Progressive Voters Guide Powered by Courage California
Terra Lawson-Remer photo
Non-Partisan

Terra Lawson-Remer

Website Endorsements

Elect Terra Lawson-Remer to push San Diego 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

San Diego County is California's 2nd most populous county. San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors oversees the needs of 3.3 million people and manages an estimated budget of $6.4 billion annually. According to the County Charter, San Diego is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors, elected at large for a staggered four-year term in their respective districts. A chief administrative officer is appointed by the Board.

About the Race

In the primary, challenger Terra Lawson-Remer trailed incumbent Supervisor Kristin Gaspar by a margin of 11.6 percent. Lawson-Remer’s campaign has raised $633,419 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Gaspar’s campaign has raised $522,602, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, and is endorsed by the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association, San Diego Probation Officers Association, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County, San Diego District Attorney Investigators Association, Southern California Rental Housing Association, Greater San Diego Association of Realtors, and North County Realtors. In 2012, the San Diego Reader reported on a controversy surrounding Gaspar’s city council campaign, during which a series of mailers supporting her candidacy were sent to voters that purported to be from a nonprofit organization that later was found not to exist. In 2019, the San Diego Tribune reported that Gaspar attempted to secure a multimillion-dollar city contract for a nonprofit organization she worked for without disclosing her role at the organization.

About the Candidate

Terra Lawson-Remer, an economist, environmental attorney, community organizer, and educator, is a third-generation San Diegan. According to campaign materials, Lawson-Remer is running to improve the quality of life for all San Diegans and defend against Trump administration attacks on “our civil rights, public health and quality of life.”

Terra Lawson-Remer’s priorities for San Diego County this term include ending sprawl development, protecting open spaces, updating the water system, and encouraging affordable housing development via a single-purpose public bank and reduced taxation/fees for buildings near public transit and work centers. She supports the creation of a social service taskforce to respond to emergency calls regarding unhoused or mentally-ill individuals, guaranteeing asylum-seekers’ legal right to counsel, and ensuring that all families have access to affordable health care and childcare. Lawson-Remer has authored a comprehensive, multistep climate-action plan for 2021–2035, with the end goal of 90 percent clean energy and significantly reduced private vehicle traffic.

Terra Lawson-Remer served as senior advisor in the Obama Administration, developing environmental policies to cut pollution from oil drilling and mining. She has also worked with the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, and Amnesty International, and taught public policy at The New School and University of California--San Diego. Her scholarship and journalism has appeared in the New York Times, The Economist, Foreign Policy, the Washington Post, the Chronicle of Higher Education, HuffPost, and on CNN. She is a longtime supporter of environmentalism.

Terra Lawson-Remer is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district and is, according to our analysis, the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Elect Terra Lawson-Remer to push San Diego 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

San Diego County is California's 2nd most populous county. San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors oversees the needs of 3.3 million people and manages an estimated budget of $6.4 billion annually. According to the County Charter, San Diego is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors, elected at large for a staggered four-year term in their respective districts. A chief administrative officer is appointed by the Board.

About the Race

In the primary, challenger Terra Lawson-Remer trailed incumbent Supervisor Kristin Gaspar by a margin of 11.6 percent. Lawson-Remer’s campaign has raised $633,419 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Gaspar’s campaign has raised $522,602, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, and is endorsed by the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association, San Diego Probation Officers Association, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County, San Diego District Attorney Investigators Association, Southern California Rental Housing Association, Greater San Diego Association of Realtors, and North County Realtors. In 2012, the San Diego Reader reported on a controversy surrounding Gaspar’s city council campaign, during which a series of mailers supporting her candidacy were sent to voters that purported to be from a nonprofit organization that later was found not to exist. In 2019, the San Diego Tribune reported that Gaspar attempted to secure a multimillion-dollar city contract for a nonprofit organization she worked for without disclosing her role at the organization.

About the Candidate

Terra Lawson-Remer, an economist, environmental attorney, community organizer, and educator, is a third-generation San Diegan. According to campaign materials, Lawson-Remer is running to improve the quality of life for all San Diegans and defend against Trump administration attacks on “our civil rights, public health and quality of life.”

Terra Lawson-Remer’s priorities for San Diego County this term include ending sprawl development, protecting open spaces, updating the water system, and encouraging affordable housing development via a single-purpose public bank and reduced taxation/fees for buildings near public transit and work centers. She supports the creation of a social service taskforce to respond to emergency calls regarding unhoused or mentally-ill individuals, guaranteeing asylum-seekers’ legal right to counsel, and ensuring that all families have access to affordable health care and childcare. Lawson-Remer has authored a comprehensive, multistep climate-action plan for 2021–2035, with the end goal of 90 percent clean energy and significantly reduced private vehicle traffic.

Terra Lawson-Remer served as senior advisor in the Obama Administration, developing environmental policies to cut pollution from oil drilling and mining. She has also worked with the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, and Amnesty International, and taught public policy at The New School and University of California--San Diego. Her scholarship and journalism has appeared in the New York Times, The Economist, Foreign Policy, the Washington Post, the Chronicle of Higher Education, HuffPost, and on CNN. She is a longtime supporter of environmentalism.

Terra Lawson-Remer is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district and is, according to our analysis, the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

San Diego County

Not in San Diego County? Find your state's guide.

