    • Prop 15 also cuts taxes for small business owners who have been especially harmed by the pandemic.
    • Prop 15 is a way to invest in our communities without having to raise taxes on small businesses, renters, and homeowners. Closing the corporate tax loophole will restore billions to underfunded public schools that serve low income and communities of color.
    • California schools have the largest class sizes in the nation, and California ranks 41st (with adjusted cost of living) out of all states and Washington, D.C. in spending per K-12 student (California Budget & Policy Center). 
    • California is ranked 51st in three categories: number of K-12 students per teacher, number of K-12 students per guidance counselor, and number of K-12 students per librarian (National Education Association / National Center for Education Statistics).
     
    Misinformation about Prop 15 includes
    • "It hurts small businesses" -- FALSE. Prop 15 exempts small businesses, homeowners, renters, and agricultural land.
    • "It taxes working families" -- FALSE. 92% of the revenue comes from only 10% of large commercial properties that have been undertaxed for decades.
    • "It is a step towards repealing Prop 13" -- FALSE. – This is scare tactic used by large commercial property owners to avoid paying their fair share. Prop 15 protects homeowners, renters and small business owners.
    • "Small business operations from home aren’t protected under Prop 15" -- FALSE. Prop 15 not only clearly exempts small businesses, but helps them by exempting the first $500,000 of business equipment from being taxed. This eliminates this tax for nearly all small businesses.
     
    Primary Funders of Prop 15 include

    Prop 15’s main opponents include realty and industrial property owners, while the California Teachers Association and SEIU California State Council are main supporters.

    Top Funders of Prop 15

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 15

    Vote YES on Prop 15 to provide between $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in additional funding to local schools and governments. 

    Proposition 15 asks California voters to raise an estimated $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in funding for local schools and governments by increasing property taxes on commercial and industrial properties based on current market value instead of the price they were purchased for. Based on the most recent report by Blue Sky Consulting Group, 10% of the biggest corporate property owners will pay 92% of the funding and more than 75% of total revenues will come from properties that have not been reassessed since prior to 1990 -- just 2% of all commercial and industrial properties! Proposition 15 will maintain the existing commercial and industrial property tax at a 1% limit and will also maintain existing exemptions for small businesses, homeowners, agricultural lands, and renters.

    Why voting YES on Prop 15 matters
    • Proposition 15 closes a corporate tax loophole by taxing all large commercial properties of $3 million or more at fair market value – not purchase price. This reform will restore $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion of critically needed funds for schools and local community services without raising taxes on homeowners, renters, or small businesses.
    • Prop 15 also cuts taxes for small business owners who have been especially harmed by the pandemic.
    • Prop 15 is a way to invest in our communities without having to raise taxes on small businesses, renters, and homeowners. Closing the corporate tax loophole will restore billions to underfunded public schools that serve low income and communities of color.
    • California schools have the largest class sizes in the nation, and California ranks 41st (with adjusted cost of living) out of all states and Washington, D.C. in spending per K-12 student (California Budget & Policy Center). 
    • California is ranked 51st in three categories: number of K-12 students per teacher, number of K-12 students per guidance counselor, and number of K-12 students per librarian (National Education Association / National Center for Education Statistics).
     
    Misinformation about Prop 15 includes
    • "It hurts small businesses" -- FALSE. Prop 15 exempts small businesses, homeowners, renters, and agricultural land.
    • "It taxes working families" -- FALSE. 92% of the revenue comes from only 10% of large commercial properties that have been undertaxed for decades.
    • "It is a step towards repealing Prop 13" -- FALSE. – This is scare tactic used by large commercial property owners to avoid paying their fair share. Prop 15 protects homeowners, renters and small business owners.
    • "Small business operations from home aren’t protected under Prop 15" -- FALSE. Prop 15 not only clearly exempts small businesses, but helps them by exempting the first $500,000 of business equipment from being taxed. This eliminates this tax for nearly all small businesses.
     
    Primary Funders of Prop 15 include

    Prop 15’s main opponents include realty and industrial property owners, while the California Teachers Association and SEIU California State Council are main supporters.

    Top Funders of Prop 15

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 15

  • VOTE YES

    Yes to Affirmative Action

  • Vote YES on Prop 16 to repeal 1996’s Prop 209 and reinstate affirmative action in the state.

    Proposition 16 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Prop 209’s restrictions on local and state governments from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. If passed, Prop 16 will permit governments to consider those protected categories in order to promote inclusive hiring and admissions programs in California’s public universities, government, and public agencies.

    Why voting YES on Prop 16 matters
    • It is time that California follows the other 42 states that have taken gender, race, ethnicity, and national origin into account for college admissions and hiring in government and public agencies.
    • Prop 209’s affirmative action ban resulted in an over $820 million loss every year in Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise Program (MWBE) contracts with the state of California.
    • Reports conclude that the percentage of contracts granted to MWBEs never returned to pre-Prop 209 levels. Restoring affirmative action is the next step in building a more equitable and diverse future for California.
    • The University of California’s analysis of Prop 209 revealed that affirmative action had increased the population of underrepresented students by at least 12 percent, with the largest effects seen at UCLA and Berkeley.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 16 includes
    • "Gains for women of color in workforce diversity have already been addressed." -- FALSE. Women of color continue to face systemic racism in the wage gap and earn an estimated $946,120 less than white men over a 40-year career.
    • "Black civil workers are overrepresented." -- FALSE. According to the 2018 Civil Service Census of California employees, Black Californians made up 5.5 percent of the total population and 9.8 percent of the total civil-service workforce, compared to white Californians, who made up 37 percent of the total population but 43.5 percent of the total civil-service workforce.
    • "Colleges and universities would be able to use racial quotas." -- FALSE. Racial quotas for university admissions have been outlawed as unconstitutional since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 16 include
    • Opposition to Prop 16 is sponsored by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., which contributed to the Californians for Equal Rights committee.
    • Support for Prop 16 is largely financed by philanthropists M. Quinn Delaney and Patty Quillin, California Nurses Association Initiative PAC, California Works (a project of California Labor Federation AFL-CIO), and Elizabeth Cabraser.
     
    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 16

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote YES on Prop 16 to repeal 1996’s Prop 209 and reinstate affirmative action in the state.

    Proposition 16 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Prop 209’s restrictions on local and state governments from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. If passed, Prop 16 will permit governments to consider those protected categories in order to promote inclusive hiring and admissions programs in California’s public universities, government, and public agencies.

    Why voting YES on Prop 16 matters
    • It is time that California follows the other 42 states that have taken gender, race, ethnicity, and national origin into account for college admissions and hiring in government and public agencies.
    • Prop 209’s affirmative action ban resulted in an over $820 million loss every year in Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise Program (MWBE) contracts with the state of California.
    • Reports conclude that the percentage of contracts granted to MWBEs never returned to pre-Prop 209 levels. Restoring affirmative action is the next step in building a more equitable and diverse future for California.
    • The University of California’s analysis of Prop 209 revealed that affirmative action had increased the population of underrepresented students by at least 12 percent, with the largest effects seen at UCLA and Berkeley.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 16 includes
    • "Gains for women of color in workforce diversity have already been addressed." -- FALSE. Women of color continue to face systemic racism in the wage gap and earn an estimated $946,120 less than white men over a 40-year career.
    • "Black civil workers are overrepresented." -- FALSE. According to the 2018 Civil Service Census of California employees, Black Californians made up 5.5 percent of the total population and 9.8 percent of the total civil-service workforce, compared to white Californians, who made up 37 percent of the total population but 43.5 percent of the total civil-service workforce.
    • "Colleges and universities would be able to use racial quotas." -- FALSE. Racial quotas for university admissions have been outlawed as unconstitutional since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 16 include
    • Opposition to Prop 16 is sponsored by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., which contributed to the Californians for Equal Rights committee.
    • Support for Prop 16 is largely financed by philanthropists M. Quinn Delaney and Patty Quillin, California Nurses Association Initiative PAC, California Works (a project of California Labor Federation AFL-CIO), and Elizabeth Cabraser.
     
    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 16

    Vote YES on Prop 16 to repeal 1996’s Prop 209 and reinstate affirmative action in the state.

    Proposition 16 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Prop 209’s restrictions on local and state governments from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. If passed, Prop 16 will permit governments to consider those protected categories in order to promote inclusive hiring and admissions programs in California’s public universities, government, and public agencies.

    Why voting YES on Prop 16 matters
    • It is time that California follows the other 42 states that have taken gender, race, ethnicity, and national origin into account for college admissions and hiring in government and public agencies.
    • Prop 209’s affirmative action ban resulted in an over $820 million loss every year in Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise Program (MWBE) contracts with the state of California.
    • Reports conclude that the percentage of contracts granted to MWBEs never returned to pre-Prop 209 levels. Restoring affirmative action is the next step in building a more equitable and diverse future for California.
    • The University of California’s analysis of Prop 209 revealed that affirmative action had increased the population of underrepresented students by at least 12 percent, with the largest effects seen at UCLA and Berkeley.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 16 includes
    • "Gains for women of color in workforce diversity have already been addressed." -- FALSE. Women of color continue to face systemic racism in the wage gap and earn an estimated $946,120 less than white men over a 40-year career.
    • "Black civil workers are overrepresented." -- FALSE. According to the 2018 Civil Service Census of California employees, Black Californians made up 5.5 percent of the total population and 9.8 percent of the total civil-service workforce, compared to white Californians, who made up 37 percent of the total population but 43.5 percent of the total civil-service workforce.
    • "Colleges and universities would be able to use racial quotas." -- FALSE. Racial quotas for university admissions have been outlawed as unconstitutional since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 16 include
    • Opposition to Prop 16 is sponsored by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., which contributed to the Californians for Equal Rights committee.
    • Support for Prop 16 is largely financed by philanthropists M. Quinn Delaney and Patty Quillin, California Nurses Association Initiative PAC, California Works (a project of California Labor Federation AFL-CIO), and Elizabeth Cabraser.
     
    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 16

  • VOTE YES

    Yes to Restored Voting Rights

  • Vote YES on Prop 17 to restore voting rights to Californians on parole. 

    Proposition 17 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to restore voting rights to persons who have been disqualified from voting while on parole. If passed, Prop 17 will restore voting rights to approximately 50,000 Californians currently on parole.

    Why voting YES on Prop 17 matters
    • California is one of the 31 states that do not automatically restore voting rights upon completion of a person’s sentence. In Maine and Vermont, there are no laws that disenfranchise and discriminate against people with criminal convictions even when they’re still serving out their sentences.
    • Parolees who are reintegrating into society resume other civic responsibilities, such as paying taxes and jury duty. Being barred from voting while paying taxes is taxation without representation.
    • In 2017, Black Californians made up 28% of all prison populations despite only making up 6% of California’s total population. With an astonishing and horrifying incarceration rate at 8 times the rate of white Californians, it is clear that the disenfranchisement of parolees is the disenfranchisement of Black voters.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 17 includes
    • "Voting is a privilege" -- FALSE. Voting is a right, not privilege. Projecting voting as a privilege and not a right inherently undermines our democracy. 
    • "Individuals who have not completed their parole period have not completed their sentence" -- FALSE. As soon as a person completes their sentence in prison, they are released into their parole period in order to reintegrate into society. The sentence in prison and parole period are two separate phases.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 17 include

    There are no contributions recorded for support or opposition to Prop 17.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 17

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote YES on Prop 17 to restore voting rights to Californians on parole. 

    Proposition 17 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to restore voting rights to persons who have been disqualified from voting while on parole. If passed, Prop 17 will restore voting rights to approximately 50,000 Californians currently on parole.

    Why voting YES on Prop 17 matters
    • California is one of the 31 states that do not automatically restore voting rights upon completion of a person’s sentence. In Maine and Vermont, there are no laws that disenfranchise and discriminate against people with criminal convictions even when they’re still serving out their sentences.
    • Parolees who are reintegrating into society resume other civic responsibilities, such as paying taxes and jury duty. Being barred from voting while paying taxes is taxation without representation.
    • In 2017, Black Californians made up 28% of all prison populations despite only making up 6% of California’s total population. With an astonishing and horrifying incarceration rate at 8 times the rate of white Californians, it is clear that the disenfranchisement of parolees is the disenfranchisement of Black voters.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 17 includes
    • "Voting is a privilege" -- FALSE. Voting is a right, not privilege. Projecting voting as a privilege and not a right inherently undermines our democracy. 
    • "Individuals who have not completed their parole period have not completed their sentence" -- FALSE. As soon as a person completes their sentence in prison, they are released into their parole period in order to reintegrate into society. The sentence in prison and parole period are two separate phases.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 17 include

    There are no contributions recorded for support or opposition to Prop 17.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 17

    Vote YES on Prop 17 to restore voting rights to Californians on parole. 

    Proposition 17 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to restore voting rights to persons who have been disqualified from voting while on parole. If passed, Prop 17 will restore voting rights to approximately 50,000 Californians currently on parole.

    Why voting YES on Prop 17 matters
    • California is one of the 31 states that do not automatically restore voting rights upon completion of a person’s sentence. In Maine and Vermont, there are no laws that disenfranchise and discriminate against people with criminal convictions even when they’re still serving out their sentences.
    • Parolees who are reintegrating into society resume other civic responsibilities, such as paying taxes and jury duty. Being barred from voting while paying taxes is taxation without representation.
    • In 2017, Black Californians made up 28% of all prison populations despite only making up 6% of California’s total population. With an astonishing and horrifying incarceration rate at 8 times the rate of white Californians, it is clear that the disenfranchisement of parolees is the disenfranchisement of Black voters.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 17 includes
    • "Voting is a privilege" -- FALSE. Voting is a right, not privilege. Projecting voting as a privilege and not a right inherently undermines our democracy. 
    • "Individuals who have not completed their parole period have not completed their sentence" -- FALSE. As soon as a person completes their sentence in prison, they are released into their parole period in order to reintegrate into society. The sentence in prison and parole period are two separate phases.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 17 include

    There are no contributions recorded for support or opposition to Prop 17.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 17

  • VOTE YES

    Yes to Expanded Voting Rights

  • Vote YES on Prop 18 to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election.

    Proposition 18 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election. At the age of 18, Californians are technically given the right to vote in all elections. However, those who are not 18 by the time of the primary are not able to have input on who would or would not appear on their ballot in the general election. A YES vote on Prop 18 solves this problem.

    Why voting YES on Prop 18 matters
    • Nineteen other states, including D.C., allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will be 18 by the general election.
    • Research has proven time and again that voting is habit-forming. These states recognize the importance of allowing 18-year-olds to vote, to help form their voting habits and amplify their voices.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 18 include

    There are no recorded contributions in support of or opposition to Prop 18.

     
    Misinformation about Prop 18 includes

    There is no prominent misinformation about Prop 18.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 18

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote YES on Prop 18 to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election.

    Proposition 18 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election. At the age of 18, Californians are technically given the right to vote in all elections. However, those who are not 18 by the time of the primary are not able to have input on who would or would not appear on their ballot in the general election. A YES vote on Prop 18 solves this problem.

    Why voting YES on Prop 18 matters
    • Nineteen other states, including D.C., allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will be 18 by the general election.
    • Research has proven time and again that voting is habit-forming. These states recognize the importance of allowing 18-year-olds to vote, to help form their voting habits and amplify their voices.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 18 include

    There are no recorded contributions in support of or opposition to Prop 18.

     
    Misinformation about Prop 18 includes

    There is no prominent misinformation about Prop 18.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 18

    Vote YES on Prop 18 to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election.

    Proposition 18 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election. At the age of 18, Californians are technically given the right to vote in all elections. However, those who are not 18 by the time of the primary are not able to have input on who would or would not appear on their ballot in the general election. A YES vote on Prop 18 solves this problem.

    Why voting YES on Prop 18 matters
    • Nineteen other states, including D.C., allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will be 18 by the general election.
    • Research has proven time and again that voting is habit-forming. These states recognize the importance of allowing 18-year-olds to vote, to help form their voting habits and amplify their voices.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 18 include

    There are no recorded contributions in support of or opposition to Prop 18.

     
    Misinformation about Prop 18 includes

    There is no prominent misinformation about Prop 18.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 18

  • VOTE NO

    No to More Housing Inequity

  • Vote NO on Proposition 19 to maintain property tax savings for all and avoid increasing housing inequity.

    Proposition 19 asks voters to amend sections of 1978’s Proposition 13 to increase the number of times a property tax base can be transferred to three times for longtime homeowners. Prop 19 is almost exactly the same as Proposition 5, which was on the 2018 California ballot and overwhelmingly defeated by voters, with 60 percent having voted against the proposition. The main difference in the proposition this year is that Prop 19 includes an additional amendment to Prop 13 that narrows an existing inheritance property tax break and promises to distribute any revenue generated from that amendment toward fire protection agencies and schools.

    Why voting NO on Prop 19 matters
    • Proposition 19 widens the generational wealth gap by giving homeowners older than 55 and other qualified groups a way to keep property tax breaks they receive for having bought their homes decades ago if they move anywhere else in the state, up to three times. They can also keep that break if they move to a more expensive property.
    • Proposition 13 caps most property tax rates at 1 percent of a home’s sale price and holds annual increases in assessed value to 2 percent or less. This means people who purchased their home a few decades ago already pay significantly less property tax than newer homeowners. Prop 19 further builds the wealth of longtime homeowners and denies wealth-building opportunities to people who don’t own a home or who may be struggling to buy one.
    • While Prop 19 does eliminate a $1 million property tax exemption for parent-to-child transfers and could potentially generate state revenue that would be distributed to fire protection agencies and schools, this amendment is being paired with the primary tax break for longtime homeowners to make it more appealing.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 19

    Realtor associations have contributed $36,270,000 in support of Prop 19. There is no registered financial opposition.

     
    Misinformation

    There is no prominent misinformation about Proposition 19.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 19

     

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote NO on Proposition 19 to maintain property tax savings for all and avoid increasing housing inequity.

    Proposition 19 asks voters to amend sections of 1978’s Proposition 13 to increase the number of times a property tax base can be transferred to three times for longtime homeowners. Prop 19 is almost exactly the same as Proposition 5, which was on the 2018 California ballot and overwhelmingly defeated by voters, with 60 percent having voted against the proposition. The main difference in the proposition this year is that Prop 19 includes an additional amendment to Prop 13 that narrows an existing inheritance property tax break and promises to distribute any revenue generated from that amendment toward fire protection agencies and schools.

