55th Assembly District

Not in 55th Assembly District? Click here to choose your customized guide.

RETURN BALLOTS BY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD

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.

Voting has changed in Los Angeles County this year. The Voter’s Choice Act was enacted in the county to make voting more convenient. Changes include an expanded period of in-person early voting, every registered voter in the county will receive a vote-by-mail ballot, and every registered voter in the county is able to vote in-person at any Vote Center in their county. Also, in-person voters in Los Angeles County will have the opportunity to use the new Ballot Marking Device, a touchscreen with audio features, to mark their ballots. Have questions about the changes to voting in Los Angeles County? Visit your county elections website.

State Senator, 29th District

Member of the State Senate

  • Democrat
  • Elect Josh Newman to push SD-29 in the right direction.

    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 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.

    About the District

    California's 29th Senate District includes parts of Orange, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties. Republicans held this district from 1992 to 2016, when Josh Newman won and flipped SD-29 from red to blue. The most recent election results show SD-29 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

    About the Race

    In the primary, Democrat challenger Josh Newman trailed Republican incumbent Ling Ling Chang by a margin of 13.9 percent. Newman’s campaign has pledged not to accept money from the fossil fuel industry. Rep. Chang’s campaign has not committed to any such pledges and is backed by Pacific Gas and Electric, Chevron, and Phillips 66. Furthermore, Rep. Chang took office in 2018 only after spending hundreds of thousands of her own dollars on a campaign to recall Josh Newman after he defeated her in 2016. Republican Councilmember Carl DeMaio said Josh Newman was targeted due to his narrow margin of victory.

    About the Candidate

    Josh Newman currently resides in Fullerton, CA, and, according to campaign materials, is running for election to strengthen veterans’ services, promote mental-health care, and ensure transparency in state-level politics.

    Before running for office, Josh Newman founded and ran ArmedForce2Workforce, an organization that aims to integrate combat veterans back into their Southern California homes and workplaces. He is the former vice chair of the California Democratic Party Veterans Caucus and has been a longtime supporter of public education and health care, infrastructure improvement, and renewable energy.

    Josh Newman is endorsed by a strong majority of local progressive groups in the district. The threat of Republican opponent and strong Trump supporter Ling Ling Chang’s potential policies greatly outweighs Newman’s moderate record. According to our analysis, Josh Newman is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Josh Newman

    Elect Josh Newman to push SD-29 in the right direction.

    About the Position

    State senators represent and advocate for the needs of their district at the California State Capitol.

    Last updated: 2020-09-27

Congress, 32nd Congressional District

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

Member of the House of Representatives

  • Re-elect Congressional Representative Grace Napolitano to keep CA-32 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 32nd Congressional District includes parts of Los Angeles County. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show 66.6 percent of AD-32 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 65.2 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.

    About the Race

    In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Grace Napolitano led Republican challenger Joshua Scott by a margin of 23.5 percent. Neither candidate has pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Rep. Napolitano’s campaign is funded in large part by utilities, air transport, and construction services interest groups. Scott’s campaign is funded by transport and manufacturing interest groups.

    About the Candidate

    Representative Grace Napolitano is from Brownsville, TX, and currently resides in Los Angeles County. She is the incumbent, having served in Congress since 1999. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to stand up for labor rights, push for immigration reform, improve veteran services, and restore water infrastructure.

    In Congress, Napolitano has advanced legislation to secure funding to improve water management, mental-health services, and has led a task force to reduce gun violence. Prior to her election to Congress, she served on the Norwalk City Council, as mayor of Norwalk, and in the State Assembly.

    Rep. Napolitano’s priorities for CA-32 this year include continuing making progress to create new jobs, reaching compromise on immigration reform, attending to skyrocketing college costs, and managing the demand for mental-health awareness and services. She currently sits on two committees: the Committees on Natural Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure. This year, Rep. Napolitani has voted 100 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 95 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Napolitano has disagreed with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on two bills, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act and on appropriations for several federal departments and agencies. Rep. Napolitano has co-sponsored six bills providing for childcare, transportation infrastructure, and police accountability, all of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.

    Rep. Napolitano is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. She is also endorsed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California, a law-enforcement interest group. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Scott’s potential policies greatly outweighs Rep. Napolitano’s problematic financial backing and police endorsement. According to our analysis, Rep. Napolitano is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

     

    Grace Napolitano

    Re-elect Congressional Representative Grace Napolitano to keep CA-32 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.