Election Day November 3, 2020
Find Drop Box Locations
Ballot Drop Boxes

Federal

President and Vice President

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. photo
Democrat

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Website Endorsements

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

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
Kamala Harris photo
Democrat

Kamala Harris

Website Endorsements

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

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

Congress

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

48th Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

Harley Rouda photo
Democrat

Harley Rouda

Website Endorsements

Re-elect Congressional Representative Harley Rouda to keep CA-48 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 48th Congressional District includes parts of Orange County. Republicans typically held this district until 2018, when Harley Rouda won and flipped CA-48 from red to blue. Recent state and federal elections have shown close margins in CA-48. This district voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, with 47.9 percent. However, CA-48 voted in favor of Republican candidate John Cox in the 2018 gubernatorial election, with 52.1 percent.

About the Race

Following the March 3 primary election, Democrat incumbent Representative Rouda is leading Republican challenger Michelle Steel by a margin of 11.8 percent. Rep. Rouda’s campaign is not funded by fossil fuel money or corporate PAC money. While he has not taken the police money pledge, he has not received any donations from police organizations. Rep. Rouda has been financially backed by a variety of progressive organization PACs, including Human Rights Campaign, Indivisible, Equality, and End Citizens United. Challenger Steel’s campaign has not committed to refusing police money, fossil fuel money, or corporate PAC money. She is funded by several right-wing and libertarian organizations, including the Liberty Fund and the Lincoln Club of Orange County. Steel has also donated $1.25 million of her own money to the campaign. Although Rep. Rouda bested challenger Steel by a double-digit margin in the March primary, the four Republican candidates in that race earned a combined total of 50.6 percent of the vote, confirming the likelihood of a close race in November.  

About the Candidate

Rep. Rouda, a former attorney and real estate executive, is from Ohio and has lived in Laguna Beach, CA, since 2007. According to campaign materials, Rep. Rouda is running for re-election to continue his bipartisan efforts to improve life in Orange County by revitalizing the economy, reducing taxation, and improving the affordability of prescription drugs.

Rep. Rouda’s priorities for CA-48 this year have included allocating federal dollars to combat climate change, protections for refugees of the Vietnam War, mental-health services for veterans, and support for homeless individuals and low-income home ownership. He currently sits on two committees: Oversight and Reform (ranks 9th), and Transportation and Infrastructure (ranks 37th). This year, Rep. Rouda has voted 100 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 92 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In contrast to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rouda voted in favor of passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, and the motion to concur on Senate amendments to the DHS Cyber Hunt and Incident Response Teams Act. Rep. Rouda has sponsored 24 bills about environmental and coastal protections, infrastructure improvements, and small-business support. Of those bills, one has been received in the Senate, and the majority of the others are in committee or referred to committee.

Rep. Rouda is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. The threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Michelle Steel’s potential policies greatly outweighs the moderating effect of Rep. Rouda’s bipartisan approach to the legislative process. According to our analysis, Rep. Rouda is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Re-elect Congressional Representative Harley Rouda to keep CA-48 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 48th Congressional District includes parts of Orange County. Republicans typically held this district until 2018, when Harley Rouda won and flipped CA-48 from red to blue. Recent state and federal elections have shown close margins in CA-48. This district voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, with 47.9 percent. However, CA-48 voted in favor of Republican candidate John Cox in the 2018 gubernatorial election, with 52.1 percent.

About the Race

Following the March 3 primary election, Democrat incumbent Representative Rouda is leading Republican challenger Michelle Steel by a margin of 11.8 percent. Rep. Rouda’s campaign is not funded by fossil fuel money or corporate PAC money. While he has not taken the police money pledge, he has not received any donations from police organizations. Rep. Rouda has been financially backed by a variety of progressive organization PACs, including Human Rights Campaign, Indivisible, Equality, and End Citizens United. Challenger Steel’s campaign has not committed to refusing police money, fossil fuel money, or corporate PAC money. She is funded by several right-wing and libertarian organizations, including the Liberty Fund and the Lincoln Club of Orange County. Steel has also donated $1.25 million of her own money to the campaign. Although Rep. Rouda bested challenger Steel by a double-digit margin in the March primary, the four Republican candidates in that race earned a combined total of 50.6 percent of the vote, confirming the likelihood of a close race in November.  

About the Candidate

Rep. Rouda, a former attorney and real estate executive, is from Ohio and has lived in Laguna Beach, CA, since 2007. According to campaign materials, Rep. Rouda is running for re-election to continue his bipartisan efforts to improve life in Orange County by revitalizing the economy, reducing taxation, and improving the affordability of prescription drugs.

Rep. Rouda’s priorities for CA-48 this year have included allocating federal dollars to combat climate change, protections for refugees of the Vietnam War, mental-health services for veterans, and support for homeless individuals and low-income home ownership. He currently sits on two committees: Oversight and Reform (ranks 9th), and Transportation and Infrastructure (ranks 37th). This year, Rep. Rouda has voted 100 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 92 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In contrast to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rouda voted in favor of passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act, the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, and the motion to concur on Senate amendments to the DHS Cyber Hunt and Incident Response Teams Act. Rep. Rouda has sponsored 24 bills about environmental and coastal protections, infrastructure improvements, and small-business support. Of those bills, one has been received in the Senate, and the majority of the others are in committee or referred to committee.