    Why voting NO on Prop 19 matters
    • Proposition 19 widens the generational wealth gap by giving homeowners older than 55 and other qualified groups a way to keep property tax breaks they receive for having bought their homes decades ago if they move anywhere else in the state, up to three times. They can also keep that break if they move to a more expensive property.
    • Proposition 13 caps most property tax rates at 1 percent of a home’s sale price and holds annual increases in assessed value to 2 percent or less. This means people who purchased their home a few decades ago already pay significantly less property tax than newer homeowners. Prop 19 further builds the wealth of longtime homeowners and denies wealth-building opportunities to people who don’t own a home or who may be struggling to buy one.
    • While Prop 19 does eliminate a $1 million property tax exemption for parent-to-child transfers and could potentially generate state revenue that would be distributed to fire protection agencies and schools, this amendment is being paired with the primary tax break for longtime homeowners to make it more appealing.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 19

    Realtor associations have contributed $36,270,000 in support of Prop 19. There is no registered financial opposition.

     
    Misinformation

    There is no prominent misinformation about Proposition 19.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 19

     

    Vote NO on Proposition 19 to maintain property tax savings for all and avoid increasing housing inequity.

    Proposition 19 asks voters to amend sections of 1978’s Proposition 13 to increase the number of times a property tax base can be transferred to three times for longtime homeowners. Prop 19 is almost exactly the same as Proposition 5, which was on the 2018 California ballot and overwhelmingly defeated by voters, with 60 percent having voted against the proposition. The main difference in the proposition this year is that Prop 19 includes an additional amendment to Prop 13 that narrows an existing inheritance property tax break and promises to distribute any revenue generated from that amendment toward fire protection agencies and schools.

    Why voting NO on Prop 19 matters
    • Proposition 19 widens the generational wealth gap by giving homeowners older than 55 and other qualified groups a way to keep property tax breaks they receive for having bought their homes decades ago if they move anywhere else in the state, up to three times. They can also keep that break if they move to a more expensive property.
    • Proposition 13 caps most property tax rates at 1 percent of a home’s sale price and holds annual increases in assessed value to 2 percent or less. This means people who purchased their home a few decades ago already pay significantly less property tax than newer homeowners. Prop 19 further builds the wealth of longtime homeowners and denies wealth-building opportunities to people who don’t own a home or who may be struggling to buy one.
    • While Prop 19 does eliminate a $1 million property tax exemption for parent-to-child transfers and could potentially generate state revenue that would be distributed to fire protection agencies and schools, this amendment is being paired with the primary tax break for longtime homeowners to make it more appealing.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 19

    Realtor associations have contributed $36,270,000 in support of Prop 19. There is no registered financial opposition.

     
    Misinformation

    There is no prominent misinformation about Proposition 19.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 19

     

    Prop 19

    Vote NO on Proposition 19 to maintain property tax savings for all and avoid increasing housing inequity.

  • VOTE NO

    No to More Incarceration

  • Vote NO on Prop 20 to protect criminal justice reforms and constitutional rights to privacy.

    If passed, Prop 20 increases penalties for low-level offenses and would create a state database that collects DNA samples from persons convicted of specified misdemeanors for use in cold cases by repealing parts of Props 47 and 57. Prop 20 would expand the list of offenses that disqualify inmates from a parole program, consider an individual’s collective criminal history and not just their most recent offense, and impose stronger restrictions for a nonviolent offender’s parole program. Additionally, Prop 20 would reclassify theft between $250 and $950 as a felony.

    Why voting NO on Prop 20 matters
    • Prop 20 is a dangerous proposition put forth by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assemblymember Jim Cooper, and it is sponsored by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assemblymember Vince Fong. Time and again, Assemblymembers Cooper and Fong vote to protect police brutality and discriminatory criminal justice policies. Both voted no on AB 1600, which would expedite access to police misconduct records for a trial.
    • Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs, L.A. Police Protective League, and the Peace Officers Research Association of California all support and have heavily financed Prop 20.
    • Prop 20 would increase recidivism by removing positive incentives from Prop 57.
    • Parole review boards would consider an individual’s entire criminal history, not just the offense they are on parole for, when deciding to release a person convicted of a felony on parole.
    Top Funders of Prop 20
    • Three police unions are the top funders in support of Prop 20, including the CA Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Association for LA Deputy Sheriffs, and the LA Police Protective League Issues PAC.
    • Philanthropists are the top funders of campaigns against Prop 20, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Patty Quillin, and Stacy Schusterman.
    Misinformation about Prop 20
    • "Criminals are getting away with more violent crimes." -- FALSE. The nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that Prop 47, which Prop 20 attempts to roll back, not only decreased racial disparities in bookings and arrests, but also found that violent crimes did not increase after it was passed.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 20

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote NO on Prop 20 to protect criminal justice reforms and constitutional rights to privacy.

    If passed, Prop 20 increases penalties for low-level offenses and would create a state database that collects DNA samples from persons convicted of specified misdemeanors for use in cold cases by repealing parts of Props 47 and 57. Prop 20 would expand the list of offenses that disqualify inmates from a parole program, consider an individual’s collective criminal history and not just their most recent offense, and impose stronger restrictions for a nonviolent offender’s parole program. Additionally, Prop 20 would reclassify theft between $250 and $950 as a felony.

    Why voting NO on Prop 20 matters
    • Prop 20 is a dangerous proposition put forth by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assemblymember Jim Cooper, and it is sponsored by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assemblymember Vince Fong. Time and again, Assemblymembers Cooper and Fong vote to protect police brutality and discriminatory criminal justice policies. Both voted no on AB 1600, which would expedite access to police misconduct records for a trial.
    • Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs, L.A. Police Protective League, and the Peace Officers Research Association of California all support and have heavily financed Prop 20.
    • Prop 20 would increase recidivism by removing positive incentives from Prop 57.
    • Parole review boards would consider an individual’s entire criminal history, not just the offense they are on parole for, when deciding to release a person convicted of a felony on parole.
    Top Funders of Prop 20
    • Three police unions are the top funders in support of Prop 20, including the CA Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Association for LA Deputy Sheriffs, and the LA Police Protective League Issues PAC.
    • Philanthropists are the top funders of campaigns against Prop 20, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Patty Quillin, and Stacy Schusterman.
    Misinformation about Prop 20
    • "Criminals are getting away with more violent crimes." -- FALSE. The nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that Prop 47, which Prop 20 attempts to roll back, not only decreased racial disparities in bookings and arrests, but also found that violent crimes did not increase after it was passed.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 20

    Vote NO on Prop 20 to protect criminal justice reforms and constitutional rights to privacy.

    If passed, Prop 20 increases penalties for low-level offenses and would create a state database that collects DNA samples from persons convicted of specified misdemeanors for use in cold cases by repealing parts of Props 47 and 57. Prop 20 would expand the list of offenses that disqualify inmates from a parole program, consider an individual’s collective criminal history and not just their most recent offense, and impose stronger restrictions for a nonviolent offender’s parole program. Additionally, Prop 20 would reclassify theft between $250 and $950 as a felony.

    Why voting NO on Prop 20 matters
    • Prop 20 is a dangerous proposition put forth by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assemblymember Jim Cooper, and it is sponsored by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assemblymember Vince Fong. Time and again, Assemblymembers Cooper and Fong vote to protect police brutality and discriminatory criminal justice policies. Both voted no on AB 1600, which would expedite access to police misconduct records for a trial.
    • Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs, L.A. Police Protective League, and the Peace Officers Research Association of California all support and have heavily financed Prop 20.
    • Prop 20 would increase recidivism by removing positive incentives from Prop 57.
    • Parole review boards would consider an individual’s entire criminal history, not just the offense they are on parole for, when deciding to release a person convicted of a felony on parole.
    Top Funders of Prop 20
    • Three police unions are the top funders in support of Prop 20, including the CA Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Association for LA Deputy Sheriffs, and the LA Police Protective League Issues PAC.
    • Philanthropists are the top funders of campaigns against Prop 20, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Patty Quillin, and Stacy Schusterman.
    Misinformation about Prop 20
    • "Criminals are getting away with more violent crimes." -- FALSE. The nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that Prop 47, which Prop 20 attempts to roll back, not only decreased racial disparities in bookings and arrests, but also found that violent crimes did not increase after it was passed.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 20

  • VOTE YES

    Yes to Local Rent Control

  • Vote YES on Prop 21 to allow cities and counties to establish and regulate rent control.

    Proposition 21 asks voters to amend state law in order to allow (not require) local governments at the city and county levels to establish and regulate rent control on residential properties. This proposition would affect residential properties over 15 years old and exempts individuals who own up to two residential properties. Additionally, Prop 21 would allow rent in rent-controlled properties to increase up to 15 percent over a period of three years with the start of a new tenancy. Prop 21 is more or less the same proposition voters rejected in 2018.

    Why voting YES on Prop 21 matters

    California has the highest rate of homelessness in the nation, which can be attributed to the overwhelmingly high median rates for rent throughout the state forcing residents to pay 50 percent of their income just toward rent.
    The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibits rent control on residential properties built after February 1, 1995. Since then, housing built in California has become accessible only to those who can afford uncontrolled rent increases, and low-income families have largely been shut out from newer housing developments.
    According to a Stanford study, those who lived in rent-controlled properties when Costa-Hawkins passed ended up saving a cumulative total of $7 billion over 18 years, which confirms that rent control is an effective way to prevent displacement from the city.

     
    Misinformation about Prop 21 includes
    • "Makes the housing crisis worse." -- FALSE. With one in three Californians paying 50 percent of their income just for rent, Prop 21 offers local governments the opportunity to prevent displacement, and as a result, prevent homelessness. A person who experiences homelessness will cost taxpayers an average of $35,578, and chronic homelessness generally costs around $100,000.
    • "Removes a landlord’s right to profit." -- FALSE. Prop 21 actually guarantees a landlord’s right to profit.
    • "California just passed AB 1482, which went into effect in January of this year, so California doesn’t need any more rent laws." -- FALSE AB 1482 only affects residential properties built after 2005, and according to Zillow’s analysis, only 7 percent of renters would have benefited from AB 1482’s rent cap in 2018.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 21 include
    • Three of the top 10 property owners in Silicon Valley (Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc., Essex Property Trust, and Equity Residential) have contributed over $10 million in opposition to Prop 21.
    • The leading funder in support of Prop 21 is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and its housing advocacy division Housing Is A Human Right is a leading sponsor of the Rental Affordability Act.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 21

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote YES on Prop 21 to allow cities and counties to establish and regulate rent control.

    Proposition 21 asks voters to amend state law in order to allow (not require) local governments at the city and county levels to establish and regulate rent control on residential properties. This proposition would affect residential properties over 15 years old and exempts individuals who own up to two residential properties. Additionally, Prop 21 would allow rent in rent-controlled properties to increase up to 15 percent over a period of three years with the start of a new tenancy. Prop 21 is more or less the same proposition voters rejected in 2018.

    Why voting YES on Prop 21 matters

    California has the highest rate of homelessness in the nation, which can be attributed to the overwhelmingly high median rates for rent throughout the state forcing residents to pay 50 percent of their income just toward rent.
    The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibits rent control on residential properties built after February 1, 1995. Since then, housing built in California has become accessible only to those who can afford uncontrolled rent increases, and low-income families have largely been shut out from newer housing developments.
    According to a Stanford study, those who lived in rent-controlled properties when Costa-Hawkins passed ended up saving a cumulative total of $7 billion over 18 years, which confirms that rent control is an effective way to prevent displacement from the city.

     
    Misinformation about Prop 21 includes
    • "Makes the housing crisis worse." -- FALSE. With one in three Californians paying 50 percent of their income just for rent, Prop 21 offers local governments the opportunity to prevent displacement, and as a result, prevent homelessness. A person who experiences homelessness will cost taxpayers an average of $35,578, and chronic homelessness generally costs around $100,000.
    • "Removes a landlord’s right to profit." -- FALSE. Prop 21 actually guarantees a landlord’s right to profit.
    • "California just passed AB 1482, which went into effect in January of this year, so California doesn’t need any more rent laws." -- FALSE AB 1482 only affects residential properties built after 2005, and according to Zillow’s analysis, only 7 percent of renters would have benefited from AB 1482’s rent cap in 2018.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 21 include
    • Three of the top 10 property owners in Silicon Valley (Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc., Essex Property Trust, and Equity Residential) have contributed over $10 million in opposition to Prop 21.
    • The leading funder in support of Prop 21 is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and its housing advocacy division Housing Is A Human Right is a leading sponsor of the Rental Affordability Act.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 21

    Vote YES on Prop 21 to allow cities and counties to establish and regulate rent control.

    Proposition 21 asks voters to amend state law in order to allow (not require) local governments at the city and county levels to establish and regulate rent control on residential properties. This proposition would affect residential properties over 15 years old and exempts individuals who own up to two residential properties. Additionally, Prop 21 would allow rent in rent-controlled properties to increase up to 15 percent over a period of three years with the start of a new tenancy. Prop 21 is more or less the same proposition voters rejected in 2018.

    Why voting YES on Prop 21 matters

    California has the highest rate of homelessness in the nation, which can be attributed to the overwhelmingly high median rates for rent throughout the state forcing residents to pay 50 percent of their income just toward rent.
    The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibits rent control on residential properties built after February 1, 1995. Since then, housing built in California has become accessible only to those who can afford uncontrolled rent increases, and low-income families have largely been shut out from newer housing developments.
    According to a Stanford study, those who lived in rent-controlled properties when Costa-Hawkins passed ended up saving a cumulative total of $7 billion over 18 years, which confirms that rent control is an effective way to prevent displacement from the city.

     
    Misinformation about Prop 21 includes
    • "Makes the housing crisis worse." -- FALSE. With one in three Californians paying 50 percent of their income just for rent, Prop 21 offers local governments the opportunity to prevent displacement, and as a result, prevent homelessness. A person who experiences homelessness will cost taxpayers an average of $35,578, and chronic homelessness generally costs around $100,000.
    • "Removes a landlord’s right to profit." -- FALSE. Prop 21 actually guarantees a landlord’s right to profit.
    • "California just passed AB 1482, which went into effect in January of this year, so California doesn’t need any more rent laws." -- FALSE AB 1482 only affects residential properties built after 2005, and according to Zillow’s analysis, only 7 percent of renters would have benefited from AB 1482’s rent cap in 2018.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 21 include
    • Three of the top 10 property owners in Silicon Valley (Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc., Essex Property Trust, and Equity Residential) have contributed over $10 million in opposition to Prop 21.
    • The leading funder in support of Prop 21 is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and its housing advocacy division Housing Is A Human Right is a leading sponsor of the Rental Affordability Act.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 21

  • VOTE NO

    No to Worker Exploitation

  • Vote NO on Prop 22 to protect labor rights and classify app-based drivers as employees, not contractors.

    Proposition 22 asks voters to exempt companies like Lyft, Postmates, Uber, DoorDash, and others from a recently implemented state worker protection law, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), so they can classify gig economy drivers from ride-share and delivery companies as independent contractors, not as employees. Additionally, Prop 22 would restrict local regulation of app-based drivers and would criminalize the impersonation of drivers.

    Why voting NO on Prop 22 matters
    • By classifying workers as contractors and not employees, companies like Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are exempted by state employment laws from ensuring basic protections to their workforce including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

    • Currently, rideshare and delivery workers are entitled under AB 5 to labor rights that every other employee in California receives, such as the right to organize, health insurance, and Social Security benefits. Prop 22 would take those rights away.

    • AB 5 also guarantees paid family leave, paid sick days, and unemployment insurance to those classified as gig employees. Proposition 22 asks voters to make gig-economy employees exempt from this law and replaces their rights with fewer benefits of much less value to their workers.

    • More than 2,000 drivers have filed claims against Uber and Lyft for over $630 million in damages, expenses, and lost wages. Prop 22 will codify Uber and Lyft’s abilities to systematically steal wages from drivers.

    • Uber and Lyft currently owe California  $413 million in unemployment insurance contributions due to misclassifying drivers as independent contractors under AB 5. If Prop 22 passes, Uber and Lyft would get away with not paying what they owe.

     

    Misinformation About Prop 22
    • "The cost of ride-share will go up, decreasing the amount of people who will pay for rides and services and forcing companies to lay off more workers." -- FALSE. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that because these companies would not have to pay for standard employee benefits and protections (roughly 20 percent of total employee costs), companies can charge lower delivery fees and fares. It is projected that this will increase companies’ profits and drivers’ state income taxes.
    • "Prop 22 will guarantee 120% of minimum wage to all drivers." -- FALSE. The UC Berkeley Labor Center released a report that estimates Prop 22’s “pay guarantee” for their Uber and Lyft drivers would only end up being $5.64 per hour after accounting for all the expenses that drivers are responsible for themselves. At that rate, even if an individual worked 10 hour days, 7 days a week under Prop 22, they would be living below the California poverty line.

    • "Prop 22 will give health insurance to all drivers." -- FALSE. Under Prop 22, companies do not pay for health insurance, but instead provide a stipend to drivers. This stipend is valued at only 82% of the minimum coverage provided by state law, and is actually worth even less because workers would owe state and federal income taxes on the stipend. Prop 22 forces drivers to work more than 39 hours a week to qualify for the health stipend, so many workers would never even qualify for the stipend. For drivers who do qualify, Health Access California estimates that the health stipend would be just a couple hundred dollars—and could be just tens of dollars for younger workers—not enough for drivers to cover the purchase of their own health insurance.

     

    What Is At Stake

    If Prop 22 is passed, all future labor legislation surrounding Uber and Lyft would have to be approved by 7/8 of the total California State Legislature. Making this happen is virtually impossible considering Uber and Lyft have donated $2 million to the California Republican Party campaign committee. This is why Uber and Lyft are spending millions of dollars: to make their operations virtually untouchable in terms of regulation.

     

    Top Funders of Prop 22
    • Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are leading contributions in support of Prop 22, with over $148 million between the three of them. Both InstaCart and Postmates have contributed $27 and $11 million each respectively, for a grand total of over $187 million in support of Prop 22. Their coalition to pass Prop 22 is now the most expensive California ballot measure since 1992.
    • International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Service Employees International Union, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 770, and SEIU-UWH Political Issues Committee have contributed a total of $5.5 million in opposition to Prop 22.

