Re-elect Congressional Representative Mark Takano to keep CA-41 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.
Not in City of Riverside? Click here to choose your customized guide.
The Courage California Voter Guide compiles the information that allows you to make informed decisions about the races on your ballot, based on your values. Vote in every race on your ballot! It's our right and our responsibility. Please share this guide with your friends and family.
Have questions about voting in Riverside County? Visit your county elections website.
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.
California's 41st Congressional District includes parts of Riverside County. Republicans held this district until 2012, when Mark Takano won and flipped CA-41 from red to blue. The most recent election results show 61 percent of AD-41 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 59.4 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.
In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Takano led Republican challenger Aja Smith by a margin of 17.8 percent. Neither candidate has pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Rep. Takano’s campaign is funded mostly by labor and rights groups but is also backed by some corporations. Smith’s campaign is funded by retirees as well as real estate, business, and oil and gas interests.
Representative Mark Takano is from Riverside, CA. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2013. According to campaign materials, he is running for re-election to continue to fight for his district’s progressive priorities and be an advocate for veterans, seniors, students, local businesses and hardworking families.
In Congress, Rep. Takano has authored and advanced legislation to limit for-profit colleges’ abusive practices, protect veterans’ benefits, and increase access to vocational training programs. Prior to his election to Congress, Rep. Takano served on the Riverside Community College District’s Board of Trustees, where he increased access to higher education and job-skills training programs for adults seeking new careers. Rep. Takano’s public service in the Riverside community includes positions on the Community Advisory Board of the Children’s Spine Foundation, as well as the mayor of Riverside’s Task Force on the Digital Divide. He also served as chair for the Asain Pacific Islander Caucus of the California Democratic Party.
Rep. Takano’s priorities for CA-41 this year have included pushing for accountability from the US Postmaster General and from the ICE Adelanto Detention Center, as well as to protect servicemembers’ education benefits. He currently sits on two committees: the Education and Labor Committee, and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, which he chairs. This year, Rep. Takano has voted 99 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 96 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Takano has co-sponsored six bills this year--including about protecting the USPS and providing for more police accountability, all of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.
Rep. Takano is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. The threat of anti-choice Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Smith’s potential policies greatly outweighs Takano’s moderate corporate backing. According to our analysis, Rep. Takano is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.
The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals.
Depending on where you live, you may have the below races on your ballot.
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 congressional districts. Each represents a population of about 930,000 Californians. 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 and Assembly. This term, Democrats currently hold a two-thirds supermajority of 29 seats in the California State Senate, while Republicans hold 11 seats.
California's 31st Senate District includes parts of Riverside County. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show SD-31 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.
In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Richard Roth led Republican challenger Rod Taylor by a margin of 98 percent. Roth’s campaign has raised $702,617 and has taken no campaign finance pledges. Taylor’s campaign has raised $0.
Rep. Richard Roth, a retired Air Force major general and former attorney, is from Columbus, OH. According to campaign materials, Rep. Roth is running for re-election to create jobs and continue investing in Riverside’s education system.
Sen. Richard Roth’s priorities for SD-31 this year include further investment in UC Riverside’s School of Medicine and protecting our groundwater. He currently sits on 8 committees: the Legislative Audit Committee (vice chair), Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Insurance Committee, Veterans Affairs Committee, Housing Committee, Transportation and Housing Committee, and both the State Senate and Legislature Rules Committees. Sen. Roth has sponsored seven bills this year centered around bolstering Riverside’s schools and groundwater regulation, of which all have successfully passed. He scores a Lifetime Courage Score of 44 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Senator Roth has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Sen. Roth has not supported prohibiting landlords from rejecting applicants based on Section 8 status, granting tenants the right to a tenant association, prohibiting no-rehire policies that bar victims of workplace mistreatment from employment with the offending company, and banning the use of biometric surveillance and facial-recognition technology from being used in police body cameras.
Prior to his election to the State Senate, Sen. Richard Roth served in the United States Air Force as a reservist, eventually achieving the rank of major general. He was also an employment attorney for 30 years, licensed to practice in California and Georgia, until joining the California State Senate in 2012. He is a longtime supporter of UC Riverside and local community colleges.
Rep. Richard Roth is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. He is also endorsed by the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, and California Apartment Association. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Rod Taylor’s potential policies greatly outweighs Sen. Roth’s moderate voting record, problematic endorsements, and lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Rep. Richard Roth is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.
State senators represent and advocate for the needs of their district at the California State Capitol.
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:
Misinformation about Prop 15 includes:
Primary Funders of Prop 15 include:
Prop 15’s main opponents include realty and industrial property owners, while there is overwhelming financial support from the California Teachers Association and SEIU California State Council.
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:
Misinformation about Prop 16 includes:
Top Funders of Prop 16 include:
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:
Misinformation about Prop 17 includes:
Top Funders of Prop 17 include:
There are no contributions recorded for support or opposition to Prop 17.
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. A subset are currently prohibited from voting at 18 if they are 17 during the primary election. Prop 18 amends the constitutional loophole that prevents all 18-year-olds from being able to vote in general elections.
Why voting YES on Prop 18 matters:
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.
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.
Realtor associations have contributed $36,270,000 in support of Prop 19. There is no registered financial opposition.
There is no prominent misinformation about Proposition 19.
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:
Top Funders of Prop 20:
Misinformation about Prop 20:
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:
Top Funders of Prop 21 include:
Proposition 22 asks voters to classify ride-share and delivery companies as independent contractors, not 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:
Top Funders of Prop 22 include:
Misinformation About Prop 22 Includes:
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.
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.
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:
Misinformation about Prop 24:
Top Funders of Prop 24:
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.
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.
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.