Rep. Rouda is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. The threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Michelle Steel’s potential policies greatly outweighs the moderating effect of Rep. Rouda’s bipartisan approach to the legislative process. According to our analysis, Rep. Rouda is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

49th Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

Mike Levin photo
Democrat

Mike Levin

Website Endorsements

Re-elect Congressional Representative Mike Levin to keep CA-49 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 49 Congressional District includes parts of San Diego and Orange Counties. Republicans held this district from 2002 to 2018, when Mike Levin won and flipped CA-49 from red to blue. In recent state and federal elections, this district has voted for democratic candidates by a slim margin. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 50.7 percent of the vote, and in 2018, Gavin Newsom won 51.5 percent of the vote.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Levin led Republican challenger Brian Maryott by a margin of 13.2 percent. Rep. Levin’s campaign has not pledged to refuse police money, but has publicly refused to accept corporate PAC donations and fossil fuel money. He has received donations from several progressive organization PACs, including End Citizens United, Planned Parenthood, and Human Rights Campaign. Challenger Maryott’s campaign has not committed to refusing police, fossil fuel, or corporate PAC money. He has been endorsed by Oceanside Police Officers’ Association, and has received funding from Build the Wall PAC.

About the Candidate

Rep. Levin, an attorney and former director of the Democratic Party of Orange County, lives in San Juan Capistrano. According to campaign materials, Rep. Levin is running for re-election to continue his environmental protection efforts and improve the lives of the families in the district.

Rep. Levin’s priorities for CA-49 this year have included removing nuclear waste, researching the gun violence epidemic, and a variety of land and water conservation projects in the district. He currently sits on three committees: Natural Resources (ranks 10th), Veterans’ Affairs (ranks 5th), and Climate Crisis (ranks 7th). This year, Rep. Levin has voted 100 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 94 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In contrast to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Levin voted in favor of passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act, in support of making emergency appropriations during the 2019 fiscal year, and in favor of Restoring the Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act. Rep. Levin has sponsored 22 bills about armed forces and veterans’ affairs, environmental protections, and education this year. Of these bills, two have been referred to the Senate, and the rest are either in committee or referred to committee.

Rep. Levin is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district, including End Citizens United, Indivisible 49, and Human Rights Campaign. He is also endorsed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the San Diego Police Officers Association. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Maryott’s potential policies greatly outweighs Rep. Levin’s moderate voting record and connection to police organizations. According to our analysis, Rep. Levin is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Re-elect Congressional Representative Mike Levin to keep CA-49 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 49 Congressional District includes parts of San Diego and Orange Counties. Republicans held this district from 2002 to 2018, when Mike Levin won and flipped CA-49 from red to blue. In recent state and federal elections, this district has voted for democratic candidates by a slim margin. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 50.7 percent of the vote, and in 2018, Gavin Newsom won 51.5 percent of the vote.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Levin led Republican challenger Brian Maryott by a margin of 13.2 percent. Rep. Levin’s campaign has not pledged to refuse police money, but has publicly refused to accept corporate PAC donations and fossil fuel money. He has received donations from several progressive organization PACs, including End Citizens United, Planned Parenthood, and Human Rights Campaign. Challenger Maryott’s campaign has not committed to refusing police, fossil fuel, or corporate PAC money. He has been endorsed by Oceanside Police Officers’ Association, and has received funding from Build the Wall PAC.

About the Candidate

Rep. Levin, an attorney and former director of the Democratic Party of Orange County, lives in San Juan Capistrano. According to campaign materials, Rep. Levin is running for re-election to continue his environmental protection efforts and improve the lives of the families in the district.

Rep. Levin’s priorities for CA-49 this year have included removing nuclear waste, researching the gun violence epidemic, and a variety of land and water conservation projects in the district. He currently sits on three committees: Natural Resources (ranks 10th), Veterans’ Affairs (ranks 5th), and Climate Crisis (ranks 7th). This year, Rep. Levin has voted 100 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 94 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In contrast to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Levin voted in favor of passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act, in support of making emergency appropriations during the 2019 fiscal year, and in favor of Restoring the Tax Fairness for States and Localities Act. Rep. Levin has sponsored 22 bills about armed forces and veterans’ affairs, environmental protections, and education this year. Of these bills, two have been referred to the Senate, and the rest are either in committee or referred to committee.

Rep. Levin is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district, including End Citizens United, Indivisible 49, and Human Rights Campaign. He is also endorsed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the San Diego Police Officers Association. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Maryott’s potential policies greatly outweighs Rep. Levin’s moderate voting record and connection to police organizations. According to our analysis, Rep. Levin is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

50th Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

Ammar Campa-Najjar photo
Democrat

Ammar Campa-Najjar

Website Endorsements

Elect Ammar Campa-Najjar to push CA-50 in the right direction.

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 50th Congressional District includes parts of San Diego and Riverside Counties. Republicans typically hold this district. The most recent election results show 54.6 percent of AD-52 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 59.1 percent of the district voted for Cox for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat challenger Ammar Campa-Najjar led Republican opponent Darrell Issa by a margin of 13.4 percent. Campa-Najjar’s campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC money. While his campaign has yet to pledge to refuse fossil fuel or police money, it has not taken such financing. Campa-Najjar’s campaign has raised $2,969,097.44, and top donors are California universities and a Democratic Party–aligned group. Issa’s campaign has raised $5,465,943.21 and is funded by corporate and investment interests, defense contractors, and energy companies.