    Top Funders of Prop 22


    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 22

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote NO on Prop 22 to protect labor rights and classify app-based drivers as employees, not contractors.

    Proposition 22 asks voters to exempt companies like Lyft, Postmates, Uber, DoorDash, and others from a recently implemented state worker protection law, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), so they can classify gig economy drivers from ride-share and delivery companies as independent contractors, not as employees. Additionally, Prop 22 would restrict local regulation of app-based drivers and would criminalize the impersonation of drivers.

    Why voting NO on Prop 22 matters
    • By classifying workers as contractors and not employees, companies like Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are exempted by state employment laws from ensuring basic protections to their workforce including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

    • Currently, rideshare and delivery workers are entitled under AB 5 to labor rights that every other employee in California receives, such as the right to organize, health insurance, and Social Security benefits. Prop 22 would take those rights away.

    • AB 5 also guarantees paid family leave, paid sick days, and unemployment insurance to those classified as gig employees. Proposition 22 asks voters to make gig-economy employees exempt from this law and replaces their rights with fewer benefits of much less value to their workers.

    • More than 2,000 drivers have filed claims against Uber and Lyft for over $630 million in damages, expenses, and lost wages. Prop 22 will codify Uber and Lyft’s abilities to systematically steal wages from drivers.

    • Uber and Lyft currently owe California  $413 million in unemployment insurance contributions due to misclassifying drivers as independent contractors under AB 5. If Prop 22 passes, Uber and Lyft would get away with not paying what they owe.

     

    Misinformation About Prop 22
    • "The cost of ride-share will go up, decreasing the amount of people who will pay for rides and services and forcing companies to lay off more workers." -- FALSE. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that because these companies would not have to pay for standard employee benefits and protections (roughly 20 percent of total employee costs), companies can charge lower delivery fees and fares. It is projected that this will increase companies’ profits and drivers’ state income taxes.
    • "Prop 22 will guarantee 120% of minimum wage to all drivers." -- FALSE. The UC Berkeley Labor Center released a report that estimates Prop 22’s “pay guarantee” for their Uber and Lyft drivers would only end up being $5.64 per hour after accounting for all the expenses that drivers are responsible for themselves. At that rate, even if an individual worked 10 hour days, 7 days a week under Prop 22, they would be living below the California poverty line.

    • "Prop 22 will give health insurance to all drivers." -- FALSE. Under Prop 22, companies do not pay for health insurance, but instead provide a stipend to drivers. This stipend is valued at only 82% of the minimum coverage provided by state law, and is actually worth even less because workers would owe state and federal income taxes on the stipend. Prop 22 forces drivers to work more than 39 hours a week to qualify for the health stipend, so many workers would never even qualify for the stipend. For drivers who do qualify, Health Access California estimates that the health stipend would be just a couple hundred dollars—and could be just tens of dollars for younger workers—not enough for drivers to cover the purchase of their own health insurance.

     

    What Is At Stake

    If Prop 22 is passed, all future labor legislation surrounding Uber and Lyft would have to be approved by 7/8 of the total California State Legislature. Making this happen is virtually impossible considering Uber and Lyft have donated $2 million to the California Republican Party campaign committee. This is why Uber and Lyft are spending millions of dollars: to make their operations virtually untouchable in terms of regulation.

     

    Top Funders of Prop 22
    • Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are leading contributions in support of Prop 22, with over $148 million between the three of them. Both InstaCart and Postmates have contributed $27 and $11 million each respectively, for a grand total of over $187 million in support of Prop 22. Their coalition to pass Prop 22 is now the most expensive California ballot measure since 1992.
    • International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Service Employees International Union, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 770, and SEIU-UWH Political Issues Committee have contributed a total of $5.5 million in opposition to Prop 22.

    Top Funders of Prop 22


    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 22

    Vote NO on Prop 22 to protect labor rights and classify app-based drivers as employees, not contractors.

    Proposition 22 asks voters to exempt companies like Lyft, Postmates, Uber, DoorDash, and others from a recently implemented state worker protection law, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), so they can classify gig economy drivers from ride-share and delivery companies as independent contractors, not as employees. Additionally, Prop 22 would restrict local regulation of app-based drivers and would criminalize the impersonation of drivers.

    Why voting NO on Prop 22 matters
    • By classifying workers as contractors and not employees, companies like Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are exempted by state employment laws from ensuring basic protections to their workforce including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

    • Currently, rideshare and delivery workers are entitled under AB 5 to labor rights that every other employee in California receives, such as the right to organize, health insurance, and Social Security benefits. Prop 22 would take those rights away.

    • AB 5 also guarantees paid family leave, paid sick days, and unemployment insurance to those classified as gig employees. Proposition 22 asks voters to make gig-economy employees exempt from this law and replaces their rights with fewer benefits of much less value to their workers.

    • More than 2,000 drivers have filed claims against Uber and Lyft for over $630 million in damages, expenses, and lost wages. Prop 22 will codify Uber and Lyft’s abilities to systematically steal wages from drivers.

    • Uber and Lyft currently owe California  $413 million in unemployment insurance contributions due to misclassifying drivers as independent contractors under AB 5. If Prop 22 passes, Uber and Lyft would get away with not paying what they owe.

     

    Misinformation About Prop 22
    • "The cost of ride-share will go up, decreasing the amount of people who will pay for rides and services and forcing companies to lay off more workers." -- FALSE. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that because these companies would not have to pay for standard employee benefits and protections (roughly 20 percent of total employee costs), companies can charge lower delivery fees and fares. It is projected that this will increase companies’ profits and drivers’ state income taxes.
    • "Prop 22 will guarantee 120% of minimum wage to all drivers." -- FALSE. The UC Berkeley Labor Center released a report that estimates Prop 22’s “pay guarantee” for their Uber and Lyft drivers would only end up being $5.64 per hour after accounting for all the expenses that drivers are responsible for themselves. At that rate, even if an individual worked 10 hour days, 7 days a week under Prop 22, they would be living below the California poverty line.

    • "Prop 22 will give health insurance to all drivers." -- FALSE. Under Prop 22, companies do not pay for health insurance, but instead provide a stipend to drivers. This stipend is valued at only 82% of the minimum coverage provided by state law, and is actually worth even less because workers would owe state and federal income taxes on the stipend. Prop 22 forces drivers to work more than 39 hours a week to qualify for the health stipend, so many workers would never even qualify for the stipend. For drivers who do qualify, Health Access California estimates that the health stipend would be just a couple hundred dollars—and could be just tens of dollars for younger workers—not enough for drivers to cover the purchase of their own health insurance.

     

    What Is At Stake

    If Prop 22 is passed, all future labor legislation surrounding Uber and Lyft would have to be approved by 7/8 of the total California State Legislature. Making this happen is virtually impossible considering Uber and Lyft have donated $2 million to the California Republican Party campaign committee. This is why Uber and Lyft are spending millions of dollars: to make their operations virtually untouchable in terms of regulation.

     

    Top Funders of Prop 22
    • Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are leading contributions in support of Prop 22, with over $148 million between the three of them. Both InstaCart and Postmates have contributed $27 and $11 million each respectively, for a grand total of over $187 million in support of Prop 22. Their coalition to pass Prop 22 is now the most expensive California ballot measure since 1992.
    • International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Service Employees International Union, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 770, and SEIU-UWH Political Issues Committee have contributed a total of $5.5 million in opposition to Prop 22.

    Top Funders of Prop 22


    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 22

  • VOTE YES

    Yes to Quality Clinical Care

  • Vote YES on Prop 23 to require infection reporting and state approval to close or reduce services at hospitals.

    Prop 23 would add sections to the California Health and Safety Code about how dialysis facilities can operate, requiring a physician to be on-site at every dialysis clinic to oversee operations, and mandating that each chronic dialysis clinic submit quarterly reports on dialysis-related infections to the California Department of Health. The on-site physician would assume a non-caregiving role, as they would not be required to be specially trained in nephrology or interact with patients at all. Additionally, Prop 23 would prohibit discrimination against patients based on their coverage or care.

    Why voting YES on Prop 23 matters:
    • Prop 23 builds upon current federal requirements that report dialysis-related infections to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Center for Disease Control to include reporting these infections to the California Department of Health.
    • Having a physician on-site at chronic dialysis clinics during all treatment hours provides a higher quality of medical care with an additional layer of patient safety.
    • Prop 23 protects the 80,000 Californians who require dialysis on a weekly basis by ensuring chronic dialysis clinics cannot discriminate against patients based on how they are paying for their treatments. Insurances like Medi-Cal pay less for dialysis treatments than private insurance, which is why corporations like DaVita and Fresenius are spending millions to oppose this proposition.
     
    Top funders of Prop 23 include:
    • Opposition to Prop 23 is heavily financed by dialysis giants Davita and Fresenius, who maintain larger profit margins if Prop 23 fails.
    • Support for Prop 23 is financed by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 23 includes:
    • “Prop 23 is just being used as leverage in unionizing against dialysis employers.” A spokesperson for SEIU-UHW West, Sean Wherley, said that health-care workers in dialysis clinics “want these [initiative] reforms regardless of what happens with their union efforts.”

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 23

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote YES on Prop 23 to require infection reporting and state approval to close or reduce services at hospitals.

    Prop 23 would add sections to the California Health and Safety Code about how dialysis facilities can operate, requiring a physician to be on-site at every dialysis clinic to oversee operations, and mandating that each chronic dialysis clinic submit quarterly reports on dialysis-related infections to the California Department of Health. The on-site physician would assume a non-caregiving role, as they would not be required to be specially trained in nephrology or interact with patients at all. Additionally, Prop 23 would prohibit discrimination against patients based on their coverage or care.

    Why voting YES on Prop 23 matters:
    • Prop 23 builds upon current federal requirements that report dialysis-related infections to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Center for Disease Control to include reporting these infections to the California Department of Health.
    • Having a physician on-site at chronic dialysis clinics during all treatment hours provides a higher quality of medical care with an additional layer of patient safety.
    • Prop 23 protects the 80,000 Californians who require dialysis on a weekly basis by ensuring chronic dialysis clinics cannot discriminate against patients based on how they are paying for their treatments. Insurances like Medi-Cal pay less for dialysis treatments than private insurance, which is why corporations like DaVita and Fresenius are spending millions to oppose this proposition.
     
    Top funders of Prop 23 include:
    • Opposition to Prop 23 is heavily financed by dialysis giants Davita and Fresenius, who maintain larger profit margins if Prop 23 fails.
    • Support for Prop 23 is financed by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 23 includes:
    • “Prop 23 is just being used as leverage in unionizing against dialysis employers.” A spokesperson for SEIU-UHW West, Sean Wherley, said that health-care workers in dialysis clinics “want these [initiative] reforms regardless of what happens with their union efforts.”

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 23

    Vote YES on Prop 23 to require infection reporting and state approval to close or reduce services at hospitals.

    Prop 23 would add sections to the California Health and Safety Code about how dialysis facilities can operate, requiring a physician to be on-site at every dialysis clinic to oversee operations, and mandating that each chronic dialysis clinic submit quarterly reports on dialysis-related infections to the California Department of Health. The on-site physician would assume a non-caregiving role, as they would not be required to be specially trained in nephrology or interact with patients at all. Additionally, Prop 23 would prohibit discrimination against patients based on their coverage or care.

    Why voting YES on Prop 23 matters:
    • Prop 23 builds upon current federal requirements that report dialysis-related infections to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Center for Disease Control to include reporting these infections to the California Department of Health.
    • Having a physician on-site at chronic dialysis clinics during all treatment hours provides a higher quality of medical care with an additional layer of patient safety.
    • Prop 23 protects the 80,000 Californians who require dialysis on a weekly basis by ensuring chronic dialysis clinics cannot discriminate against patients based on how they are paying for their treatments. Insurances like Medi-Cal pay less for dialysis treatments than private insurance, which is why corporations like DaVita and Fresenius are spending millions to oppose this proposition.
     
    Top funders of Prop 23 include:
    • Opposition to Prop 23 is heavily financed by dialysis giants Davita and Fresenius, who maintain larger profit margins if Prop 23 fails.
    • Support for Prop 23 is financed by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 23 includes:
    • “Prop 23 is just being used as leverage in unionizing against dialysis employers.” A spokesperson for SEIU-UHW West, Sean Wherley, said that health-care workers in dialysis clinics “want these [initiative] reforms regardless of what happens with their union efforts.”

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 23

    Prop 23

    Vote YES on Prop 23 to require infection reporting and state approval to close or reduce services at hospitals.

  • VOTE NO

    No to Pay-For-Privacy Schemes

  • Vote NO on Prop 24 to protect consumers’ personal information.

    Proposition 24 asks voters to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) to include pay-for-privacy schemes, which provide better services and internet connection to those who pay more in order to protect their personal information while providing suboptimal services for Californians who cannot or do not want to pay more. Additionally, Prop 24 caters to tech companies by allowing them to upload a California resident’s personal information as soon as that resident’s device, computer, or phone leaves the state’s borders, and permits tech companies to completely ignore a programmable universal electronic “do not sell my information” signal. Under current law, privacy follows a Californian wherever they go, and businesses must honor the electronic signal.

    Why voting NO on Prop 24 matters
    • Prop 24 removes the existing ability for a consumer to direct all companies to not sell their personal information with one instruction. Instead, consumers will have to direct each individual website and app to do so. This puts an impossible burden on consumers.
    • Prop 24 removes the existing prohibition on companies from tracking a consumer's data once an individual leaves the state boundary.
    • Prop 24 requires consumers to pay for privacy, disproportionately affect working people and families of color. California should maintain net neutrality so people do not have to pay for companies to safeguard their personal information.
    • Prop 24 would create a new state agency to exclusively oversee and enforce consumer privacy. Adding a new agency that costs an estimated $100 million annually is pointless when the power to enforce new consumer privacy rights is built into the position of the State Attorney General and the justice department.
    • Prop 24 is written to make it extremely hard for legislators to pass new legislation regulating consumer privacy in the future.

     

    Misinformation about Prop 24
    • "It will better safeguard consumers’ information." -- FALSE. Prop 24 will weaken existing safeguards and strengthen them only for consumers who are financially able to pay for better protections.
    • "It will give us the strongest privacy rights in the world." -- FALSE. Not only does Prop 24 revoke several protections established in the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act, but Europe's GDPR protects consumer data regardless of location within the EU and consumers’ citizenship/residence. This is not true of Prop 24.

     

    Top Funders of Prop 24
    • Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer from San Francisco, donated the majority of the total funds for the support campaign entirely by himself, with a total of $4,892,400.
    • A coalition called California Consumer and Privacy Advocates Against Prop 24 has been registered in opposition, with $20,000 contributed by California Nurses Association.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 24

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote NO on Prop 24 to protect consumers’ personal information.

    Proposition 24 asks voters to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) to include pay-for-privacy schemes, which provide better services and internet connection to those who pay more in order to protect their personal information while providing suboptimal services for Californians who cannot or do not want to pay more. Additionally, Prop 24 caters to tech companies by allowing them to upload a California resident’s personal information as soon as that resident’s device, computer, or phone leaves the state’s borders, and permits tech companies to completely ignore a programmable universal electronic “do not sell my information” signal. Under current law, privacy follows a Californian wherever they go, and businesses must honor the electronic signal.

    Why voting NO on Prop 24 matters
    • Prop 24 removes the existing ability for a consumer to direct all companies to not sell their personal information with one instruction. Instead, consumers will have to direct each individual website and app to do so. This puts an impossible burden on consumers.
    • Prop 24 removes the existing prohibition on companies from tracking a consumer's data once an individual leaves the state boundary.
    • Prop 24 requires consumers to pay for privacy, disproportionately affect working people and families of color. California should maintain net neutrality so people do not have to pay for companies to safeguard their personal information.
    • Prop 24 would create a new state agency to exclusively oversee and enforce consumer privacy. Adding a new agency that costs an estimated $100 million annually is pointless when the power to enforce new consumer privacy rights is built into the position of the State Attorney General and the justice department.
    • Prop 24 is written to make it extremely hard for legislators to pass new legislation regulating consumer privacy in the future.

     

    Misinformation about Prop 24
    • "It will better safeguard consumers’ information." -- FALSE. Prop 24 will weaken existing safeguards and strengthen them only for consumers who are financially able to pay for better protections.
    • "It will give us the strongest privacy rights in the world." -- FALSE. Not only does Prop 24 revoke several protections established in the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act, but Europe's GDPR protects consumer data regardless of location within the EU and consumers’ citizenship/residence. This is not true of Prop 24.

     

    Top Funders of Prop 24
    • Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer from San Francisco, donated the majority of the total funds for the support campaign entirely by himself, with a total of $4,892,400.
    • A coalition called California Consumer and Privacy Advocates Against Prop 24 has been registered in opposition, with $20,000 contributed by California Nurses Association.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 24

    Vote NO on Prop 24 to protect consumers’ personal information.

    Proposition 24 asks voters to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) to include pay-for-privacy schemes, which provide better services and internet connection to those who pay more in order to protect their personal information while providing suboptimal services for Californians who cannot or do not want to pay more. Additionally, Prop 24 caters to tech companies by allowing them to upload a California resident’s personal information as soon as that resident’s device, computer, or phone leaves the state’s borders, and permits tech companies to completely ignore a programmable universal electronic “do not sell my information” signal. Under current law, privacy follows a Californian wherever they go, and businesses must honor the electronic signal.

    Why voting NO on Prop 24 matters
    • Prop 24 removes the existing ability for a consumer to direct all companies to not sell their personal information with one instruction. Instead, consumers will have to direct each individual website and app to do so. This puts an impossible burden on consumers.
    • Prop 24 removes the existing prohibition on companies from tracking a consumer's data once an individual leaves the state boundary.
    • Prop 24 requires consumers to pay for privacy, disproportionately affect working people and families of color. California should maintain net neutrality so people do not have to pay for companies to safeguard their personal information.
    • Prop 24 would create a new state agency to exclusively oversee and enforce consumer privacy. Adding a new agency that costs an estimated $100 million annually is pointless when the power to enforce new consumer privacy rights is built into the position of the State Attorney General and the justice department.
    • Prop 24 is written to make it extremely hard for legislators to pass new legislation regulating consumer privacy in the future.