    Last updated: 2020-09-27

Los Angeles County

Los Angeles District Attorney

  • Non-Partisan
  • Elect George Gascón to push Los Angeles County in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    The district attorney (DA) serves as the chief prosecutor for their designated county. The district attorney’s duties include reviewing police reports, determining criminal charges, and prosecuting criminal cases. The district attorney oversees a staff of prosecutors, who are responsible for presenting cases against individuals suspected of breaking the law, initiating investigations and recommending sentencing. The district attorney holds the power to grant immunity, conduct investigations of individuals, plea bargain with defendants, and is responsible for conducting investigations into every police misconduct incident. 


    About the District

    Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the United States. It encompasses a population of over 10 million, with significant Latinx, Black, and Asian populations. Notable cities within the county include Los Angeles, Inglewood, Long Beach, and Compton. Notable issues within the county’s criminal justice system include high rates of incarceration and police brutality.  

    About the Race

    In the March 3 primary election with three candidates, challenger George Gascón qualified along with incumbent Jackie Lacey, who failed to secure over 50 percent of the vote. At that time, Gascón trailed DA Lacey by a margin of 20 percent. Since then, as a result of the recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations, DA Lacey has been under increasing pressure to account for her problematic record of not listening to community groups and failing to prosecute police officers. Several elected officials have also rescinded their endorsements of DA Lacey since the start of the demonstrations.

    Gascón’s campaign is largely funded through individual donations, as well as contributions from labor unions and law firms. He has joined forces with San Francisco DA Chesa Boudin and Contra Costa DA Diana Becton to call all DAs and DA candidates to reject police union support as a conflict of interest. Gascón has not received any police, corporate, or fossil fuel money. 

    Opponent Jackie Lacey’s campaign’s funding is mostly composed of law-enforcement contributions, including a $1 million donation from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, $800,000 from the L.A. County sheriff’s deputies, and over $100,000 from the Peace Officers Research Association of California. Unions such as the Los Angeles Police Protective League have also contributed over $1 million to an anti-Gascón PAC. This push against Gascón from law enforcement is a direct result of Gascón’s commitment toward stricter oversight of police use of force. 

    About the Candidate
    George Gascón, a Cuban immigrant and longtime Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) police officer is known as a groundbreaking progressive leader in criminal justice reform in the country. Gascón is running for district attorney in Los Angeles because he believes the way the criminal justice system operates in Los Angeles must change.

    George Gascón moved back to L.A. to run for district attorney there, leaving his role as district attorney in San Francisco, where he was appointed to the seat in 2011, and he was re-elected twice. As the San Francisco DA, Gascón led a slate of progressive reforms, including lowering incarceration rates, expunging more than 9,000 marijuana convictions dating back to 1975, and launching a first-of-its-kind website that provides data on prosecutions, caseloads, and trial outcomes to the public in order to increase accountability and transparency in the criminal justice system. 

    Gascón started his career as a cop in Los Angeles. His trajectory took him to the top of the LAPD, where, as assistant chief, he oversaw operations of more than 9,000 officers. Throughout his career, Gascón has demonstrated the ability to think in new ways about complex problems in criminal justice and to create meaningful change in the culture and operations of police departments, including the LAPD, the Mesa Police Department, and the SFPD. 

    In his role as San Francisco DA, Gascón increased the prosecution of sexual assault cases, and created response teams, education programs, partnerships, and a new law-enforcement unit focused on addressing child abuse and sexual assault. He implemented practices and resources that centered on survivors and is currently proposing policies that protect undocumented, LGBTQ, and student survivors while prioritizing cultural and linguistic competency. 

    Gascón’s priorities for Los Angeles County address issues of immigration, corruption, and climate justice. Gascón has experience prosecuting both corporations and individual polluters and has committed to protecting the environment. Additionally, Gascón promises to fight against public corruption and promote accountability among Los Angeles County officials. Gascón is committed to opposing the death penalty and the use of money bail, both of which disproportionately target Black and brown populations.

    One of Gascón’s most notable priorities is addressing police brutality and holding law enforcement accountable. This is particularly relevant, considering Los Angeles County police have killed nearly 900 people since 2000, of which a majority are Black and brown victims. Only two officers have been charged for shooting civilians while on duty. This discrepancy is largely due to incumbent DA Jackie Lacey’s failure to prosecute the officers. In nearly all 886 cases of police violence, DA Lacey deemed use of force as legally justified. 