About the Candidate

Ammar Campa-Najjar was born and raised in San Diego. According to campaign materials, he is running for election because he believes in a fair, just, and inclusive America and wants to carry the hard work of democracy forward.

Campa-Najjar is a San Diego State University lecturer and the owner of a small business that helps other small businesses and nonprofits with small budgets compete against their larger counterparts. Campa-Najjar has served in a White House position in the Executive Office of the President, at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Campa-Najjar also headed the Office of Public Affairs for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) at the U.S. Department of Labor. In this role, Campa-Najjar successfully promoted a nationwide effort to expand and diversify the number of registered apprenticeships in America. His efforts helped American workers who were laid off, expanded aid for farmworkers, launched youth job programs, provided vocational training and rehabilitation services to those in the criminal-justice system, and advanced veteran employment opportunities.

That said, in this second attempt at running for Congressional District 50, Campa- Najjar has fallen short in advocating for large structural health-care reform, and has said that he would have abstained from voting on impeachment. In recent weeks, Campa-Najjar provided a problematic and wandering interview to a far-right group, Defend East County. During that conversation, he was noncommittal about supporting Vice President Joe Biden, stated his support for confirming judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett, and discussed investigating Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama. He has issued a public apology for his lack of judgment in participating in the interview, and has strongly condemned Defend East County for their racist threats against Black Lives Matter protesters. While Campa-Najjar has a moderate Democratic platform, and has even claimed that he would be a conservative voice for his district, he has committed to working with local organizations to navigate complex issues and bring meaningful legislation forward to benefit marginalized communities.

Despite his more moderate perspective, Campa- Najjar is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. The opponent, Republican Darrell Issa, is endorsed by Republican Party figures. The threat of policies from Issa, who is anti-woman, anti-LGBTQIA+, pro–border wall, and a Trump supporter, are significant and underscore the imperative that this seat be held by a Democrat. Ammar Campa-Najjar the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Elect Ammar Campa-Najjar to push CA-50 in the right direction.

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 50th Congressional District includes parts of San Diego and Riverside Counties. Republicans typically hold this district. The most recent election results show 54.6 percent of AD-52 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 59.1 percent of the district voted for Cox for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat challenger Ammar Campa-Najjar led Republican opponent Darrell Issa by a margin of 13.4 percent. Campa-Najjar’s campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC money. While his campaign has yet to pledge to refuse fossil fuel or police money, it has not taken such financing. Campa-Najjar’s campaign has raised $2,969,097.44, and top donors are California universities and a Democratic Party–aligned group. Issa’s campaign has raised $5,465,943.21 and is funded by corporate and investment interests, defense contractors, and energy companies.

About the Candidate

Ammar Campa-Najjar was born and raised in San Diego. According to campaign materials, he is running for election because he believes in a fair, just, and inclusive America and wants to carry the hard work of democracy forward.

Campa-Najjar is a San Diego State University lecturer and the owner of a small business that helps other small businesses and nonprofits with small budgets compete against their larger counterparts. Campa-Najjar has served in a White House position in the Executive Office of the President, at the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. Campa-Najjar also headed the Office of Public Affairs for the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) at the U.S. Department of Labor. In this role, Campa-Najjar successfully promoted a nationwide effort to expand and diversify the number of registered apprenticeships in America. His efforts helped American workers who were laid off, expanded aid for farmworkers, launched youth job programs, provided vocational training and rehabilitation services to those in the criminal-justice system, and advanced veteran employment opportunities.

That said, in this second attempt at running for Congressional District 50, Campa- Najjar has fallen short in advocating for large structural health-care reform, and has said that he would have abstained from voting on impeachment. In recent weeks, Campa-Najjar provided a problematic and wandering interview to a far-right group, Defend East County. During that conversation, he was noncommittal about supporting Vice President Joe Biden, stated his support for confirming judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett, and discussed investigating Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama. He has issued a public apology for his lack of judgment in participating in the interview, and has strongly condemned Defend East County for their racist threats against Black Lives Matter protesters. While Campa-Najjar has a moderate Democratic platform, and has even claimed that he would be a conservative voice for his district, he has committed to working with local organizations to navigate complex issues and bring meaningful legislation forward to benefit marginalized communities.

Despite his more moderate perspective, Campa- Najjar is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. The opponent, Republican Darrell Issa, is endorsed by Republican Party figures. The threat of policies from Issa, who is anti-woman, anti-LGBTQIA+, pro–border wall, and a Trump supporter, are significant and underscore the imperative that this seat be held by a Democrat. Ammar Campa-Najjar the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

51st Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

Juan Carlos Vargas photo
Democrat

Juan Carlos Vargas

Website

Re-elect Congressional Representative Juan Carlos Vargas to keep CA-51 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 51st Congressional District includes Imperial County and parts of San Diego County. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show 71.8 percent of AD-51 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 67.9 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Vargas led Republican challenger Juan Hidalgo by a margin of 42.8 percent. Neither campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Vargas’s campaign has raised $549,255.53 and has accepted money from corporate PACs and unions. Hidalgo’s campaign has raised $23,571.12, the bulk of which is candidate committee money.

About the Candidate

Representative Juan Carlos Vargas was born and raised in California's 51st congressional district, which he was first elected to in 2012.