     

    Misinformation about Prop 24
    • "It will better safeguard consumers’ information." -- FALSE. Prop 24 will weaken existing safeguards and strengthen them only for consumers who are financially able to pay for better protections.
    • "It will give us the strongest privacy rights in the world." -- FALSE. Not only does Prop 24 revoke several protections established in the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act, but Europe's GDPR protects consumer data regardless of location within the EU and consumers’ citizenship/residence. This is not true of Prop 24.

     

    Top Funders of Prop 24
    • Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer from San Francisco, donated the majority of the total funds for the support campaign entirely by himself, with a total of $4,892,400.
    • A coalition called California Consumer and Privacy Advocates Against Prop 24 has been registered in opposition, with $20,000 contributed by California Nurses Association.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 24

  • VOTE YES

    Yes to Ending Cash Bail

  • Vote YES on Prop 25 to eliminate the use of cash bail in pretrial incarceration.

    Proposition 25 is a referendum, which asks voters to directly weigh in on whether to keep or reject SB 10, a bill originally passed in 2018. Voting YES on Prop 25 will keep SB 10 in place and eliminate the cash bail system of pretrial incarceration in California, which is directly responsible for the disproportionate incarceration of Californians who cannot afford bail. The bail bond industry is directly responsible for placing Prop 25 on the ballot and calling SB 10 into question.

    Why voting YES on Prop 25 Matters
    • Nearly two-thirds of the jail population—nearly 48,000 people—are incarcerated pretrial, and California’s average bail is $50,000, more than five times the national average. The cash bail system directly ties an individual’s wealth and ability to pay to the question of whether they pose a risk to the community and their conditions of pretrial release. This system is unfair from every angle and perpetuates the cycle of poverty and incarceration existing in many low-income communities, which are also disproportionately Black and brown communities.
    • In New Jersey, where similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail in 2017, overall pretrial incarceration rates have dropped, racial disparities in pretrial incarceration rates have lessened, and the use of invasive monitoring strategies after release have been applied in far fewer eligible cases (8.3 percent) than feared. California’s SB 10 goes further than New Jersey’s legislation by fully eliminating the cash bail system and has the potential to have even more positive outcomes.
    • The bail bond industry uses its influence to lobby for legislation favorable to them, which perpetuates but also escalates the cycle of poverty and incarceration. Passing Prop 25 will permanently end their influence in the political process.
    • If Prop 25 does not pass, voters will be perceived as having rejected SB 10’s reforms, in particular the effort to end the cash bail system. This will be framed as a significant precedent for opponents of criminal-justice reform to use in lobbying and legal arguments to keep the system intact in the future.
    • If Prop 25 passes, community groups will have the opportunity to advance further criminal-justice reforms related to this initiative.
     
    Special Circumstances Surrounding Prop 25
    • Originally, there was unanimous support for SB 10 from most criminal-justice reform groups across the state. The process of making amendments to the legislation caused many groups to drop their support. In our research, we discovered that the legislative decision-making process around SB 10 was strongly influenced by applied political pressure, resulting in a process and an outcome with less buy-in. Despite the widely acknowledged flaws in the overall process, a strong majority of Courage California's statewide progressive partners are aligned around a yes position on Prop 25.
    • In a ruling in August 2020, the state Supreme Court issued a binding resolution in the case of In re Humphrey that orders all trial judges in the state of California to consider a person’s ability to pay in setting the cash bail amount for pretrial release. Grassroots groups objecting to Prop 25 argue that this ruling already creates systemic reform that will mitigate the impacts of the cash bail system, making SB 10 unnecessary. Advocates for Prop 25 contend that ending the cash bail system is an essential first step in eliminating the cycle of poverty and incarceration entirely.
    • Organized opposition to Prop 25 from grassroots groups is strongest in Los Angeles County, where community leaders have been most successful in partnering with county officials to design and implement community-based alternatives to the incarceration system. In Los Angeles County, there are major concerns about how the implementation of a state-mandated pretrial incarceration program could interfere with their major strides in redressing the harms done to communities by an unfair justice system. These concerns are entirely valid, and attention will be focused on the actions of L.A. County’s Board of Supervisors to ensure that the alternatives to incarceration recommendations developed through a robust, community-driven dialogue process will continue to be implemented. The breakthroughs achieved by L.A. County’s criminal-justice reform movement have been characterized as historic and a model for other counties in California to follow, and this work must continue to move forward without delay.
     
    Concerns About Prop 25

    There are three major components to grassroots groups' objections to Prop 25. Here we provide our assessment of these concerns and how they can be addressed in the future if Prop 25 passes.  

    • Algorithm-based risk-assessment tools will be used as the core component of the new pretrial incarceration system in all California counties. There are concerns about how inherent biases in the system could influence the implementation of these tools. There are two notable countermeasures in place to address these concerns, and both are overseen by the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the California court system.
      • First, counties must validate the chosen risk-assessment tool for the communities in which it will be used. This is not a standardized approach to validation; the tool must be proven to provide a higher level of responsiveness and sensitivity to community conditions before it is implemented. The Judicial Council will have to certify each county's tool, and the tool must be revalidated for the communities it serves every three years.
      • Second, counties are now required by law to track and publicly report how a defendant’s circumstances and background correspond to the decision a judge makes about their pretrial release conditions. This data has to be collected, compiled, and reported annually to the Judicial Council, as well as made publicly available for review. This law was passed the year after SB 10 to provide an avenue to monitor the implementation of SB 10, and is an important step in making risk-assessment tools more accountable and the overall pretrial incarceration system more transparent.
    • The new pretrial incarceration system is directly implemented by the probation departments of each county in California. Probation departments are currently responsible for investigating offenders’ backgrounds, making sentencing recommendations to the court, enforcing court orders, and supervising sentenced offenders. They also recommend and collect restitution, oversee community service, and provide oversight of criminal-diversion programs. There are strong concerns about how probation departments will approach the oversight of people who have not been convicted of crimes. Probation supervision has been historically used for people who have been convicted and are released, and SB 10 expands that pool of people to those who are accused but not convicted. Probation violations are a primary driver of incarceration in LA, and in Sacramento under SB 10, initial data indicates that 30-40% of people released end up rearrested and 90%+ of those that are released have high conditions of release.
      • We encourage counties to 1) require probation departments to work in partnership with other agencies, including the public defender’s office, mental-health services, and other community-based programs, in both implementing the risk-assessment system and in the pretrial release and monitoring of released individuals; 2) use their power to hold probation departments accountable for how they implement pretrial incarceration programs in communities with a particular focus on ensuring non-invasive monitoring, minimizing conditions of release, and maintaining a low rearrest rate ; and 3) invest in alternatives to the overall incarceration system, such as Measure J on the ballot in Los Angeles County, which amends the county charter to require that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to community-based programs, such as affordable housing and rent assistance, job training, and mental-health and social services.
    • There are also concerns that judicial discretion is greatly expanded by SB 10. While this is technically true, there are two additional changes to the judicial role in the pretrial system that limit judicial discretion.
      • First, anyone arrested with a misdemeanor, with some exceptions, is considered to not pose a significant risk to a community and is automatically released without going in front of a judge. This greatly reduces the overall role that a judge currently plays in the pretrial incarceration system.
      • Second, while judges are not required to adhere by the risk scores findings in their determination of pretrial release or pretrial detention, this is not an expansion of judicial discretion from the current system. Instead, SB 10 simply gives judges additional information to inform their decision.
      • Third, all judicial decisions are now required to be publicly recorded and therefore more transparent and available for public scrutiny. This is essential because judges now have increased discretion over the more serious felony cases, and they also have discretion to carve out other other exclusions from release for misdemeanors at the county-level. Under the new system, when a prosecutor exercises their option to seek detention, a judge must hold a hearing and make the findings available on record before they order the person detained pretrial. In the current cash bail system, judges can use their discretion to set cash bail at any number with no requirement to make any findings public, which effectively detains an individual with no judicial accountability. The new judicial transparency requirement makes it easier for an individual to appeal a judge’s preventative detention decision. This is a clear improvement over the lax requirements that existed before SB 10.
     
    Misinformation About Prop 25

    The bail bond industry has invested heavily in a No on the Prop 25 campaign in an attempt to spread misinformation and save the industry.

    • “Prop 25 denies a U.S. constitutional right.” FALSE. The 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the courts from imposing excessive bail. By eliminating the cash bail system, Prop 25 simply makes this prohibition irrelevant.
    • “Prop 25 puts our public safety at risk.” FALSE. Judges will have increased judicial discretion over the more serious felony cases, which means defendants who may pose a threat to a community or specific individual will be given individual consideration. All decisions made by judges will also be required to be publicly recorded.
    • “Prop 25 deprives justice for crime victims.” FALSE. In New Jersey, where similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail in 2017, a recent study concluded that defendants are continuing to show up for court cases at the same rate and that people released under the new regulations are no more likely to commit a crime while waiting for trial than those released under the previous system on money bail.
    • “Prop 25 creates additional biases against minorities and the poor.” FALSE. In New Jersey, similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail has reduced racial disparities in the jail population. In California, new reporting requirements enable racial disparities to be systematically tracked for the first time. And ending cash bail immediately eliminates the most immediate factor in the criminal-justice system that drives the cycle of poverty and incarceration existing in many low-income communities, which are also disproportionately Black and brown communities.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 25
    • The two largest donors in support of Prop 25 are Connie and Steve Ballmer. Steve Ballmer is the former CEO of Microsoft and current owner of the L.A. Clippers team. The Ballmers are philanthropists who have given over $300 million to 70 nonprofits over the last three years for gun safety and racial justice. They have also pledged $25 million in coronavirus aid. In a statement, they said that “far too many people that are not a danger are getting stuck in jail waiting for their trials simply because they can’t afford bail.”
    • The next largest donor is John Arnold of Arnold Ventures and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Arnold’s foundation created an algorithm-based pretrial risk-assessment tool called the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) that is currently used in 30 different counties including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Tulare counties in California. The foundation has also created several think tank projects including the National Partnership for Pretrial Justice and Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, which produce research, policy advocacy, and implementation support for the PSA specifically and more generally for the process of replacing cash bail with pretrial risk assessments. Arnold has been sued for a judge’s use of PSA resulting in a murder by the released suspect. In our research, we did not find a connection between Arnold and any of the three pre-trial assessment service providers that have been approved for use under SB 10, which are Journal Technologies Inc., FivePoint Solutions, and Equivant. It is also unclear if the PSA will continue to be used in California counties under SB 10. Arnold is a former hedge fund manager and was involved in the Enron scandal in which he walked away with an $8 million bonus.
    • The other three top donors in support of Prop 25 are SEIU California State Council; Action Now Initiative, LLC; and philanthropist Patty Quillin.
    • The top donor in opposition to Prop 25 is Triton Management Services, LLC, the parent company of Aladdin Bail Bonds.
    • The American Bail Coalition, consisting of several insurance and bail companies, is opposed to Prop 25, as it wants the bail system to remain in place to avoid going out of business.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 25

     

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Vote YES on Prop 25 to eliminate the use of cash bail in pretrial incarceration.

    Proposition 25 is a referendum, which asks voters to directly weigh in on whether to keep or reject SB 10, a bill originally passed in 2018. Voting YES on Prop 25 will keep SB 10 in place and eliminate the cash bail system of pretrial incarceration in California, which is directly responsible for the disproportionate incarceration of Californians who cannot afford bail. The bail bond industry is directly responsible for placing Prop 25 on the ballot and calling SB 10 into question.

    Why voting YES on Prop 25 Matters
    • Nearly two-thirds of the jail population—nearly 48,000 people—are incarcerated pretrial, and California’s average bail is $50,000, more than five times the national average. The cash bail system directly ties an individual’s wealth and ability to pay to the question of whether they pose a risk to the community and their conditions of pretrial release. This system is unfair from every angle and perpetuates the cycle of poverty and incarceration existing in many low-income communities, which are also disproportionately Black and brown communities.
    • In New Jersey, where similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail in 2017, overall pretrial incarceration rates have dropped, racial disparities in pretrial incarceration rates have lessened, and the use of invasive monitoring strategies after release have been applied in far fewer eligible cases (8.3 percent) than feared. California’s SB 10 goes further than New Jersey’s legislation by fully eliminating the cash bail system and has the potential to have even more positive outcomes.
    • The bail bond industry uses its influence to lobby for legislation favorable to them, which perpetuates but also escalates the cycle of poverty and incarceration. Passing Prop 25 will permanently end their influence in the political process.
    • If Prop 25 does not pass, voters will be perceived as having rejected SB 10’s reforms, in particular the effort to end the cash bail system. This will be framed as a significant precedent for opponents of criminal-justice reform to use in lobbying and legal arguments to keep the system intact in the future.
    • If Prop 25 passes, community groups will have the opportunity to advance further criminal-justice reforms related to this initiative.
     
    Special Circumstances Surrounding Prop 25
    • Originally, there was unanimous support for SB 10 from most criminal-justice reform groups across the state. The process of making amendments to the legislation caused many groups to drop their support. In our research, we discovered that the legislative decision-making process around SB 10 was strongly influenced by applied political pressure, resulting in a process and an outcome with less buy-in. Despite the widely acknowledged flaws in the overall process, a strong majority of Courage California's statewide progressive partners are aligned around a yes position on Prop 25.
    • In a ruling in August 2020, the state Supreme Court issued a binding resolution in the case of In re Humphrey that orders all trial judges in the state of California to consider a person’s ability to pay in setting the cash bail amount for pretrial release. Grassroots groups objecting to Prop 25 argue that this ruling already creates systemic reform that will mitigate the impacts of the cash bail system, making SB 10 unnecessary. Advocates for Prop 25 contend that ending the cash bail system is an essential first step in eliminating the cycle of poverty and incarceration entirely.
    • Organized opposition to Prop 25 from grassroots groups is strongest in Los Angeles County, where community leaders have been most successful in partnering with county officials to design and implement community-based alternatives to the incarceration system. In Los Angeles County, there are major concerns about how the implementation of a state-mandated pretrial incarceration program could interfere with their major strides in redressing the harms done to communities by an unfair justice system. These concerns are entirely valid, and attention will be focused on the actions of L.A. County’s Board of Supervisors to ensure that the alternatives to incarceration recommendations developed through a robust, community-driven dialogue process will continue to be implemented. The breakthroughs achieved by L.A. County’s criminal-justice reform movement have been characterized as historic and a model for other counties in California to follow, and this work must continue to move forward without delay.
     
    Concerns About Prop 25

    There are three major components to grassroots groups' objections to Prop 25. Here we provide our assessment of these concerns and how they can be addressed in the future if Prop 25 passes.  

    • Algorithm-based risk-assessment tools will be used as the core component of the new pretrial incarceration system in all California counties. There are concerns about how inherent biases in the system could influence the implementation of these tools. There are two notable countermeasures in place to address these concerns, and both are overseen by the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the California court system.
      • First, counties must validate the chosen risk-assessment tool for the communities in which it will be used. This is not a standardized approach to validation; the tool must be proven to provide a higher level of responsiveness and sensitivity to community conditions before it is implemented. The Judicial Council will have to certify each county's tool, and the tool must be revalidated for the communities it serves every three years.
      • Second, counties are now required by law to track and publicly report how a defendant’s circumstances and background correspond to the decision a judge makes about their pretrial release conditions. This data has to be collected, compiled, and reported annually to the Judicial Council, as well as made publicly available for review. This law was passed the year after SB 10 to provide an avenue to monitor the implementation of SB 10, and is an important step in making risk-assessment tools more accountable and the overall pretrial incarceration system more transparent.
    • The new pretrial incarceration system is directly implemented by the probation departments of each county in California. Probation departments are currently responsible for investigating offenders’ backgrounds, making sentencing recommendations to the court, enforcing court orders, and supervising sentenced offenders. They also recommend and collect restitution, oversee community service, and provide oversight of criminal-diversion programs. There are strong concerns about how probation departments will approach the oversight of people who have not been convicted of crimes. Probation supervision has been historically used for people who have been convicted and are released, and SB 10 expands that pool of people to those who are accused but not convicted. Probation violations are a primary driver of incarceration in LA, and in Sacramento under SB 10, initial data indicates that 30-40% of people released end up rearrested and 90%+ of those that are released have high conditions of release.
      • We encourage counties to 1) require probation departments to work in partnership with other agencies, including the public defender’s office, mental-health services, and other community-based programs, in both implementing the risk-assessment system and in the pretrial release and monitoring of released individuals; 2) use their power to hold probation departments accountable for how they implement pretrial incarceration programs in communities with a particular focus on ensuring non-invasive monitoring, minimizing conditions of release, and maintaining a low rearrest rate ; and 3) invest in alternatives to the overall incarceration system, such as Measure J on the ballot in Los Angeles County, which amends the county charter to require that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to community-based programs, such as affordable housing and rent assistance, job training, and mental-health and social services.
    • There are also concerns that judicial discretion is greatly expanded by SB 10. While this is technically true, there are two additional changes to the judicial role in the pretrial system that limit judicial discretion.
      • First, anyone arrested with a misdemeanor, with some exceptions, is considered to not pose a significant risk to a community and is automatically released without going in front of a judge. This greatly reduces the overall role that a judge currently plays in the pretrial incarceration system.
      • Second, while judges are not required to adhere by the risk scores findings in their determination of pretrial release or pretrial detention, this is not an expansion of judicial discretion from the current system. Instead, SB 10 simply gives judges additional information to inform their decision.
      • Third, all judicial decisions are now required to be publicly recorded and therefore more transparent and available for public scrutiny. This is essential because judges now have increased discretion over the more serious felony cases, and they also have discretion to carve out other other exclusions from release for misdemeanors at the county-level. Under the new system, when a prosecutor exercises their option to seek detention, a judge must hold a hearing and make the findings available on record before they order the person detained pretrial. In the current cash bail system, judges can use their discretion to set cash bail at any number with no requirement to make any findings public, which effectively detains an individual with no judicial accountability. The new judicial transparency requirement makes it easier for an individual to appeal a judge’s preventative detention decision. This is a clear improvement over the lax requirements that existed before SB 10.
     
    Misinformation About Prop 25

    The bail bond industry has invested heavily in a No on the Prop 25 campaign in an attempt to spread misinformation and save the industry.