    Gascón’s track record and position on law-enforcement accountability is rare, particularly for someone with a law-enforcement background. During his term as San Francisco DA, Gascón prosecuted more than 30 police officers for criminal conduct. In 2019, while many police, law-enforcement officials, and prosecutors fought against its passage, Gascón advocated for Assembly Bill 392, also known as the Stephon Clark Bill, or the deadly use of force bill, which created a stricter standard for police use of force. He remains the only law-enforcement official in California to advocate for this legislation; every other prosecutor, including incumbent L.A. County DA Jackie Lacey, refused. 

    Throughout all these initiatives, Gascón has demonstrated an awareness of underserved communities’ needs. His awareness of the intricacies of racial bias is necessary, now more than ever, for the district attorney’s office. That awareness, however, is not what makes Gascón an ideal choice. While critics tend to focus on his background as a police officer who rose through the ranks, it is his departure from policing in pursuit of systemic reform that sets him apart. 

    In a time of heightened injustice, Gascón stands out from other political candidates in that he has studied his past actions and outcomes, listened to communities affected by the system, and changed his views and behaviors in response to become a more effective and compassionate leader. His willingness to prosecute police brutality cases and his track record on creating solutions that have become models for criminal justice reform advocates are highlights of his case for becoming Los Angeles’s next district attorney. 
     
    Gascón is a compelling challenger to incumbent Jackie Lacey, who has consistently resisted public pressure to hold police accountable for the more than 618 people who have been killed by police in Los Angeles County since her election in 2013. Courage California strongly endorses George Gascón for Los Angeles County District Attorney. 
     

    George Gascón

    Elect George Gascón to push Los Angeles County in the right direction. 

    About the Position

    Last updated: 2020-08-28

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, District 2

  • Non-Partisan
  • Elect Holly J. Mitchell to push Los Angeles 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 administered by their own city councils, as well as unincorporated areas 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

    Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the United States. It encompasses a population of over 10 million, with significant Latinx, Black, and Asian populations. Notable cities within the county include Los Angeles, Inglewood, Long Beach, and Compton. The five-member board of supervisors is the governing body of Los Angeles County and manages a budget of nearly $35 million annually, which they administer with the support of the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office. 

    About the Race

    State Senator Holly Mitchell is running against opponent Herb Wesson, a member of the Los Angeles City Council. According to recent polling numbers, Sen. Mitchell is leading opponent City Council Member Wesson by a margin of 13 percent, with many voters in the district still undecided. 

    Sen. Mitchell’s campaign has raised $445,000 through June 2020 and has pledged to not take police or fossil fuel money. Her campaign, primarily funded by individuals, labor unions, and the campaigns of colleagues in the state legislature, has accepted several donations from corporate PACs. These PACs include Herbalife International Inc. PAC, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. Political Action Committee, the employee PAC for the brands Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental, and Alamo Rent a Car. 

    City Council Member Herb Wesson’s campaign has raised just over $550,000 in the same period and has not pledged to avoid any types of campaign contributions. His campaign is backed by multiple independent expenditure efforts that spent over $1.2 million on his behalf in the primary, with $715,000 coming from three police officer unions. Notably, City Council Member Wesson played the key role in passing an amendment to the Los Angeles City Charter to reduce disciplinary procedures for Los Angeles police officers.  

    About the Candidate

    State Senator Holly Mitchell is a third-generation Angeleno and continues to live in Los Angeles, where she serves as a state senator for California’s 30th Senate District. According to campaign materials, Sen. Mitchell is running to represent District 2 on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in order to meet the real needs of local communities in Los Angeles County.

    Sen. Mitchell was elected to the state Assembly in 2010 and moved to the Senate in 2013. She is currently serving her final term (2018–2022) as a state senator and is the first African American Chair of the powerful Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. During her tenure, Sen. Mitchell proposed a set of criminal justice reforms that were signed into law. The reforms consisted of 10 laws to reduce barriers for Californians affected by the criminal justice system by reducing sentence enhancements for low-level drugs, removing court fees for the innocent, sealing arrest records for people not convicted, ending the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole, and other advancements. She has been a notable progressive influence in other areas as well, with nearly 90 bills signed into law on issues that include homelessness, mental health, children’s rights, and job protections. 

    In office, Sen. Mitchell has scored an overall 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting record. Recently, Sen. Mitchell has taken a stand on a problematic statewide housing bill, working with a coalition representing low-income communities to demand stronger protections for low-income people, people of color, and other vulnerable people most strongly affected by the housing crisis. 

    Sen. Mitchell stands out because of her track record as a champion for underrepresented and marginalized communities in California and her reputation as a strong leader on ethics for other legislators. The Los Angeles Times described her as “the Legislature’s moral compass.” Sen. Mitchell is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. 