Vargas’ district includes Imperial County and the southern part of San Diego County, along the U.S.-Mexico border. To address local concerns about cross-border pollution, particularly of waterways, Vargas supported the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), specifically citing the $300 million that will be allocated to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP). He has been an advocate for action on climate change, and is one of the co-sponsors of House Resolution 109, which calls on the federal government to create a Green New Deal.

Vargas has been critical of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, including the wall at the border, the Migrant Protection Protocols, and the deportation of veterans. He urged Democrats to take a strong stance against Trump’s efforts to divert Pentagon funds to build a border wall. Recently, he called for investigations into efforts by Customs and Border Protection to send asylum seekers to Mexico by issuing documents for fake court hearings. He has also sponsored legislation that would allow Dreamers to apply for FHA loans, which HUD currently denies. 

At the same time, Courage California (then known as Courage Campaign) was deeply involved in the fight for the Homeowner Bill of Rights in 2012, a critical piece of state legislation to protect homeowners from predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Then Senator Vargas played a key role as head of the Banking Committee in the California Senate, prior to his election to Congress. Unfortunately, Vargas repeatedly attempted to protect Wall Street from accountability. However, after heroic organizing with our partners at ACCE (Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment), he stepped down as committee chair, which eventually allowed for the landmark bill to pass. This gives us great pause about Rep. Vargas’s commitment to progressive governance.

Rep. Vargas’s priorities for CA-51 this year have included protecting immigrants and DACA recipients, obtaining more medical equipment for fighting the pandemic, and environmental protections. He currently sits on two committees: the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Financial Services. This year, Rep. Vargas has voted 99 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 96 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Vargas has co-sponsored two bills about protecting the USPS and providing for more police accountability this year, both of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.

Rep. Vargas is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. According to our analysis, Rep. Vargas is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office. While we have major concerns about Vargas and encourage a more progressive candidate to run against him in a future election cycle, there is no question that he is preferable to a Republican, given his record, particularly on such issues as climate change and immigration.

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Re-elect Congressional Representative Juan Carlos Vargas to keep CA-51 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 51st Congressional District includes Imperial County and parts of San Diego County. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show 71.8 percent of AD-51 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 67.9 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Vargas led Republican challenger Juan Hidalgo by a margin of 42.8 percent. Neither campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Vargas’s campaign has raised $549,255.53 and has accepted money from corporate PACs and unions. Hidalgo’s campaign has raised $23,571.12, the bulk of which is candidate committee money.

About the Candidate

Representative Juan Carlos Vargas was born and raised in California's 51st congressional district, which he was first elected to in 2012.

Vargas’ district includes Imperial County and the southern part of San Diego County, along the U.S.-Mexico border. To address local concerns about cross-border pollution, particularly of waterways, Vargas supported the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), specifically citing the $300 million that will be allocated to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP). He has been an advocate for action on climate change, and is one of the co-sponsors of House Resolution 109, which calls on the federal government to create a Green New Deal.

Vargas has been critical of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, including the wall at the border, the Migrant Protection Protocols, and the deportation of veterans. He urged Democrats to take a strong stance against Trump’s efforts to divert Pentagon funds to build a border wall. Recently, he called for investigations into efforts by Customs and Border Protection to send asylum seekers to Mexico by issuing documents for fake court hearings. He has also sponsored legislation that would allow Dreamers to apply for FHA loans, which HUD currently denies. 

At the same time, Courage California (then known as Courage Campaign) was deeply involved in the fight for the Homeowner Bill of Rights in 2012, a critical piece of state legislation to protect homeowners from predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Then Senator Vargas played a key role as head of the Banking Committee in the California Senate, prior to his election to Congress. Unfortunately, Vargas repeatedly attempted to protect Wall Street from accountability. However, after heroic organizing with our partners at ACCE (Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment), he stepped down as committee chair, which eventually allowed for the landmark bill to pass. This gives us great pause about Rep. Vargas’s commitment to progressive governance.

Rep. Vargas’s priorities for CA-51 this year have included protecting immigrants and DACA recipients, obtaining more medical equipment for fighting the pandemic, and environmental protections. He currently sits on two committees: the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Financial Services. This year, Rep. Vargas has voted 99 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 96 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Vargas has co-sponsored two bills about protecting the USPS and providing for more police accountability this year, both of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.

Rep. Vargas is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. According to our analysis, Rep. Vargas is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office. While we have major concerns about Vargas and encourage a more progressive candidate to run against him in a future election cycle, there is no question that he is preferable to a Republican, given his record, particularly on such issues as climate change and immigration.

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

52nd Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

Scott Peters photo
Democrat

Scott Peters

Website Endorsements

Elect Scott Peters to push CA-52 in the right direction.

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 52nd Congressional District includes parts of San Diego County. After the 2010 Census redistricting, the district began to slowly trend toward Democrats. Republicans held this district until 2012, when Scott Peters narrowly won against his Republican opponent and flipped CA-52 from red to blue. In 2016 and 2018, Rep. Peters won by comfortable margins. The most recent election results show 58.1 percent of CD-51 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 58.3 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018. This is now a safe Democratic seat, and constituents deserve strong progressive representation.

About the Race

Following the March 3 primary election, Democrat incumbent Representative Peters is leading Republican challenger Jim DeBello by a margin of 16.7 percent. Neither campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Peters’ campaign is backed by corporate PAC and defense interests. DeBello’s campaign has not made any FEC filings.