    • “Prop 25 denies a U.S. constitutional right.” FALSE. The 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the courts from imposing excessive bail. By eliminating the cash bail system, Prop 25 simply makes this prohibition irrelevant.
    • “Prop 25 puts our public safety at risk.” FALSE. Judges will have increased judicial discretion over the more serious felony cases, which means defendants who may pose a threat to a community or specific individual will be given individual consideration. All decisions made by judges will also be required to be publicly recorded.
    • “Prop 25 deprives justice for crime victims.” FALSE. In New Jersey, where similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail in 2017, a recent study concluded that defendants are continuing to show up for court cases at the same rate and that people released under the new regulations are no more likely to commit a crime while waiting for trial than those released under the previous system on money bail.
    • “Prop 25 creates additional biases against minorities and the poor.” FALSE. In New Jersey, similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail has reduced racial disparities in the jail population. In California, new reporting requirements enable racial disparities to be systematically tracked for the first time. And ending cash bail immediately eliminates the most immediate factor in the criminal-justice system that drives the cycle of poverty and incarceration existing in many low-income communities, which are also disproportionately Black and brown communities.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 25
    • The two largest donors in support of Prop 25 are Connie and Steve Ballmer. Steve Ballmer is the former CEO of Microsoft and current owner of the L.A. Clippers team. The Ballmers are philanthropists who have given over $300 million to 70 nonprofits over the last three years for gun safety and racial justice. They have also pledged $25 million in coronavirus aid. In a statement, they said that “far too many people that are not a danger are getting stuck in jail waiting for their trials simply because they can’t afford bail.”
    • The next largest donor is John Arnold of Arnold Ventures and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Arnold’s foundation created an algorithm-based pretrial risk-assessment tool called the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) that is currently used in 30 different counties including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Tulare counties in California. The foundation has also created several think tank projects including the National Partnership for Pretrial Justice and Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, which produce research, policy advocacy, and implementation support for the PSA specifically and more generally for the process of replacing cash bail with pretrial risk assessments. Arnold has been sued for a judge’s use of PSA resulting in a murder by the released suspect. In our research, we did not find a connection between Arnold and any of the three pre-trial assessment service providers that have been approved for use under SB 10, which are Journal Technologies Inc., FivePoint Solutions, and Equivant. It is also unclear if the PSA will continue to be used in California counties under SB 10. Arnold is a former hedge fund manager and was involved in the Enron scandal in which he walked away with an $8 million bonus.
    • The other three top donors in support of Prop 25 are SEIU California State Council; Action Now Initiative, LLC; and philanthropist Patty Quillin.
    • The top donor in opposition to Prop 25 is Triton Management Services, LLC, the parent company of Aladdin Bail Bonds.
    • The American Bail Coalition, consisting of several insurance and bail companies, is opposed to Prop 25, as it wants the bail system to remain in place to avoid going out of business.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 25

     

    Vote YES on Prop 25 to eliminate the use of cash bail in pretrial incarceration.

    Proposition 25 is a referendum, which asks voters to directly weigh in on whether to keep or reject SB 10, a bill originally passed in 2018. Voting YES on Prop 25 will keep SB 10 in place and eliminate the cash bail system of pretrial incarceration in California, which is directly responsible for the disproportionate incarceration of Californians who cannot afford bail. The bail bond industry is directly responsible for placing Prop 25 on the ballot and calling SB 10 into question.

    Why voting YES on Prop 25 Matters
    • Nearly two-thirds of the jail population—nearly 48,000 people—are incarcerated pretrial, and California’s average bail is $50,000, more than five times the national average. The cash bail system directly ties an individual’s wealth and ability to pay to the question of whether they pose a risk to the community and their conditions of pretrial release. This system is unfair from every angle and perpetuates the cycle of poverty and incarceration existing in many low-income communities, which are also disproportionately Black and brown communities.
    • In New Jersey, where similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail in 2017, overall pretrial incarceration rates have dropped, racial disparities in pretrial incarceration rates have lessened, and the use of invasive monitoring strategies after release have been applied in far fewer eligible cases (8.3 percent) than feared. California’s SB 10 goes further than New Jersey’s legislation by fully eliminating the cash bail system and has the potential to have even more positive outcomes.
    • The bail bond industry uses its influence to lobby for legislation favorable to them, which perpetuates but also escalates the cycle of poverty and incarceration. Passing Prop 25 will permanently end their influence in the political process.
    • If Prop 25 does not pass, voters will be perceived as having rejected SB 10’s reforms, in particular the effort to end the cash bail system. This will be framed as a significant precedent for opponents of criminal-justice reform to use in lobbying and legal arguments to keep the system intact in the future.
    • If Prop 25 passes, community groups will have the opportunity to advance further criminal-justice reforms related to this initiative.
     
    Special Circumstances Surrounding Prop 25
    • Originally, there was unanimous support for SB 10 from most criminal-justice reform groups across the state. The process of making amendments to the legislation caused many groups to drop their support. In our research, we discovered that the legislative decision-making process around SB 10 was strongly influenced by applied political pressure, resulting in a process and an outcome with less buy-in. Despite the widely acknowledged flaws in the overall process, a strong majority of Courage California's statewide progressive partners are aligned around a yes position on Prop 25.
    • In a ruling in August 2020, the state Supreme Court issued a binding resolution in the case of In re Humphrey that orders all trial judges in the state of California to consider a person’s ability to pay in setting the cash bail amount for pretrial release. Grassroots groups objecting to Prop 25 argue that this ruling already creates systemic reform that will mitigate the impacts of the cash bail system, making SB 10 unnecessary. Advocates for Prop 25 contend that ending the cash bail system is an essential first step in eliminating the cycle of poverty and incarceration entirely.
    • Organized opposition to Prop 25 from grassroots groups is strongest in Los Angeles County, where community leaders have been most successful in partnering with county officials to design and implement community-based alternatives to the incarceration system. In Los Angeles County, there are major concerns about how the implementation of a state-mandated pretrial incarceration program could interfere with their major strides in redressing the harms done to communities by an unfair justice system. These concerns are entirely valid, and attention will be focused on the actions of L.A. County’s Board of Supervisors to ensure that the alternatives to incarceration recommendations developed through a robust, community-driven dialogue process will continue to be implemented. The breakthroughs achieved by L.A. County’s criminal-justice reform movement have been characterized as historic and a model for other counties in California to follow, and this work must continue to move forward without delay.
     
    Concerns About Prop 25

    There are three major components to grassroots groups' objections to Prop 25. Here we provide our assessment of these concerns and how they can be addressed in the future if Prop 25 passes.  

    • Algorithm-based risk-assessment tools will be used as the core component of the new pretrial incarceration system in all California counties. There are concerns about how inherent biases in the system could influence the implementation of these tools. There are two notable countermeasures in place to address these concerns, and both are overseen by the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the California court system.
      • First, counties must validate the chosen risk-assessment tool for the communities in which it will be used. This is not a standardized approach to validation; the tool must be proven to provide a higher level of responsiveness and sensitivity to community conditions before it is implemented. The Judicial Council will have to certify each county's tool, and the tool must be revalidated for the communities it serves every three years.
      • Second, counties are now required by law to track and publicly report how a defendant’s circumstances and background correspond to the decision a judge makes about their pretrial release conditions. This data has to be collected, compiled, and reported annually to the Judicial Council, as well as made publicly available for review. This law was passed the year after SB 10 to provide an avenue to monitor the implementation of SB 10, and is an important step in making risk-assessment tools more accountable and the overall pretrial incarceration system more transparent.
    • The new pretrial incarceration system is directly implemented by the probation departments of each county in California. Probation departments are currently responsible for investigating offenders’ backgrounds, making sentencing recommendations to the court, enforcing court orders, and supervising sentenced offenders. They also recommend and collect restitution, oversee community service, and provide oversight of criminal-diversion programs. There are strong concerns about how probation departments will approach the oversight of people who have not been convicted of crimes. Probation supervision has been historically used for people who have been convicted and are released, and SB 10 expands that pool of people to those who are accused but not convicted. Probation violations are a primary driver of incarceration in LA, and in Sacramento under SB 10, initial data indicates that 30-40% of people released end up rearrested and 90%+ of those that are released have high conditions of release.
      • We encourage counties to 1) require probation departments to work in partnership with other agencies, including the public defender’s office, mental-health services, and other community-based programs, in both implementing the risk-assessment system and in the pretrial release and monitoring of released individuals; 2) use their power to hold probation departments accountable for how they implement pretrial incarceration programs in communities with a particular focus on ensuring non-invasive monitoring, minimizing conditions of release, and maintaining a low rearrest rate ; and 3) invest in alternatives to the overall incarceration system, such as Measure J on the ballot in Los Angeles County, which amends the county charter to require that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to community-based programs, such as affordable housing and rent assistance, job training, and mental-health and social services.
    • There are also concerns that judicial discretion is greatly expanded by SB 10. While this is technically true, there are two additional changes to the judicial role in the pretrial system that limit judicial discretion.
      • First, anyone arrested with a misdemeanor, with some exceptions, is considered to not pose a significant risk to a community and is automatically released without going in front of a judge. This greatly reduces the overall role that a judge currently plays in the pretrial incarceration system.
      • Second, while judges are not required to adhere by the risk scores findings in their determination of pretrial release or pretrial detention, this is not an expansion of judicial discretion from the current system. Instead, SB 10 simply gives judges additional information to inform their decision.
      • Third, all judicial decisions are now required to be publicly recorded and therefore more transparent and available for public scrutiny. This is essential because judges now have increased discretion over the more serious felony cases, and they also have discretion to carve out other other exclusions from release for misdemeanors at the county-level. Under the new system, when a prosecutor exercises their option to seek detention, a judge must hold a hearing and make the findings available on record before they order the person detained pretrial. In the current cash bail system, judges can use their discretion to set cash bail at any number with no requirement to make any findings public, which effectively detains an individual with no judicial accountability. The new judicial transparency requirement makes it easier for an individual to appeal a judge’s preventative detention decision. This is a clear improvement over the lax requirements that existed before SB 10.
     
    Misinformation About Prop 25

    The bail bond industry has invested heavily in a No on the Prop 25 campaign in an attempt to spread misinformation and save the industry.

    • “Prop 25 denies a U.S. constitutional right.” FALSE. The 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the courts from imposing excessive bail. By eliminating the cash bail system, Prop 25 simply makes this prohibition irrelevant.
    • “Prop 25 puts our public safety at risk.” FALSE. Judges will have increased judicial discretion over the more serious felony cases, which means defendants who may pose a threat to a community or specific individual will be given individual consideration. All decisions made by judges will also be required to be publicly recorded.
    • “Prop 25 deprives justice for crime victims.” FALSE. In New Jersey, where similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail in 2017, a recent study concluded that defendants are continuing to show up for court cases at the same rate and that people released under the new regulations are no more likely to commit a crime while waiting for trial than those released under the previous system on money bail.
    • “Prop 25 creates additional biases against minorities and the poor.” FALSE. In New Jersey, similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail has reduced racial disparities in the jail population. In California, new reporting requirements enable racial disparities to be systematically tracked for the first time. And ending cash bail immediately eliminates the most immediate factor in the criminal-justice system that drives the cycle of poverty and incarceration existing in many low-income communities, which are also disproportionately Black and brown communities.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 25
    • The two largest donors in support of Prop 25 are Connie and Steve Ballmer. Steve Ballmer is the former CEO of Microsoft and current owner of the L.A. Clippers team. The Ballmers are philanthropists who have given over $300 million to 70 nonprofits over the last three years for gun safety and racial justice. They have also pledged $25 million in coronavirus aid. In a statement, they said that “far too many people that are not a danger are getting stuck in jail waiting for their trials simply because they can’t afford bail.”
    • The next largest donor is John Arnold of Arnold Ventures and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Arnold’s foundation created an algorithm-based pretrial risk-assessment tool called the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) that is currently used in 30 different counties including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Tulare counties in California. The foundation has also created several think tank projects including the National Partnership for Pretrial Justice and Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, which produce research, policy advocacy, and implementation support for the PSA specifically and more generally for the process of replacing cash bail with pretrial risk assessments. Arnold has been sued for a judge’s use of PSA resulting in a murder by the released suspect. In our research, we did not find a connection between Arnold and any of the three pre-trial assessment service providers that have been approved for use under SB 10, which are Journal Technologies Inc., FivePoint Solutions, and Equivant. It is also unclear if the PSA will continue to be used in California counties under SB 10. Arnold is a former hedge fund manager and was involved in the Enron scandal in which he walked away with an $8 million bonus.
    • The other three top donors in support of Prop 25 are SEIU California State Council; Action Now Initiative, LLC; and philanthropist Patty Quillin.
    • The top donor in opposition to Prop 25 is Triton Management Services, LLC, the parent company of Aladdin Bail Bonds.
    • The American Bail Coalition, consisting of several insurance and bail companies, is opposed to Prop 25, as it wants the bail system to remain in place to avoid going out of business.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 25

     

    Prop 25

    Vote YES on Prop 25 to eliminate the use of cash bail in pretrial incarceration.

  • Re-elect City Council Member Rebecca Kaplan to keep Oakland on the right track. 

    About the Position

    Oakland is governed by an eight-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. In Oakland, the position of mayor is limited to two terms of four years each, while City Council members can serve for an unlimited number of terms. The Council is made up of one representative from each of seven districts and one at-large representative. 

    About the District

    Oakland is Alameda County’s most populous city. Oakland City Council oversees the needs of 390,724 people, according to the 2010 Census, and manages an estimated budget of $1.5 billion annually. Oakland is managed by a mayor-council structured government. 

    About the Race

    Incumbent Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan’s campaign has raised $95,785 ($15,000 from candidate self-financing) and is not funded by fossil fuel, corporate PACs, or police money. However, she has not pledged to refuse money from any of those groups. Challenger Derreck B. Johnson’s campaign has raised $187,469 and has not committed to any of the pledges, either.  Challenger Nancy Sidebotham has not reported contributions at this time.

    A committee in opposition to Kaplan was formed by Ernest Brown, chair of the board of directors at YIMBY Action. However, Lyft has recently overtaken the committee in contributions, accounting for 72 percent of the total contributions as of October 6, 2020. Brown informed local newspapers that he is unsure why Lyft donated, considering the committee is about housing. Kaplan cites her attempts to tax companies like Lyft and Uber to pay for road infrastructure and previous votes against those companies’ requests to alter rental bike/scooter contracts with the City of Oakland to achieve a monopoly, like they did in San Francisco, as the reason why Lyft is lobbying against her. Kaplan concluded in an interview with The Oaklandside:  “This is not about housing. This is about a billionaire corporation that doesn’t want to pay its fair share in taxes and wants to abuse its workers.”

    About the Candidate

    Rebecca Kaplan, current Oakland City Council Member At Large since 2008, is from Oakland. She is the first openly-LGBTQIA+ elected official in Oakland. Prior to her election to the Oakland City Council, Kaplan worked as a housing rights attorney in Oakland and served as the elected director on the AC Transit Board and on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board. She is a longtime supporter of increasing affordability and accessibility to public transportation, racial justice, and LGBTQIA+ rights. According to campaign materials, Kaplan is running for re-election to protect public health in a pandemic and beyond, improve regional transportation and infrastructure, promote gun safety, and protect renters and sexually exploited youth.

    Kaplan’s priorities for Oakland this term include public transportation and police accountability. Notable district achievements by Kaplan as City Council Member At Large include banning the loading and storage of coal in Oakland, passing gun legislation that provided technology and systems to shut down sources of illegal guns and banned leaving guns loose in unattended vehicles, organizing the LGBTQIA+ roundtable, and helping to write and pass the $8 billion Measure BB, which increased transit service, provided free bus passes for school-age children, and created thousands of local jobs. Kaplan is the lead author of Measure S1 - Amending Powers of Police Commission, which will appear on Oakland residents’ ballots this November. The measure seeks to provide independence of police oversight to help provide accountability and trust. Kaplan currently sits on four committees: Life Enrichment, Public Safety, Rules and Legislation, and City/Port Liaison Committee (chair).

    Kaplan is endorsed by a strong majority progressive groups, such as Equality California, Planned Parenthood, Oakland Rising Action, and Black Women Organized for Political Action PAC. At this time, Kaplan does not have any problematic endorsements. According to our analysis, Rebecca Kaplan is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Rebecca Kaplan

    Re-elect City Council Member Rebecca Kaplan to keep Oakland on the right track. 

    About the Position

    Re-elect City Council Member Rebecca Kaplan to keep Oakland on the right track. 

    About the Position

    Oakland is governed by an eight-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. In Oakland, the position of mayor is limited to two terms of four years each, while City Council members can serve for an unlimited number of terms. The Council is made up of one representative from each of seven districts and one at-large representative. 

    About the District

    Oakland is Alameda County’s most populous city. Oakland City Council oversees the needs of 390,724 people, according to the 2010 Census, and manages an estimated budget of $1.5 billion annually. Oakland is managed by a mayor-council structured government. 

    About the Race

    Incumbent Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan’s campaign has raised $95,785 ($15,000 from candidate self-financing) and is not funded by fossil fuel, corporate PACs, or police money. However, she has not pledged to refuse money from any of those groups. Challenger Derreck B. Johnson’s campaign has raised $187,469 and has not committed to any of the pledges, either.  Challenger Nancy Sidebotham has not reported contributions at this time.

    A committee in opposition to Kaplan was formed by Ernest Brown, chair of the board of directors at YIMBY Action. However, Lyft has recently overtaken the committee in contributions, accounting for 72 percent of the total contributions as of October 6, 2020. Brown informed local newspapers that he is unsure why Lyft donated, considering the committee is about housing. Kaplan cites her attempts to tax companies like Lyft and Uber to pay for road infrastructure and previous votes against those companies’ requests to alter rental bike/scooter contracts with the City of Oakland to achieve a monopoly, like they did in San Francisco, as the reason why Lyft is lobbying against her. Kaplan concluded in an interview with The Oaklandside:  “This is not about housing. This is about a billionaire corporation that doesn’t want to pay its fair share in taxes and wants to abuse its workers.”

    About the Candidate

    Rebecca Kaplan, current Oakland City Council Member At Large since 2008, is from Oakland. She is the first openly-LGBTQIA+ elected official in Oakland. Prior to her election to the Oakland City Council, Kaplan worked as a housing rights attorney in Oakland and served as the elected director on the AC Transit Board and on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board. She is a longtime supporter of increasing affordability and accessibility to public transportation, racial justice, and LGBTQIA+ rights. According to campaign materials, Kaplan is running for re-election to protect public health in a pandemic and beyond, improve regional transportation and infrastructure, promote gun safety, and protect renters and sexually exploited youth.