    According to our analysis, Sen. Mitchell is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Voting for Senator Mitchell is an opportunity to elect a transformational leader as supervisor who will courageously represent the perspective and priorities of her district in L.A. County. 

    Courage California strongly endorses Senator Holly Mitchell for Supervisor.
     

    Holly Mitchell

    Elect Holly J. Mitchell to push Los Angeles 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 administered by their own city councils, as well as unincorporated areas 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

    Los Angeles County is the most populous county in the United States. It encompasses a population of over 10 million, with significant Latinx, Black, and Asian populations. Notable cities within the county include Los Angeles, Inglewood, Long Beach, and Compton. The five-member board of supervisors is the governing body of Los Angeles County and manages a budget of nearly $35 million annually, which they administer with the support of the Los Angeles County Chief Executive Office. 

    About the Race

    State Senator Holly Mitchell is running against opponent Herb Wesson, a member of the Los Angeles City Council. According to recent polling numbers, Sen. Mitchell is leading opponent City Council Member Wesson by a margin of 13 percent, with many voters in the district still undecided. 

    Sen. Mitchell’s campaign has raised $445,000 through June 2020 and has pledged to not take police or fossil fuel money. Her campaign, primarily funded by individuals, labor unions, and the campaigns of colleagues in the state legislature, has accepted several donations from corporate PACs. These PACs include Herbalife International Inc. PAC, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. Political Action Committee, the employee PAC for the brands Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental, and Alamo Rent a Car. 

    City Council Member Herb Wesson’s campaign has raised just over $550,000 in the same period and has not pledged to avoid any types of campaign contributions. His campaign is backed by multiple independent expenditure efforts that spent over $1.2 million on his behalf in the primary, with $715,000 coming from three police officer unions. Notably, City Council Member Wesson played the key role in passing an amendment to the Los Angeles City Charter to reduce disciplinary procedures for Los Angeles police officers.  

    About the Candidate

    State Senator Holly Mitchell is a third-generation Angeleno and continues to live in Los Angeles, where she serves as a state senator for California’s 30th Senate District. According to campaign materials, Sen. Mitchell is running to represent District 2 on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in order to meet the real needs of local communities in Los Angeles County.

    Sen. Mitchell was elected to the state Assembly in 2010 and moved to the Senate in 2013. She is currently serving her final term (2018–2022) as a state senator and is the first African American Chair of the powerful Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. During her tenure, Sen. Mitchell proposed a set of criminal justice reforms that were signed into law. The reforms consisted of 10 laws to reduce barriers for Californians affected by the criminal justice system by reducing sentence enhancements for low-level drugs, removing court fees for the innocent, sealing arrest records for people not convicted, ending the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole, and other advancements. She has been a notable progressive influence in other areas as well, with nearly 90 bills signed into law on issues that include homelessness, mental health, children’s rights, and job protections. 

    In office, Sen. Mitchell has scored an overall 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting record. Recently, Sen. Mitchell has taken a stand on a problematic statewide housing bill, working with a coalition representing low-income communities to demand stronger protections for low-income people, people of color, and other vulnerable people most strongly affected by the housing crisis. 

    Sen. Mitchell stands out because of her track record as a champion for underrepresented and marginalized communities in California and her reputation as a strong leader on ethics for other legislators. The Los Angeles Times described her as “the Legislature’s moral compass.” Sen. Mitchell is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. 

    According to our analysis, Sen. Mitchell is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Voting for Senator Mitchell is an opportunity to elect a transformational leader as supervisor who will courageously represent the perspective and priorities of her district in L.A. County. 

    Courage California strongly endorses Senator Holly Mitchell for Supervisor.
     

    Last updated: 2020-08-28

Los Angeles County Ballot Measures

County Measure #J

VOTE YES
Invest in Alternatives to Incarceration

Vote Yes on Measure J to increase spending on housing and mental-health services while decreasing funding for law enforcement.

Measure J will divert at least 10 percent of Los Angeles County’s unrestricted funding to community-based programs, such as affordable housing and rent assistance, job training, and mental-health and social services. These funds will not be invested in police departments, jails, or prisons. Based on the current $34.9 billion budget, an estimated $360 million to $490 million will go to community-based needs. In the event of a budget emergency that threatens mandated programs, county supervisors can vote to decrease that amount.

Why Voting YES on Measure J Matters
  • Los Angeles County runs the world’s largest jail system, with an inmate population of 17,000, nearly one-third of whom have mental-health concerns, making the system the largest de facto mental-health facility in the country.

  • According to the RAND Corporation, more than half of the inmates in the Mental Health Unit at Los Angeles Jail are candidates for diversion to community programs rather than incarceration.