About the Candidate

Scott Peters is the incumbent, having served as representative since 2013. Peters has often touted himself as independent and has a mixed record on progressive issues.

Peters is an environmental lawyer by trade and served on the San Diego City Council before his election to Congress. He supports women’s rights and reproductive choice, including abortion rights and LGBTQIA+ equality. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL, and Human Rights Campaign. He is also a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and has called for laws to toughen background checks and bans on high-capacity magazines and assault-style weapons. While he does not support the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, he has supported investing in renewable energy, protections for California’s Coastline, and introduced the Build More Housing Near Transit Act.

Rep. Peters’s priorities for CA-52 this year have included passing workplace protections for pregnant women, supporting San Diego small businesses, and backing youth suicide prevention. He currently sits on two committees: the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Budget. This year, Rep. Peters has voted 97 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 92 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Peters has disagreed with Rep. Pelosi on the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which increased discretionary spending limits--Rep. Peters voted against and Rep. Pelosi voted for. Rep. Peters has co-sponsored two bills about protecting the USPS and providing for more police accountability this year, both of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.  

Rep. Peters is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. He is also endorsed by two police interest groups. However, the threat of Republican opponent and climate change skeptic DeBello’s potential policies greatly outweighs Peters’s police backing. According to our analysis, Rep. Peters is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Elect Scott Peters to push CA-52 in the right direction.

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 52nd Congressional District includes parts of San Diego County. After the 2010 Census redistricting, the district began to slowly trend toward Democrats. Republicans held this district until 2012, when Scott Peters narrowly won against his Republican opponent and flipped CA-52 from red to blue. In 2016 and 2018, Rep. Peters won by comfortable margins. The most recent election results show 58.1 percent of CD-51 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 58.3 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018. This is now a safe Democratic seat, and constituents deserve strong progressive representation.

About the Race

Following the March 3 primary election, Democrat incumbent Representative Peters is leading Republican challenger Jim DeBello by a margin of 16.7 percent. Neither campaign has pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Peters’ campaign is backed by corporate PAC and defense interests. DeBello’s campaign has not made any FEC filings.

About the Candidate

Scott Peters is the incumbent, having served as representative since 2013. Peters has often touted himself as independent and has a mixed record on progressive issues.

Peters is an environmental lawyer by trade and served on the San Diego City Council before his election to Congress. He supports women’s rights and reproductive choice, including abortion rights and LGBTQIA+ equality. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL, and Human Rights Campaign. He is also a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and has called for laws to toughen background checks and bans on high-capacity magazines and assault-style weapons. While he does not support the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, he has supported investing in renewable energy, protections for California’s Coastline, and introduced the Build More Housing Near Transit Act.

Rep. Peters’s priorities for CA-52 this year have included passing workplace protections for pregnant women, supporting San Diego small businesses, and backing youth suicide prevention. He currently sits on two committees: the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Budget. This year, Rep. Peters has voted 97 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 92 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Peters has disagreed with Rep. Pelosi on the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which increased discretionary spending limits--Rep. Peters voted against and Rep. Pelosi voted for. Rep. Peters has co-sponsored two bills about protecting the USPS and providing for more police accountability this year, both of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.  

Rep. Peters is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. He is also endorsed by two police interest groups. However, the threat of Republican opponent and climate change skeptic DeBello’s potential policies greatly outweighs Peters’s police backing. According to our analysis, Rep. Peters is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

State Assembly

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

State Assembly, 74th District

Member of the State Assembly

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 or 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 74th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County. Notable cities within the district include portions of Huntington Beach and Irvine, as well as Laguna Beach and Newport Beach. Republicans held this district until 2018, when Assemblymember Petrie-Norris flipped AD-74 blue. The most recent election results show AD-74 voted for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016, and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018. AD-74 has one of the highest median family income and property values in the nation. The district is largely white, with a notable Latinx population of about 15 percent.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Cottie Petrie-Norris led Republican challenger Diane Dixon by a margin of 27.1 percent. Petrie-Norris’s campaign has raised upwards of $720,000, and is largely funded through numerous law enforcement, corporate, and fossil fuel donors. Republican challenger Diane Dixon’s campaign has raised upwards of $328,000 and is largely funded through individual contributions, as well as some law-enforcement money.

About the Candidate

Representative Cottie Petrie-Norris is the incumbent, having served as assemblymember since 2018. She has failed to take a stance on a number of progressive issues, including criminal-justice reform, environmental protections, and affordable housing.

Norris holds a noticeably regressive voting record. She has voted against key progressive bills on increasing access to affordable housing and issues pertaining to criminal-justice reform. In 2019, she voted against AB 1279, AB 1482, and SB 329, which proposed rent caps and the production of affordable housing and prevented housing discrimination. Norris has also voted against numerous criminal-justice reform legislation, including ACA 6, which restored voting rights for people on parole; SB 310, which allowed formerly incarcerated people to serve on juries; AB 965, which allowed incarcerated youth to earn time off their earliest parole date, and AB 901, which limited youth criminalization. Norris has also abstained from casting a vote for SB 132, which would establish protections for trans individuals who are incarcerated.