    Kaplan’s priorities for Oakland this term include public transportation and police accountability. Notable district achievements by Kaplan as City Council Member At Large include banning the loading and storage of coal in Oakland, passing gun legislation that provided technology and systems to shut down sources of illegal guns and banned leaving guns loose in unattended vehicles, organizing the LGBTQIA+ roundtable, and helping to write and pass the $8 billion Measure BB, which increased transit service, provided free bus passes for school-age children, and created thousands of local jobs. Kaplan is the lead author of Measure S1 - Amending Powers of Police Commission, which will appear on Oakland residents’ ballots this November. The measure seeks to provide independence of police oversight to help provide accountability and trust. Kaplan currently sits on four committees: Life Enrichment, Public Safety, Rules and Legislation, and City/Port Liaison Committee (chair).

    Kaplan is endorsed by a strong majority progressive groups, such as Equality California, Planned Parenthood, Oakland Rising Action, and Black Women Organized for Political Action PAC. At this time, Kaplan does not have any problematic endorsements. According to our analysis, Rebecca Kaplan is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Rebecca Kaplan

    Re-elect City Council Member Rebecca Kaplan to keep Oakland on the right track. 

    About the Position
  • Endorsed By: Bay Rising

City District Races

Depending on where you live, you may have the below city district races on your ballot.

  • Elect Tamisha Walker as City Councilmember to push Antioch in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. In Antioch’s case, this five-person city council includes the mayor and mayor pro tem. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City council members in Antioch serve four-year terms, and are not bound by term limits.

    About the District

    Antioch is Contra Costa County’s third most populous city, and includes a population that is 43 percent white, 33 percent Latinx, and 20 percent Black. Antioch City Council oversees the needs of 102,372 people and manages an estimated budget of $158 million annually. Antioch is managed by a council-manager structured government. Antioch’s District 1 includes the northernmost region of the city. The northern, eastern, and western boundaries of the district are the city limits, and the southern boundary is Highway 4.

    About the Race

    This November’s election will be the first by-district race since Antioch approved district divisions in May 2018. All four districts are up for election this year, with Districts 1 and 4 electing representatives to initial two-year terms. Going forward, all city council elections will seat members to four-year terms. There are three candidates running for the District 1 seat, including current Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts and challenger Tamisha Walker. Walker’s campaign has not committed to any fundraising pledges, and has raised nearly $9,000 through a Crowdpac page. She entered the race after the most recent fundraising deadline, and has not recorded any receipts with the county. Incumbent Motts’s campaign has also not committed to any fundraising pledges, and does not have any fundraising receipts on record with the county.

    About the Candidate

    Tamisha Walker, a nonprofit executive director, is from Richmond, CA. According to campaign materials, Walker is running for election to use her experience as a community advocate to ensure that city government continues to work for all families in Antioch.

    Walker’s priorities for Antioch this term include fiscal stewardship, investing in youth development, climate and public lands protections, reimagining public safety, and resolving the local housing crisis. Walker is also committed to establishing Antioch as a sanctuary city.

    Walker is a founding member and executive director of Safe Return Project, which works to dismantle the mass-incarceration system and funds rehabilitation and prevention programs in the community. The program has a large footprint, affecting over 30,000 formerly incarcerated residents and over $90 million in local and state budgets. Criminal-justice reform is personal to Walker, who experienced economic and social disadvantage in her youth, and was incarcerated before turning 18. Since her release in 2009, she has been working in community organizing, and has training in violence-prevention strategies, conflict mediation, and incarceration and gun violence research and advocacy. She is a longtime advocate of the importance of rehabilitation in criminal justice, and eliminating racial disparity and injustice in policing.

    Walker is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district, including Working Families Party. According to our analysis, Tamisha Walker is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Tamisha Walker

    Elect Tamisha Walker as City Councilmember to push Antioch in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Elect Tamisha Walker as City Councilmember to push Antioch in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. In Antioch’s case, this five-person city council includes the mayor and mayor pro tem. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City council members in Antioch serve four-year terms, and are not bound by term limits.

    About the District

    Antioch is Contra Costa County’s third most populous city, and includes a population that is 43 percent white, 33 percent Latinx, and 20 percent Black. Antioch City Council oversees the needs of 102,372 people and manages an estimated budget of $158 million annually. Antioch is managed by a council-manager structured government. Antioch’s District 1 includes the northernmost region of the city. The northern, eastern, and western boundaries of the district are the city limits, and the southern boundary is Highway 4.

    About the Race

    This November’s election will be the first by-district race since Antioch approved district divisions in May 2018. All four districts are up for election this year, with Districts 1 and 4 electing representatives to initial two-year terms. Going forward, all city council elections will seat members to four-year terms. There are three candidates running for the District 1 seat, including current Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts and challenger Tamisha Walker. Walker’s campaign has not committed to any fundraising pledges, and has raised nearly $9,000 through a Crowdpac page. She entered the race after the most recent fundraising deadline, and has not recorded any receipts with the county. Incumbent Motts’s campaign has also not committed to any fundraising pledges, and does not have any fundraising receipts on record with the county.

    About the Candidate

    Tamisha Walker, a nonprofit executive director, is from Richmond, CA. According to campaign materials, Walker is running for election to use her experience as a community advocate to ensure that city government continues to work for all families in Antioch.

    Walker’s priorities for Antioch this term include fiscal stewardship, investing in youth development, climate and public lands protections, reimagining public safety, and resolving the local housing crisis. Walker is also committed to establishing Antioch as a sanctuary city.

    Walker is a founding member and executive director of Safe Return Project, which works to dismantle the mass-incarceration system and funds rehabilitation and prevention programs in the community. The program has a large footprint, affecting over 30,000 formerly incarcerated residents and over $90 million in local and state budgets. Criminal-justice reform is personal to Walker, who experienced economic and social disadvantage in her youth, and was incarcerated before turning 18. Since her release in 2009, she has been working in community organizing, and has training in violence-prevention strategies, conflict mediation, and incarceration and gun violence research and advocacy. She is a longtime advocate of the importance of rehabilitation in criminal justice, and eliminating racial disparity and injustice in policing.

    Walker is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district, including Working Families Party. According to our analysis, Tamisha Walker is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Tamisha Walker

    Elect Tamisha Walker as City Councilmember to push Antioch in the right direction.

    About the Position
  • Elect Julie Diep to push Garden Grove City Council in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City councilmembers in Garden Grove are ‎limited to two consecutive four-year terms and must take a two-year break if interested in serving again.

    About the District

    Garden Grove is Orange County’s fifth most populous city. Garden Grove City Council oversees the needs of 170,883 people, according to the 2010 Census, and manages an estimated budget of $255 million annually. Garden Grove is managed by a mayor-council structured government. Garden Grove’s District 2 includes North Garden Grove.

    About the Race

    Julie Diep’s campaign has raised $13,774. The campaign has yet to pledge to refuse money from fossil fuels, corporate PACs, and police, but to date has not taken money from these sources, as her campaign is funded entirely by individual contributions. Incumbent and Mayor Pro Tem John O’Neill’s campaign has raised $7,250. He has not committed to any of the pledges and is funded by the Garden Grove Police Association PAC. 

    About the Candidate

    Julie Diep, a therapist and business owner, is from Garden Grove, CA. Diep is the founder and president of OC Autism Foundation, a nonprofit that provides resources, advocacy, workshops, and speech therapy to families and children with autism. She also worked as a speech-language pathologist for Garden Grove Unified School District and currently works as a clinical director for New Hope Therapy Center in Garden Grove. She is a longtime supporter of eliminating language barriers for Latino and Vietnamese families, she seeks resources for children with autism, and she received a 2019 Distinguished Women’s Award for her work by City Council Member Sergio Contreras. According to campaign materials, Diep is running for election to bring a fresh outlook on the issues that matter most, such as helping to support small-business development.

    Diep’s priorities for Garden Grove this term include affordable housing, public safety, community resources during the pandemic, tourism, and small businesses. 

    Diep is endorsed by the Democratic Party of Orange County. At this time, she does not have any problematic endorsements. Incumbent Councilmember O’Neill’s problematic policies greatly outweigh Diep’s unfamiliarity with elected office and lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Julie Diep is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Julie Diep

    Elect Julie Diep to push Garden Grove City Council in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    Elect Julie Diep to push Garden Grove City Council in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City councilmembers in Garden Grove are ‎limited to two consecutive four-year terms and must take a two-year break if interested in serving again.

    About the District

    Garden Grove is Orange County’s fifth most populous city. Garden Grove City Council oversees the needs of 170,883 people, according to the 2010 Census, and manages an estimated budget of $255 million annually. Garden Grove is managed by a mayor-council structured government. Garden Grove’s District 2 includes North Garden Grove.

    About the Race

    Julie Diep’s campaign has raised $13,774. The campaign has yet to pledge to refuse money from fossil fuels, corporate PACs, and police, but to date has not taken money from these sources, as her campaign is funded entirely by individual contributions. Incumbent and Mayor Pro Tem John O’Neill’s campaign has raised $7,250. He has not committed to any of the pledges and is funded by the Garden Grove Police Association PAC. 

    About the Candidate

    Julie Diep, a therapist and business owner, is from Garden Grove, CA. Diep is the founder and president of OC Autism Foundation, a nonprofit that provides resources, advocacy, workshops, and speech therapy to families and children with autism. She also worked as a speech-language pathologist for Garden Grove Unified School District and currently works as a clinical director for New Hope Therapy Center in Garden Grove. She is a longtime supporter of eliminating language barriers for Latino and Vietnamese families, she seeks resources for children with autism, and she received a 2019 Distinguished Women’s Award for her work by City Council Member Sergio Contreras. According to campaign materials, Diep is running for election to bring a fresh outlook on the issues that matter most, such as helping to support small-business development.

    Diep’s priorities for Garden Grove this term include affordable housing, public safety, community resources during the pandemic, tourism, and small businesses. 

    Diep is endorsed by the Democratic Party of Orange County. At this time, she does not have any problematic endorsements. Incumbent Councilmember O’Neill’s problematic policies greatly outweigh Diep’s unfamiliarity with elected office and lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Julie Diep is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Julie Diep

    Elect Julie Diep to push Garden Grove City Council in the right direction. 

    About the Position
  • Elect Carroll Fife to push Oakland in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Oakland is governed by an eight-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. In Oakland, the position of mayor is limited to two terms of four years each, while City Council members can serve for an unlimited number of terms. The Council is made up of one representative from each of seven districts and one at-large representative. 

    About the District

    Oakland is Alameda County’s most populous city, and is 36 percent white, 24 percent Black, 27 percent Latinx, and 15 percent Asian. The Oakland City Council oversees the needs of 390,724 people and manages an estimated budget of $1.61 billion annually. Oakland is managed by a mayor-council structured government. Oakland’s District 3 includes the neighborhoods of West Oakland, Downtown/Uptown, Jack London, Pill Hill/KONO, the Lake, and the Port of Oakland.

    About the Race

    Oakland uses a ranked-choice voting system, which eliminates the need for city council races to be included on the primary ballot. Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates by preference on their ballot. The seat is won by a candidate who either wins a majority of first-rank preference, or, in the case of no majority winner, the candidate who has received the largest proportion of higher-ranking votes. There are six candidates running for this seat, including the incumbent, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, and her progressive challenger, Carroll Fife. There is no current polling available for this race. Carroll Fife’s campaign has raised $168,000, and has not accepted donations from any corporate PACs. Incumbent McElhaney has not committed to any funding pledges, and has recorded $151,000 in donations, including funds from the Oakland Police Officers’ Association. Recently, it was revealed that McElhaney is suspected to be part of an investigation by the Oakland Public Ethics Commission related to laundering of campaign contribution money over the last several years. It is alleged that the owners of California Waste Solutions (CWS) have funneled money to several councilmembers through straw donations since 2013. The donations are believed to be tied to the council’s consideration of a lawsuit related to an error in the CWS contract that has allowed them to collect millions by overcharging customers.

    About the Candidate

    Carroll Fife, the director of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action, is a longtime resident of Oakland. According to campaign materials, Fife is running to build on her successes as a community organizer, and to continue to collaborate with her neighbors in collective advocacy for social justice.

    Fife has progressive priorities for Oakland this term, including housing as a human right, divesting from policing, reinvesting in communities, progressive taxation, and supporting essential workers. She believes in systemic change to create more equity in public systems.

    Fife is a prolific community activist. She helped found Moms 4 Housing, a local housing-rights collective that organizes to reclaim housing from big banks and real-estate speculators.  She is a co-founder of Oakland Alliance, Oakland Justice Coalition, and Community Ready Corps. Through these organizations, Fife works in solidarity with her community to address issues of racial justice, housing equity, and education accessibility. She has successfully led organizing efforts that resulted in legislative victories on these issues, creating direct benefit for the Oakland community. She founded the Black Women in Elected Leadership PAC, and was elected to the Oakland NAACP Executive Committee. In recent years, she managed Oakland’s first-ever slate of all-Black women candidates for city council, and served as a delegate for the Bernie Sanders campaign during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Fife is a longtime supporter of housing rights, community self-determination, and racial justice.

    Fife is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. According to our analysis, Fife is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Carroll Fife

    Elect Carroll Fife to push Oakland in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Elect Carroll Fife to push Oakland in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Oakland is governed by an eight-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. In Oakland, the position of mayor is limited to two terms of four years each, while City Council members can serve for an unlimited number of terms. The Council is made up of one representative from each of seven districts and one at-large representative. 

    About the District

    Oakland is Alameda County’s most populous city, and is 36 percent white, 24 percent Black, 27 percent Latinx, and 15 percent Asian. The Oakland City Council oversees the needs of 390,724 people and manages an estimated budget of $1.61 billion annually. Oakland is managed by a mayor-council structured government. Oakland’s District 3 includes the neighborhoods of West Oakland, Downtown/Uptown, Jack London, Pill Hill/KONO, the Lake, and the Port of Oakland.

    About the Race

    Oakland uses a ranked-choice voting system, which eliminates the need for city council races to be included on the primary ballot. Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates by preference on their ballot. The seat is won by a candidate who either wins a majority of first-rank preference, or, in the case of no majority winner, the candidate who has received the largest proportion of higher-ranking votes. There are six candidates running for this seat, including the incumbent, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, and her progressive challenger, Carroll Fife. There is no current polling available for this race. Carroll Fife’s campaign has raised $168,000, and has not accepted donations from any corporate PACs. Incumbent McElhaney has not committed to any funding pledges, and has recorded $151,000 in donations, including funds from the Oakland Police Officers’ Association. Recently, it was revealed that McElhaney is suspected to be part of an investigation by the Oakland Public Ethics Commission related to laundering of campaign contribution money over the last several years. It is alleged that the owners of California Waste Solutions (CWS) have funneled money to several councilmembers through straw donations since 2013. The donations are believed to be tied to the council’s consideration of a lawsuit related to an error in the CWS contract that has allowed them to collect millions by overcharging customers.

    About the Candidate

    Carroll Fife, the director of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action, is a longtime resident of Oakland. According to campaign materials, Fife is running to build on her successes as a community organizer, and to continue to collaborate with her neighbors in collective advocacy for social justice.

    Fife has progressive priorities for Oakland this term, including housing as a human right, divesting from policing, reinvesting in communities, progressive taxation, and supporting essential workers. She believes in systemic change to create more equity in public systems.

    Fife is a prolific community activist. She helped found Moms 4 Housing, a local housing-rights collective that organizes to reclaim housing from big banks and real-estate speculators.  She is a co-founder of Oakland Alliance, Oakland Justice Coalition, and Community Ready Corps. Through these organizations, Fife works in solidarity with her community to address issues of racial justice, housing equity, and education accessibility. She has successfully led organizing efforts that resulted in legislative victories on these issues, creating direct benefit for the Oakland community. She founded the Black Women in Elected Leadership PAC, and was elected to the Oakland NAACP Executive Committee. In recent years, she managed Oakland’s first-ever slate of all-Black women candidates for city council, and served as a delegate for the Bernie Sanders campaign during the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Fife is a longtime supporter of housing rights, community self-determination, and racial justice.

    Fife is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. According to our analysis, Fife is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Carroll Fife

    Elect Carroll Fife to push Oakland in the right direction.

    About the Position
  • Elect City Council Member Susan Sonne to push Buena Park in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City council members in Buena Park are elected for staggered terms of four years. The city’s charter does not specify a term limit for city council members.

    About the District

    Buena Park is Orange County’s 12th most populous city. The Buena Park City Council oversees the needs of 81,788 people and manages an estimated budget of $1.5 million annually. Buena Park is managed by a council-manager structured government. Buena Park’s population includes significant Latinx and Asian populations.

    About the Race

    Susan Sonne’s campaign is endorsed by HONOR PAC, the Orange County Labor Federation, Women in Leadership, the president emeritus of the Orange County Firefighters, and a large number of local trade unions and representatives. There are two other candidates for this seat, Sharon Smith and Paul Gonzales. Due to the lack of a primary election, newspaper polls, or publicly available electronic campaign finance documents, we cannot offer any specific numbers at this time.

    About the Candidate

    Susan Sonne, a Buena Park city commissioner, is a longtime resident of District 3. According to campaign materials, Sonne is running for election to foster a city hall environment that can lift Buena Park to a prosperous recovery.

    Susan Sonne’s priorities for Buena Park this term include expanding access to childcare and the internet, decriminalizing poverty, sending medics and crisis workers to incidents where law enforcement is not required, distributing state-authorized rent relief funds, expanding food-distribution programs, establishing a citizen-engagement process for future development of the Buena Park Mall, transforming wasted space beneath power lines into parks and walking trails, and updating the city’s water system.

    Susan Sonne boasts a forty-year career in IT, beginning as a programmer and working her way up to management. She currently serves as a city commissioner and previously served as chair of the Beautification-Environmental Commission. A longtime supporter of tree-planting initiatives and environmental preservation, she works as executive director of the Buena Park Collaborative and volunteered at the Buena Park Community Resource Center, advocating for her city’s urban forest. In her own words: “More trees, please!”