  • California’s penal code criminalizes poverty, substance abuse, and mental-health illness while denying residents of color their fair share of community resources needed to thrive.

  • In recent years, residents and advocates have won key victories with the Board of Supervisors, creating new investments in housing and care for those experiencing homelessness. The essential element to scale up these interventions is funding. With more than 40 percent of Los Angeles County’s local tax revenues going to incarceration and policing, there are not enough resources for programs that can make a real difference in communities. Measure J could help close this gap.

  • This measure responds to the growing calls from the community to defund the police and prioritize public services by requiring that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to investments that support communities – including affordable housing, community counseling, mental-health services, youth-development programs, small businesses, and job creation.

Funders of Measure J
  • Top funders in support of Measure J include philanthropists Patty Quillin and Nicole Shanahan and the ACLU of Southern California.
  • Top funders in opposition to Measure J include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.
Misinformation about Measure J
  • "The measure will further challenge the county's essential workers, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic." -- FALSE. Funding for essential workers is not being challenged. The measure would guarantee at least 10 percent of unrestricted funding to address racial injustice, overreliance on police interventions, and health and housing disparities.
  • "The measure will raise taxes." -- FALSE. The proposed ballot measure does not involve a tax increase; instead, it redistributes existing local tax revenue.

 

Last updated: 2020-09-23


Statewide Ballot Measures

Proposition #15

VOTE YES
Vote YES on 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:

  • California public schools continue to be underfunded and communities of color continue to be impacted the most. Prop 15 is a way to invest in our communities without having to raise taxes on small businesses, renters, and homeowners. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout, California needs this funding from corporations who have not been paying their fair share of taxes.
  • California ranked 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 maintains all existing exemptions for small businesses, homeowners, renters, and agricultural land.
  • "It taxes working families" -- FALSE. Prop 15 will predominantly affect corporations who have not been paying their fair share of taxes.
  • "It is a step towards repealing Prop 13" -- FALSE. - Prop 15 actively maintains the exemptions Prop 13 secured.
  • "Small business operations from home aren’t protected under Prop 15" -- FALSE. Prop 15’s exemptions for businesses and homeowners apply to small business operations at home. 

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.

Top Funders

Last updated: 2020-09-10

Proposition #16

VOTE YES
Vote YES on 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.
Last updated: 2020-09-26

Proposition #17

VOTE YES
Vote YES on 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.

Last updated: 2020-08-28

Proposition #18

VOTE YES
Vote YES on 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. 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:

  • 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.

Last updated: 2020-08-28

Proposition #19

VOTE NO
Vote NO on 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.

 

Last updated: 2020-09-26

Proposition #20

VOTE NO
Vote NO on 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.

 

Last updated: 2020-08-28

Proposition #21

VOTE YES
Vote YES on 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.
Last updated: 2020-08-28

Proposition #22

VOTE NO
Vote NO on 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 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:

  • By classifying workers as contractors and not employees, companies like Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are not required by state employment laws to enforce minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
  • Ride-share and delivery workers are entitled to labor rights that every other employee in California is entitled to, such as the right to organize, minimum wage, and Social Security.
  • AB 5, which Prop 22 is trying to repeal, guarantees paid family leave, paid sick days, and unemployment insurance to those classified as gig employees. These labor rights are essential during a global pandemic.

Top Funders of Prop 22 include:

  • Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are leading contributions in support of Prop 22, with over $30 million each. Both InstaCart and Postmates have contributed $10 million each, for a grand total of over $110 million.
  • Transport Workers Union of America, SEIU California State Council, Working Families Issues Committee, Service Employees International Union, and District Council of Ironworkers PIC have contributed a total of $842,850 in opposition to Prop 22.

Misinformation About Prop 22 Includes:

  • "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.

 

Last updated: 2020-08-28

Proposition #24

VOTE NO
Vote NO on 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 erodes a consumer’s request to delete their data and would completely end CCPA protection of biometric information.
  • California should maintain net neutrality so people do not have to pay for companies to safeguard their personal information.
  • Prop 24 would disproportionately affect working people and families of color.
  • The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Prop 24 will cost $10 million annually to create a new state agency that oversees and enforces the more stringent consumer privacy laws with an unknown impact on state and local tax revenues.

Misinformation about Prop 24:

  • "It will better safeguard consumers’ information." -- FALSE. Prop 24 will only do this for the consumers who are financially able to pay for better protections. Additionally, Prop 24 will end CCPA protection of biometric information.

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.
  • There are no contributions to an opposition campaign.
Last updated: 2020-08-28