In 2020 alone, Norris has voted No on AB 1950 to limit the length of probation terms, and has chosen not to vote on legislation aimed at expanding COVID-19 medical leave protections for workers and amending oil-drilling laws. She has received a Courage Score of 34 out of 100, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records.

Representative Cottie Petri-Norris has voted against key legislation aimed at increasing police accountability. These include AB 1215, which bans facial-recognition technology from use in police body cameras; AB 1600, which expedites the process to obtain police misconduct records in a criminal trial; and SB 1185, which establishes civilian oversight of county sheriff departments. She has received numerous law-enforcement endorsements, including the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the largest law-enforcement organization in the state.

Representative Petri-Norris has also made concerning statements against the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), citing “negative stereotypes of Israel.” She has stated that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement--a movement that pressures Israel to comply with international law--as “a single, divisive viewpoint.” In the same letter, Norris stated that she is against “the definition of capitalism as a system of oppression.”

Representative Petrie-Norris’s funding is an area of significant concern. She has received significant corporate, fossil fuel, and law-enforcement money. Corporate donations include AT&T, Walgreens, Facebook, Nike, and Walmart. She has received funding from numerous local police departments and associations, as well as the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and Los Angeles Police Protective League PAC. Representative Norris’s campaign is also significantly funded through fossil fuel money, and she has received funding from such fossil fuel giants as Sempra Energy, Southern California Edison, and Edison International.

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.

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 or 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 74th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County. Notable cities within the district include portions of Huntington Beach and Irvine, as well as Laguna Beach and Newport Beach. Republicans held this district until 2018, when Assemblymember Petrie-Norris flipped AD-74 blue. The most recent election results show AD-74 voted for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016, and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018. AD-74 has one of the highest median family income and property values in the nation. The district is largely white, with a notable Latinx population of about 15 percent.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Cottie Petrie-Norris led Republican challenger Diane Dixon by a margin of 27.1 percent. Petrie-Norris’s campaign has raised upwards of $720,000, and is largely funded through numerous law enforcement, corporate, and fossil fuel donors. Republican challenger Diane Dixon’s campaign has raised upwards of $328,000 and is largely funded through individual contributions, as well as some law-enforcement money.

About the Candidate

Representative Cottie Petrie-Norris is the incumbent, having served as assemblymember since 2018. She has failed to take a stance on a number of progressive issues, including criminal-justice reform, environmental protections, and affordable housing.

Norris holds a noticeably regressive voting record. She has voted against key progressive bills on increasing access to affordable housing and issues pertaining to criminal-justice reform. In 2019, she voted against AB 1279, AB 1482, and SB 329, which proposed rent caps and the production of affordable housing and prevented housing discrimination. Norris has also voted against numerous criminal-justice reform legislation, including ACA 6, which restored voting rights for people on parole; SB 310, which allowed formerly incarcerated people to serve on juries; AB 965, which allowed incarcerated youth to earn time off their earliest parole date, and AB 901, which limited youth criminalization. Norris has also abstained from casting a vote for SB 132, which would establish protections for trans individuals who are incarcerated.

In 2020 alone, Norris has voted No on AB 1950 to limit the length of probation terms, and has chosen not to vote on legislation aimed at expanding COVID-19 medical leave protections for workers and amending oil-drilling laws. She has received a Courage Score of 34 out of 100, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records.

Representative Cottie Petri-Norris has voted against key legislation aimed at increasing police accountability. These include AB 1215, which bans facial-recognition technology from use in police body cameras; AB 1600, which expedites the process to obtain police misconduct records in a criminal trial; and SB 1185, which establishes civilian oversight of county sheriff departments. She has received numerous law-enforcement endorsements, including the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the largest law-enforcement organization in the state.

Representative Petri-Norris has also made concerning statements against the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC), citing “negative stereotypes of Israel.” She has stated that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement--a movement that pressures Israel to comply with international law--as “a single, divisive viewpoint.” In the same letter, Norris stated that she is against “the definition of capitalism as a system of oppression.”

Representative Petrie-Norris’s funding is an area of significant concern. She has received significant corporate, fossil fuel, and law-enforcement money. Corporate donations include AT&T, Walgreens, Facebook, Nike, and Walmart. She has received funding from numerous local police departments and associations, as well as the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and Los Angeles Police Protective League PAC. Representative Norris’s campaign is also significantly funded through fossil fuel money, and she has received funding from such fossil fuel giants as Sempra Energy, Southern California Edison, and Edison International.

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.

State Assembly, 75th District

Member of the State Assembly

Kate Schwartz photo
Democrat

Kate Schwartz

Website Endorsements

Elect Kate Schwartz to push AD-75 in the right direction.

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 75th Assembly District includes parts of Riverside and San Diego Counties. Republicans typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-75 voted for Donald Trump for president in 2016 and John H. Cox for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democratic challenger Kate Schwartz trailed Republican incumbent Representative Marie Waldron by a margin of 18.4 percent. Schwartz’s campaign has raised $13,465 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Waldron’s campaign has raised $622,121, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, and is backed by Chevron, Edison International, PG&E, Phillips 66, Phillip Morris, Reynolds American Tobacco, Walmart, Pfizer, Koch Industries, and many other problematic organizations and interest groups.

About the Candidate

Kate Schwartz is a California native and has lived in the Bonsall and Fallbrook areas since 2000. According to campaign materials, she is running for election to drive down the cost of health care, repair our streets and highways, and make electric vehicle and solar panel alternatives more affordable for working families.