    Susan Sonne is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district and is, according to our analysis, the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

     

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Susan Sonne

    Elect City Council Member Susan Sonne to push Buena Park in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Elect City Council Member Susan Sonne to push Buena Park in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City council members in Buena Park are elected for staggered terms of four years. The city’s charter does not specify a term limit for city council members.

    About the District

    Buena Park is Orange County’s 12th most populous city. The Buena Park City Council oversees the needs of 81,788 people and manages an estimated budget of $1.5 million annually. Buena Park is managed by a council-manager structured government. Buena Park’s population includes significant Latinx and Asian populations.

    About the Race

    Susan Sonne’s campaign is endorsed by HONOR PAC, the Orange County Labor Federation, Women in Leadership, the president emeritus of the Orange County Firefighters, and a large number of local trade unions and representatives. There are two other candidates for this seat, Sharon Smith and Paul Gonzales. Due to the lack of a primary election, newspaper polls, or publicly available electronic campaign finance documents, we cannot offer any specific numbers at this time.

    About the Candidate

    Susan Sonne, a Buena Park city commissioner, is a longtime resident of District 3. According to campaign materials, Sonne is running for election to foster a city hall environment that can lift Buena Park to a prosperous recovery.

    Susan Sonne’s priorities for Buena Park this term include expanding access to childcare and the internet, decriminalizing poverty, sending medics and crisis workers to incidents where law enforcement is not required, distributing state-authorized rent relief funds, expanding food-distribution programs, establishing a citizen-engagement process for future development of the Buena Park Mall, transforming wasted space beneath power lines into parks and walking trails, and updating the city’s water system.

    Susan Sonne boasts a forty-year career in IT, beginning as a programmer and working her way up to management. She currently serves as a city commissioner and previously served as chair of the Beautification-Environmental Commission. A longtime supporter of tree-planting initiatives and environmental preservation, she works as executive director of the Buena Park Collaborative and volunteered at the Buena Park Community Resource Center, advocating for her city’s urban forest. In her own words: “More trees, please!”

    Susan Sonne is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district and is, according to our analysis, the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

     

    Susan Sonne

    Elect City Council Member Susan Sonne to push Buena Park in the right direction.

    About the Position
  • Elect David Cohen to push San Jose in the right direction.

    About the Position

    San Jose, CA, is governed by a ten-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City councilmembers in San Jose are ‎limited to two consecutive terms of four years each.

    About the District

    San Jose is Santa Clara County’s most populous city. The San Jose City Council oversees the needs of an estimated 1 million people and manages an estimated budget of $3 billion annually. San Jose is managed by a council-manager structured government. San Jose’s District 4 includes Alviso, Berryessa, and the North San Jose Innovation District.

    About the Race

    In the primary, challenger David Cohen led incumbent Lan Diep by a margin of 3.3 percent. Cohen’s campaign has raised $123,766 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Diep’s campaign has raised $227,062, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, and is endorsed by the California Apartment Association and the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors. Diep was a registered Republican until 2019, when he re-registered as “Decline to State” without a public statement. Diep’s top priority for a prospective second term is “safety,” and he is quoted as saying, “This is the challenge of the moment facing our police force: trying to grow our ranks as we face waves of officers ready to retire.”

    About the Candidate

    David Cohen, an engineer and Berryessa Union School District Board trustee, has lived in District 4 for twenty years. According to campaign materials, Cohen is running for election to promote sustainable financial investment in San Jose’s public services.

    David Cohen’s priorities for San Jose this term include making solar energy part of every development project, working with the water district to ensure that gray water is reused for irrigation, expanding BART and light-rail access by completing stalled extension efforts, and partnering with Santa Clara County and nonprofit organizations to provide housing, mental-health care, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and job training/placement programs for unhoused residents.

    David Cohen earned his undergraduate degree from Cornell University and his PhD from U.C Berkeley. During his time on the Berryessa Union School District Board, Cohen started Dual-Immersion Programs in Mandarin and Spanish, prevented class size increases, protected the music and science programs from budget cuts, ensured that counselors and social workers were added to each school site, and moved several schools over to solar energy. He is also involved with the Berryessa Citizens Advisory Council and other neighborhood associations.

    David Cohen is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district and is, according to our analysis, the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    David Cohen

    Elect David Cohen to push San Jose in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Elect David Cohen to push San Jose in the right direction.

    About the Position

    San Jose, CA, is governed by a ten-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City councilmembers in San Jose are ‎limited to two consecutive terms of four years each.

    About the District

    San Jose is Santa Clara County’s most populous city. The San Jose City Council oversees the needs of an estimated 1 million people and manages an estimated budget of $3 billion annually. San Jose is managed by a council-manager structured government. San Jose’s District 4 includes Alviso, Berryessa, and the North San Jose Innovation District.

    About the Race

    In the primary, challenger David Cohen led incumbent Lan Diep by a margin of 3.3 percent. Cohen’s campaign has raised $123,766 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Diep’s campaign has raised $227,062, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, and is endorsed by the California Apartment Association and the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors. Diep was a registered Republican until 2019, when he re-registered as “Decline to State” without a public statement. Diep’s top priority for a prospective second term is “safety,” and he is quoted as saying, “This is the challenge of the moment facing our police force: trying to grow our ranks as we face waves of officers ready to retire.”

    About the Candidate

    David Cohen, an engineer and Berryessa Union School District Board trustee, has lived in District 4 for twenty years. According to campaign materials, Cohen is running for election to promote sustainable financial investment in San Jose’s public services.

    David Cohen’s priorities for San Jose this term include making solar energy part of every development project, working with the water district to ensure that gray water is reused for irrigation, expanding BART and light-rail access by completing stalled extension efforts, and partnering with Santa Clara County and nonprofit organizations to provide housing, mental-health care, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and job training/placement programs for unhoused residents.

    David Cohen earned his undergraduate degree from Cornell University and his PhD from U.C Berkeley. During his time on the Berryessa Union School District Board, Cohen started Dual-Immersion Programs in Mandarin and Spanish, prevented class size increases, protected the music and science programs from budget cuts, ensured that counselors and social workers were added to each school site, and moved several schools over to solar energy. He is also involved with the Berryessa Citizens Advisory Council and other neighborhood associations.

    David Cohen is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district and is, according to our analysis, the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    David Cohen

    Elect David Cohen to push San Jose in the right direction.

    About the Position
  • Elect Bob Tucker to push Garden Grove City Council in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City councilmembers in Garden Grove are ‎limited to two consecutive four-year terms and must take a two-year break if interested in serving again.

    About the District

    Garden Grove is Orange County’s 5th most populous city. Garden Grove City Council oversees the needs of 170,883 people, according to the 2010 Census, and manages an estimated budget of $255 million annually. Garden Grove is managed by a mayor-council structured government. Garden Grove’s District 5 includes Eastern Garden Grove.

    About the Race

    Robert (Bob) Tucker’s campaign has raised $8,845 and is not funded by police, corporate PACs, or fossil fuels, though he has not taken any campaign finance pledges. Incumbent Stephanie Klopfenstein’s campaign has raised $20,175. She has not committed to any of the pledges we highlight, and is funded by several real estate corporations and the Garden Grove Police Association PAC. For the 2016 election, Klopfenstein signed a No Union Money pledge.

    About the Candidate

    Bob Tucker, a former labor relations representative with California School Employees Association, is from Garden Grove, CA. Tucker also served as a board member and Youth Council chair for Santa Ana Workforce Investment Board, personnel commissioner for Garden Grove Unified School District, and as chapter President for CSEA. He is a longtime advocate for labor and health-care policy at both the state and local levels. According to campaign materials, Tucker is running for election to be Garden Grove’s local advocate and make sure the city’s budget reflects its values.

    Tucker’s priorities for Garden Grove this term include reallocating funds from the police department to community support services, obtaining COVID-19 relief for families and businesses throughout the city, and increasing transparency and responsiveness within Garden Grove City Council.

    Tucker is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups and elected officials, such as the Democratic Party of OC, OC Labor Federation, OC Civic Engagement Table, and Garden Grove City Councilmember for District 6 Kim Nguyen. At this time, he does not have any problematic endorsements. Incumbent Klopfenstein's  policies greatly outweighs Tucker’s lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Bob Tucker is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Bob Tucker

    Elect Bob Tucker to push Garden Grove City Council in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Elect Bob Tucker to push Garden Grove City Council in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City councilmembers in Garden Grove are ‎limited to two consecutive four-year terms and must take a two-year break if interested in serving again.

    About the District

    Garden Grove is Orange County’s 5th most populous city. Garden Grove City Council oversees the needs of 170,883 people, according to the 2010 Census, and manages an estimated budget of $255 million annually. Garden Grove is managed by a mayor-council structured government. Garden Grove’s District 5 includes Eastern Garden Grove.

    About the Race

    Robert (Bob) Tucker’s campaign has raised $8,845 and is not funded by police, corporate PACs, or fossil fuels, though he has not taken any campaign finance pledges. Incumbent Stephanie Klopfenstein’s campaign has raised $20,175. She has not committed to any of the pledges we highlight, and is funded by several real estate corporations and the Garden Grove Police Association PAC. For the 2016 election, Klopfenstein signed a No Union Money pledge.

    About the Candidate

    Bob Tucker, a former labor relations representative with California School Employees Association, is from Garden Grove, CA. Tucker also served as a board member and Youth Council chair for Santa Ana Workforce Investment Board, personnel commissioner for Garden Grove Unified School District, and as chapter President for CSEA. He is a longtime advocate for labor and health-care policy at both the state and local levels. According to campaign materials, Tucker is running for election to be Garden Grove’s local advocate and make sure the city’s budget reflects its values.

    Tucker’s priorities for Garden Grove this term include reallocating funds from the police department to community support services, obtaining COVID-19 relief for families and businesses throughout the city, and increasing transparency and responsiveness within Garden Grove City Council.

    Tucker is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups and elected officials, such as the Democratic Party of OC, OC Labor Federation, OC Civic Engagement Table, and Garden Grove City Councilmember for District 6 Kim Nguyen. At this time, he does not have any problematic endorsements. Incumbent Klopfenstein's  policies greatly outweighs Tucker’s lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Bob Tucker is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Bob Tucker

    Elect Bob Tucker to push Garden Grove City Council in the right direction.

    About the Position
  • Elect City Council challenger Lauren Kohler to push Chico in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City council members in Chico are ‎limited to three terms, or 12 years in office total.

    About the District

    Chico is Butte County’s most populous city, with a white population of 82 percent. Chico City Council oversees the needs of 86,187 people and manages an estimated budget of $152 million annually. Chico is managed by a mayor-council structured government. Chico’s District 5 includes the southwestern region of the city near Nord Avenue.

    About the Race

    This November’s election will be the first in Chico since the city council adopted a new district map. Four city council seats are on the ballot, including District 5. There are three candidates running for this seat, including the incumbent Randall Stone, and a challenger, Lauren Kohler. Kohler has not pledged to refuse police, fossil fuel, or corporate PAC money, and has recorded around $6,500 of fundraising receipts as of September 2020. Incumbent Stone has also not taken any fundraising pledges this election cycle, and has recorded only small-dollar donations.

    About the Candidate

    Lauren Kohler, a small-business manager, is from Chico, CA. According to campaign materials, Kohler is running for election to center the needs of Chicoans and work toward humane solutions to the city’s issues of housing and climate change.

    Kohler’s priorities for Chico this term include establishing renter protections and permanent housing solutions for homeless individuals, creating climate resilience through thoughtful urban planning, and reimagining public safety through investment in community-based social services.

    Kohler is a lifelong resident of Chico, and attended Butte College and Chico State University. She has worked for Butte County Behavioral Health as an education specialist, as a case manager for a statewide homelessness program, and now manages a local small business. She has been outspoken about the importance of thoughtfully establishing long-term solutions to housing and homelessness in Chico.

    Kohler is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district, including California Progressive Alliance. According to our analysis, Lauren Kohler is the strongest choice for equitable leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Lauren Kohler

    Elect City Council challenger Lauren Kohler to push Chico in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Elect City Council challenger Lauren Kohler to push Chico in the right direction.

    About the Position

    Incorporated cities in California are generally governed by a five-person city council. A city council is responsible for establishing policy, passing local laws (called ordinances), voting on budget appropriations, and developing an overall vision for the city. City council members in Chico are ‎limited to three terms, or 12 years in office total.

    About the District

    Chico is Butte County’s most populous city, with a white population of 82 percent. Chico City Council oversees the needs of 86,187 people and manages an estimated budget of $152 million annually. Chico is managed by a mayor-council structured government. Chico’s District 5 includes the southwestern region of the city near Nord Avenue.

    About the Race

    This November’s election will be the first in Chico since the city council adopted a new district map. Four city council seats are on the ballot, including District 5. There are three candidates running for this seat, including the incumbent Randall Stone, and a challenger, Lauren Kohler. Kohler has not pledged to refuse police, fossil fuel, or corporate PAC money, and has recorded around $6,500 of fundraising receipts as of September 2020. Incumbent Stone has also not taken any fundraising pledges this election cycle, and has recorded only small-dollar donations.

    About the Candidate

    Lauren Kohler, a small-business manager, is from Chico, CA. According to campaign materials, Kohler is running for election to center the needs of Chicoans and work toward humane solutions to the city’s issues of housing and climate change.

    Kohler’s priorities for Chico this term include establishing renter protections and permanent housing solutions for homeless individuals, creating climate resilience through thoughtful urban planning, and reimagining public safety through investment in community-based social services.

    Kohler is a lifelong resident of Chico, and attended Butte College and Chico State University. She has worked for Butte County Behavioral Health as an education specialist, as a case manager for a statewide homelessness program, and now manages a local small business. She has been outspoken about the importance of thoughtfully establishing long-term solutions to housing and homelessness in Chico.

    Kohler is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district, including California Progressive Alliance. According to our analysis, Lauren Kohler is the strongest choice for equitable leadership in office.

    Lauren Kohler

    Elect City Council challenger Lauren Kohler to push Chico in the right direction.

    About the Position

Transit Board

Depending on where you live, you may have one of the below races on your ballot.

  • Elect Jovanka Beckles to push the AC Transit Board in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    Transit systems in California are generally governed by a five-person board. A transportation board is responsible for operating transit service, setting service levels, routes, and fares, and regulating transit facilities. AC Transit Board directors are elected every four years and can serve indefinite four-year terms until they resign or are replaced.

    About the District

    AC Transit Board is responsible for public transportation within Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The AC Transit Board oversees the needs of 1,423,713 people according to the most recent population report in 2011 and manages an estimated budget of $471 million annually. The AC Transit Board is managed by a seven-person president-director structured government. AC Transit Board Ward 1 serves 284,966 people and operates in Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Kensington, and Richmond.

    About the Race

    Jovanka Beckles is the only challenger to incumbent Joe Wallace, who was first elected to AC Transit Board Ward 1 in 2000 and has been re-elected every term. He currently serves as president of the board. Wallace is endorsed by San Pablo City Council Member Rita Xavier and the Sierra Club. No campaign filing statements have been filed for either Wallace or challenger Jovanka Beckles. 

    About the Candidate

    Jovanka Beckles, a former Richmond City Council member, is from Richmond, CA. Beckles is also a children’s mental-health professional, a leader in the Richmond Progressive Alliance, and a self-described democratic socialist following the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a longtime supporter of environmental protections and public safety, having co-sponsored the Climate Emergency Declaration in Richmond, voted against Chevron’s plan to produce dirtier crude oil, and opposed the transportation of coal into Richmond. According to campaign materials, Beckles is running for election at the urging of AC Transit workers in Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192. 

    Beckles’s priorities for the AC Transit Board this term include establishing fare-free transit, making a Green New Deal for transit in the East Bay a reality by taxing corporations, ensuring a safe ride for all--specifically with COVID-19 in mind--and continuing to fight for labor rights for transit workers, including safe working conditions. 

    Beckles is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups and elected officials in the district, such as Carroll Fife (director of Oakland’s ACCE Action chapter), Lateefah Simon (BART Board of Directors, District 7), East Bay Democratic Socialists of America, and Mark Williams (AC Transit Board of Directors, Ward 4). Beckles does not have any problematic endorsements at this time. According to our analysis, Beckles is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Jovanka Beckles

    Submitted by caitlin on Mon, 10/12/2020 - 16:45

    Elect Jovanka Beckles to push the AC Transit Board in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    Transit systems in California are generally governed by a five-person board. A transportation board is responsible for operating transit service, setting service levels, routes, and fares, and regulating transit facilities. AC Transit Board directors are elected every four years and can serve indefinite four-year terms until they resign or are replaced.

    About the District

    AC Transit Board is responsible for public transportation within Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The AC Transit Board oversees the needs of 1,423,713 people according to the most recent population report in 2011 and manages an estimated budget of $471 million annually. The AC Transit Board is managed by a seven-person president-director structured government. AC Transit Board Ward 1 serves 284,966 people and operates in Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Kensington, and Richmond.

    About the Race

    Jovanka Beckles is the only challenger to incumbent Joe Wallace, who was first elected to AC Transit Board Ward 1 in 2000 and has been re-elected every term. He currently serves as president of the board. Wallace is endorsed by San Pablo City Council Member Rita Xavier and the Sierra Club. No campaign filing statements have been filed for either Wallace or challenger Jovanka Beckles. 

    About the Candidate

    Jovanka Beckles, a former Richmond City Council member, is from Richmond, CA. Beckles is also a children’s mental-health professional, a leader in the Richmond Progressive Alliance, and a self-described democratic socialist following the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a longtime supporter of environmental protections and public safety, having co-sponsored the Climate Emergency Declaration in Richmond, voted against Chevron’s plan to produce dirtier crude oil, and opposed the transportation of coal into Richmond. According to campaign materials, Beckles is running for election at the urging of AC Transit workers in Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192. 

    Beckles’s priorities for the AC Transit Board this term include establishing fare-free transit, making a Green New Deal for transit in the East Bay a reality by taxing corporations, ensuring a safe ride for all--specifically with COVID-19 in mind--and continuing to fight for labor rights for transit workers, including safe working conditions. 

    Beckles is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups and elected officials in the district, such as Carroll Fife (director of Oakland’s ACCE Action chapter), Lateefah Simon (BART Board of Directors, District 7), East Bay Democratic Socialists of America, and Mark Williams (AC Transit Board of Directors, Ward 4). Beckles does not have any problematic endorsements at this time. According to our analysis, Beckles is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Transit Board

    Elect Jovanka Beckles to push the AC Transit Board in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    Transit systems in California are generally governed by a five-person board. A transportation board is responsible for operating transit service, setting service levels, routes, and fares, and regulating transit facilities. AC Transit Board directors are elected every four years and can serve indefinite four-year terms until they resign or are replaced.

    About the District

    AC Transit Board is responsible for public transportation within Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The AC Transit Board oversees the needs of 1,423,713 people according to the most recent population report in 2011 and manages an estimated budget of $471 million annually. The AC Transit Board is managed by a seven-person president-director structured government. AC Transit Board Ward 1 serves 284,966 people and operates in Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Kensington, and Richmond.

    About the Race

    Jovanka Beckles is the only challenger to incumbent Joe Wallace, who was first elected to AC Transit Board Ward 1 in 2000 and has been re-elected every term. He currently serves as president of the board. Wallace is endorsed by San Pablo City Council Member Rita Xavier and the Sierra Club. No campaign filing statements have been filed for either Wallace or challenger Jovanka Beckles. 

    About the Candidate

    Jovanka Beckles, a former Richmond City Council member, is from Richmond, CA. Beckles is also a children’s mental-health professional, a leader in the Richmond Progressive Alliance, and a self-described democratic socialist following the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a longtime supporter of environmental protections and public safety, having co-sponsored the Climate Emergency Declaration in Richmond, voted against Chevron’s plan to produce dirtier crude oil, and opposed the transportation of coal into Richmond. According to campaign materials, Beckles is running for election at the urging of AC Transit workers in Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192. 

    Beckles’s priorities for the AC Transit Board this term include establishing fare-free transit, making a Green New Deal for transit in the East Bay a reality by taxing corporations, ensuring a safe ride for all--specifically with COVID-19 in mind--and continuing to fight for labor rights for transit workers, including safe working conditions. 

    Beckles is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups and elected officials in the district, such as Carroll Fife (director of Oakland’s ACCE Action chapter), Lateefah Simon (BART Board of Directors, District 7), East Bay Democratic Socialists of America, and Mark Williams (AC Transit Board of Directors, Ward 4). Beckles does not have any problematic endorsements at this time. According to our analysis, Beckles is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Jovanka Beckles

    Submitted by caitlin on Mon, 10/12/2020 - 16:45

    Elect Jovanka Beckles to push the AC Transit Board in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    Transit systems in California are generally governed by a five-person board. A transportation board is responsible for operating transit service, setting service levels, routes, and fares, and regulating transit facilities. AC Transit Board directors are elected every four years and can serve indefinite four-year terms until they resign or are replaced.

    About the District

    AC Transit Board is responsible for public transportation within Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The AC Transit Board oversees the needs of 1,423,713 people according to the most recent population report in 2011 and manages an estimated budget of $471 million annually. The AC Transit Board is managed by a seven-person president-director structured government. AC Transit Board Ward 1 serves 284,966 people and operates in Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Kensington, and Richmond.

    About the Race

    Jovanka Beckles is the only challenger to incumbent Joe Wallace, who was first elected to AC Transit Board Ward 1 in 2000 and has been re-elected every term. He currently serves as president of the board. Wallace is endorsed by San Pablo City Council Member Rita Xavier and the Sierra Club. No campaign filing statements have been filed for either Wallace or challenger Jovanka Beckles. 

    About the Candidate

    Jovanka Beckles, a former Richmond City Council member, is from Richmond, CA. Beckles is also a children’s mental-health professional, a leader in the Richmond Progressive Alliance, and a self-described democratic socialist following the tradition of Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a longtime supporter of environmental protections and public safety, having co-sponsored the Climate Emergency Declaration in Richmond, voted against Chevron’s plan to produce dirtier crude oil, and opposed the transportation of coal into Richmond. According to campaign materials, Beckles is running for election at the urging of AC Transit workers in Amalgamated Transit Union Local 192. 

    Beckles’s priorities for the AC Transit Board this term include establishing fare-free transit, making a Green New Deal for transit in the East Bay a reality by taxing corporations, ensuring a safe ride for all--specifically with COVID-19 in mind--and continuing to fight for labor rights for transit workers, including safe working conditions. 

    Beckles is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups and elected officials in the district, such as Carroll Fife (director of Oakland’s ACCE Action chapter), Lateefah Simon (BART Board of Directors, District 7), East Bay Democratic Socialists of America, and Mark Williams (AC Transit Board of Directors, Ward 4). Beckles does not have any problematic endorsements at this time. According to our analysis, Beckles is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Transit Board
  • Endorsed By: Bay Rising
  • Elect Board Member Jamie Salcido to push BART District 1 in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, is split into nine districts within Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties. Each district elects one board member to a four-year term. Once elected, one member acts as president, and five officers are appointed: general manager, controller-treasurer, independent police auditor, general counsel, and district secretary. In 2019, BART served 118 million passengers, averaging 411,000 per weekday.

    About the District

    BART District 1 lies within Contra Costa County and includes the following stations: Concord, Lafayette, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre, and Walnut Creek.

    About the Candidate

    Jamie Salcido is a transportation commissioner for Walnut Creek and a health-care marketing manager. According to campaign materials, Salcido is running for election to address the extended impact of COVID-19 and bring ridership back; to keep riders safe by increasing collaboration with local governments, nonprofits, and social services agencies, as opposed to the police; and to ensure that BART continues its transition to Communication-Based Train Control, allowing trains to run at closer intervals.

    As transportation commissioner, Jamie Salcido focuses on improving traffic congestion, downtown parking, and moving people out of single-occupancy vehicles in favor of efficient and clean public transit. With a background in urban design, she has built transit-related projects that enhance the safety of public spaces with visibility and lighting systems, and improve community connectivity with pedestrian and bike paths.

    Jamie Salcido is endorsed by many progressive organizations in the district, such as the League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay, Contra Costa Young Democrats, LAMBDA Democrats, East Bay for Everyone, and a number of trade unions and labor councils. According to our analysis, Lateefah Simon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
     

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Jamie Salcido

    Submitted by caitlin on Mon, 10/12/2020 - 16:29

    Elect Board Member Jamie Salcido to push BART District 1 in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, is split into nine districts within Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties. Each district elects one board member to a four-year term. Once elected, one member acts as president, and five officers are appointed: general manager, controller-treasurer, independent police auditor, general counsel, and district secretary. In 2019, BART served 118 million passengers, averaging 411,000 per weekday.

    About the District

    BART District 1 lies within Contra Costa County and includes the following stations: Concord, Lafayette, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre, and Walnut Creek.

    About the Candidate

    Jamie Salcido is a transportation commissioner for Walnut Creek and a health-care marketing manager. According to campaign materials, Salcido is running for election to address the extended impact of COVID-19 and bring ridership back; to keep riders safe by increasing collaboration with local governments, nonprofits, and social services agencies, as opposed to the police; and to ensure that BART continues its transition to Communication-Based Train Control, allowing trains to run at closer intervals.

    As transportation commissioner, Jamie Salcido focuses on improving traffic congestion, downtown parking, and moving people out of single-occupancy vehicles in favor of efficient and clean public transit. With a background in urban design, she has built transit-related projects that enhance the safety of public spaces with visibility and lighting systems, and improve community connectivity with pedestrian and bike paths.

    Jamie Salcido is endorsed by many progressive organizations in the district, such as the League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay, Contra Costa Young Democrats, LAMBDA Democrats, East Bay for Everyone, and a number of trade unions and labor councils. According to our analysis, Lateefah Simon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
     

    Elect Board Member Jamie Salcido to push BART District 1 in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, is split into nine districts within Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties. Each district elects one board member to a four-year term. Once elected, one member acts as president, and five officers are appointed: general manager, controller-treasurer, independent police auditor, general counsel, and district secretary. In 2019, BART served 118 million passengers, averaging 411,000 per weekday.

    About the District

    BART District 1 lies within Contra Costa County and includes the following stations: Concord, Lafayette, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre, and Walnut Creek.

    About the Candidate

    Jamie Salcido is a transportation commissioner for Walnut Creek and a health-care marketing manager. According to campaign materials, Salcido is running for election to address the extended impact of COVID-19 and bring ridership back; to keep riders safe by increasing collaboration with local governments, nonprofits, and social services agencies, as opposed to the police; and to ensure that BART continues its transition to Communication-Based Train Control, allowing trains to run at closer intervals.

    As transportation commissioner, Jamie Salcido focuses on improving traffic congestion, downtown parking, and moving people out of single-occupancy vehicles in favor of efficient and clean public transit. With a background in urban design, she has built transit-related projects that enhance the safety of public spaces with visibility and lighting systems, and improve community connectivity with pedestrian and bike paths.

    Jamie Salcido is endorsed by many progressive organizations in the district, such as the League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay, Contra Costa Young Democrats, LAMBDA Democrats, East Bay for Everyone, and a number of trade unions and labor councils. According to our analysis, Lateefah Simon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
     

    Jamie Salcido

    Submitted by caitlin on Mon, 10/12/2020 - 16:29

    Elect Board Member Jamie Salcido to push BART District 1 in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, is split into nine districts within Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties. Each district elects one board member to a four-year term. Once elected, one member acts as president, and five officers are appointed: general manager, controller-treasurer, independent police auditor, general counsel, and district secretary. In 2019, BART served 118 million passengers, averaging 411,000 per weekday.

    About the District

    BART District 1 lies within Contra Costa County and includes the following stations: Concord, Lafayette, Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre, and Walnut Creek.

    About the Candidate

    Jamie Salcido is a transportation commissioner for Walnut Creek and a health-care marketing manager. According to campaign materials, Salcido is running for election to address the extended impact of COVID-19 and bring ridership back; to keep riders safe by increasing collaboration with local governments, nonprofits, and social services agencies, as opposed to the police; and to ensure that BART continues its transition to Communication-Based Train Control, allowing trains to run at closer intervals.

    As transportation commissioner, Jamie Salcido focuses on improving traffic congestion, downtown parking, and moving people out of single-occupancy vehicles in favor of efficient and clean public transit. With a background in urban design, she has built transit-related projects that enhance the safety of public spaces with visibility and lighting systems, and improve community connectivity with pedestrian and bike paths.

    Jamie Salcido is endorsed by many progressive organizations in the district, such as the League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay, Contra Costa Young Democrats, LAMBDA Democrats, East Bay for Everyone, and a number of trade unions and labor councils. According to our analysis, Lateefah Simon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
     

  • Re-elect board member Lateefah Simon to keep BART on the right track. 

    About the Position

    The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, is split into nine districts within Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties. Each district elects one board member to a four-year term. Once elected, one member acts as president, and five officers are appointed: general manager, controller-treasurer, independent police auditor, general counsel, and district secretary. In 2019, BART served 118 million passengers, averaging 411,000 per weekday.

    About the District

    BART District 7 lies within the Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties and includes the following stations: Ashby, El Cerrito del Norte (partial), El Cerrito Plaza (partial), MacArthur (partial), Montgomery (partial), Richmond, West Oakland, Embarcadero (partial).

    About the Candidate

    Incumbent Boardmember Lateefah Simon, a community activist and president of the BART District Board for 2020, is from the Fillmore district of San Francisco. Legally blind and a working mother, Simon is running for re-election to continue serving the working people, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on BART. She has expressed a long-term desire to secure enough funding to make public transit free.

    Lateefah Simon began her community engagement at age 15, organizing for the Center for Young Women’s Development. By 19, she was appointed executive director and served 11 years, bringing the organization to national acclaim. At 26, her work with the Center earned Simon the distinction of youngest woman ever to receive a MacArthur Fellowship. She went on to lead the creation of San Francisco’s first reentry services division under the leadership of then District Attorney Kamala Harris. Simon later served as executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and as program director at the Rosenberg Foundation.

    Currently, Lateefah Simon works as president of the Akonadi Foundation, an organization based in Oakland that funds and nurtures racial-justice movements, seeking to eliminate structural racism and expand opportunity for youth of color. She is also a California State University Trustee, appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016 to serve the largest public university system in the world.

    Incumbent Boardmember Lateefah Simon is endorsed by many progressive organizations in the district, such as the Harvey Milk Club; San Francisco Bicycle Coalition; SF Renters Alliance; the East Bay, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Young Democrats; and a number of trade unions. According to our analysis, Lateefah Simon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
     

    Last updated: 2023-04-05

    Lateefah Simon

    Submitted by caitlin on Mon, 10/12/2020 - 16:35

    Re-elect board member Lateefah Simon to keep BART on the right track. 

    About the Position

    The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, is split into nine districts within Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties. Each district elects one board member to a four-year term. Once elected, one member acts as president, and five officers are appointed: general manager, controller-treasurer, independent police auditor, general counsel, and district secretary. In 2019, BART served 118 million passengers, averaging 411,000 per weekday.

    About the District

    BART District 7 lies within the Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties and includes the following stations: Ashby, El Cerrito del Norte (partial), El Cerrito Plaza (partial), MacArthur (partial), Montgomery (partial), Richmond, West Oakland, Embarcadero (partial).

    About the Candidate

    Incumbent Boardmember Lateefah Simon, a community activist and president of the BART District Board for 2020, is from the Fillmore district of San Francisco. Legally blind and a working mother, Simon is running for re-election to continue serving the working people, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on BART. She has expressed a long-term desire to secure enough funding to make public transit free.

    Lateefah Simon began her community engagement at age 15, organizing for the Center for Young Women’s Development. By 19, she was appointed executive director and served 11 years, bringing the organization to national acclaim. At 26, her work with the Center earned Simon the distinction of youngest woman ever to receive a MacArthur Fellowship. She went on to lead the creation of San Francisco’s first reentry services division under the leadership of then District Attorney Kamala Harris. Simon later served as executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and as program director at the Rosenberg Foundation.

    Currently, Lateefah Simon works as president of the Akonadi Foundation, an organization based in Oakland that funds and nurtures racial-justice movements, seeking to eliminate structural racism and expand opportunity for youth of color. She is also a California State University Trustee, appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016 to serve the largest public university system in the world.

    Incumbent Boardmember Lateefah Simon is endorsed by many progressive organizations in the district, such as the Harvey Milk Club; San Francisco Bicycle Coalition; SF Renters Alliance; the East Bay, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Young Democrats; and a number of trade unions. According to our analysis, Lateefah Simon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
     

    Re-elect board member Lateefah Simon to keep BART on the right track. 

    About the Position

    The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, is split into nine districts within Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties. Each district elects one board member to a four-year term. Once elected, one member acts as president, and five officers are appointed: general manager, controller-treasurer, independent police auditor, general counsel, and district secretary. In 2019, BART served 118 million passengers, averaging 411,000 per weekday.

    About the District

    BART District 7 lies within the Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties and includes the following stations: Ashby, El Cerrito del Norte (partial), El Cerrito Plaza (partial), MacArthur (partial), Montgomery (partial), Richmond, West Oakland, Embarcadero (partial).

    About the Candidate

    Incumbent Boardmember Lateefah Simon, a community activist and president of the BART District Board for 2020, is from the Fillmore district of San Francisco. Legally blind and a working mother, Simon is running for re-election to continue serving the working people, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on BART. She has expressed a long-term desire to secure enough funding to make public transit free.

    Lateefah Simon began her community engagement at age 15, organizing for the Center for Young Women’s Development. By 19, she was appointed executive director and served 11 years, bringing the organization to national acclaim. At 26, her work with the Center earned Simon the distinction of youngest woman ever to receive a MacArthur Fellowship. She went on to lead the creation of San Francisco’s first reentry services division under the leadership of then District Attorney Kamala Harris. Simon later served as executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and as program director at the Rosenberg Foundation.

    Currently, Lateefah Simon works as president of the Akonadi Foundation, an organization based in Oakland that funds and nurtures racial-justice movements, seeking to eliminate structural racism and expand opportunity for youth of color. She is also a California State University Trustee, appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016 to serve the largest public university system in the world.

    Incumbent Boardmember Lateefah Simon is endorsed by many progressive organizations in the district, such as the Harvey Milk Club; San Francisco Bicycle Coalition; SF Renters Alliance; the East Bay, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Young Democrats; and a number of trade unions. According to our analysis, Lateefah Simon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
     

    Lateefah Simon

    Submitted by caitlin on Mon, 10/12/2020 - 16:35

    Re-elect board member Lateefah Simon to keep BART on the right track. 

    About the Position

    The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, or BART, is split into nine districts within Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties. Each district elects one board member to a four-year term. Once elected, one member acts as president, and five officers are appointed: general manager, controller-treasurer, independent police auditor, general counsel, and district secretary. In 2019, BART served 118 million passengers, averaging 411,000 per weekday.

    About the District

    BART District 7 lies within the Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties and includes the following stations: Ashby, El Cerrito del Norte (partial), El Cerrito Plaza (partial), MacArthur (partial), Montgomery (partial), Richmond, West Oakland, Embarcadero (partial).

    About the Candidate

    Incumbent Boardmember Lateefah Simon, a community activist and president of the BART District Board for 2020, is from the Fillmore district of San Francisco. Legally blind and a working mother, Simon is running for re-election to continue serving the working people, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on BART. She has expressed a long-term desire to secure enough funding to make public transit free.

    Lateefah Simon began her community engagement at age 15, organizing for the Center for Young Women’s Development. By 19, she was appointed executive director and served 11 years, bringing the organization to national acclaim. At 26, her work with the Center earned Simon the distinction of youngest woman ever to receive a MacArthur Fellowship. She went on to lead the creation of San Francisco’s first reentry services division under the leadership of then District Attorney Kamala Harris. Simon later served as executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and as program director at the Rosenberg Foundation.

    Currently, Lateefah Simon works as president of the Akonadi Foundation, an organization based in Oakland that funds and nurtures racial-justice movements, seeking to eliminate structural racism and expand opportunity for youth of color. She is also a California State University Trustee, appointed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2016 to serve the largest public university system in the world.

    Incumbent Boardmember Lateefah Simon is endorsed by many progressive organizations in the district, such as the Harvey Milk Club; San Francisco Bicycle Coalition; SF Renters Alliance; the East Bay, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Young Democrats; and a number of trade unions. According to our analysis, Lateefah Simon is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
     

  • Endorsed By: Bay Rising