Kate Schwartz has served on the Fallbrook Regional Health District Board, and currently serves as chair of the Government Relations/Community Engagement Committee. During her career as a licensed behavioral health care provider, she has advocated for patients and their families, provided behavioral services within both the public and private sectors, and continues to train master’s and doctoral-level interns. She is particularly concerned with senior issues and food insecurity.

Kate Schwartz is endorsed by many local progressive groups in the district, and the threat of Republican incumbent and strong Trump supporter Marie Waldron’s potential and past policies greatly outweighs Schwartz’s lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Kate Schwartz is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Elect Kate Schwartz to push AD-75 in the right direction.

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 75th Assembly District includes parts of Riverside and San Diego Counties. Republicans typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-75 voted for Donald Trump for president in 2016 and John H. Cox for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democratic challenger Kate Schwartz trailed Republican incumbent Representative Marie Waldron by a margin of 18.4 percent. Schwartz’s campaign has raised $13,465 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Waldron’s campaign has raised $622,121, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, and is backed by Chevron, Edison International, PG&E, Phillips 66, Phillip Morris, Reynolds American Tobacco, Walmart, Pfizer, Koch Industries, and many other problematic organizations and interest groups.

About the Candidate

Kate Schwartz is a California native and has lived in the Bonsall and Fallbrook areas since 2000. According to campaign materials, she is running for election to drive down the cost of health care, repair our streets and highways, and make electric vehicle and solar panel alternatives more affordable for working families.

Kate Schwartz has served on the Fallbrook Regional Health District Board, and currently serves as chair of the Government Relations/Community Engagement Committee. During her career as a licensed behavioral health care provider, she has advocated for patients and their families, provided behavioral services within both the public and private sectors, and continues to train master’s and doctoral-level interns. She is particularly concerned with senior issues and food insecurity.

Kate Schwartz is endorsed by many local progressive groups in the district, and the threat of Republican incumbent and strong Trump supporter Marie Waldron’s potential and past policies greatly outweighs Schwartz’s lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Kate Schwartz is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

State Assembly, 76th District

Member of the State Assembly

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 76th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego County. Republicans held this district from 2012 to 2018, when Tasha Boerner Horvath won and flipped AD-76 from red to blue. The most recent election results show AD-76 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Tasha Boerner Horvath led Republican challenger Melanie Burkholder by a margin of 15 percent. Horvath’s campaign has raised $1,169,183 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Burkholder’s campaign has raised $79,691, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, has been taken to court for falsely portraying herself as a medical professional, and has defended the right of parents to refuse to vaccinate their children.

About the Candidate

Rep. Tasha Boerner Horvath is the Democratic incumbent, having served as Assemblymember since 2018. She scores a lifetime 40 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Rep. Horvath has supported few progressive bills that made it to a vote. Her No votes include prohibiting landlords from rejecting applicants based on Section 8 status, capping rent increases and requiring landlords to provide just cause before evictions, allowing the sponsorship of public banks, restoring voting rights for people on parole, and repealing sentencing enhancements for those with prior offenses. Her abstains include decriminalizing truancy, prohibiting the state from charging inmates admin fees for medical visits, and multiple bills encouraging affordable housing development.

A review of Rep. Tasha Boerner Horvath’s financial disclosures reveals donations from numerous law-enforcement organizations, such as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Her campaign has accepted $108,400 from pharmaceutical companies and other health interests and over $50,000 from real estate and property development/management interests. Pfizer, her husband’s employer as of July 2020, has made multiple donations to the campaign. When compared with her voting record on law enforcement, renters’ rights, and health care, Rep. Horvath’s financial disclosures indicate a pattern of influence, one that does not reflect the values of her district.

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.

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 76th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego County. Republicans held this district from 2012 to 2018, when Tasha Boerner Horvath won and flipped AD-76 from red to blue. The most recent election results show AD-76 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Tasha Boerner Horvath led Republican challenger Melanie Burkholder by a margin of 15 percent. Horvath’s campaign has raised $1,169,183 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Burkholder’s campaign has raised $79,691, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, has been taken to court for falsely portraying herself as a medical professional, and has defended the right of parents to refuse to vaccinate their children.

About the Candidate

Rep. Tasha Boerner Horvath is the Democratic incumbent, having served as Assemblymember since 2018. She scores a lifetime 40 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Rep. Horvath has supported few progressive bills that made it to a vote. Her No votes include prohibiting landlords from rejecting applicants based on Section 8 status, capping rent increases and requiring landlords to provide just cause before evictions, allowing the sponsorship of public banks, restoring voting rights for people on parole, and repealing sentencing enhancements for those with prior offenses. Her abstains include decriminalizing truancy, prohibiting the state from charging inmates admin fees for medical visits, and multiple bills encouraging affordable housing development.

A review of Rep. Tasha Boerner Horvath’s financial disclosures reveals donations from numerous law-enforcement organizations, such as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. Her campaign has accepted $108,400 from pharmaceutical companies and other health interests and over $50,000 from real estate and property development/management interests. Pfizer, her husband’s employer as of July 2020, has made multiple donations to the campaign. When compared with her voting record on law enforcement, renters’ rights, and health care, Rep. Horvath’s financial disclosures indicate a pattern of influence, one that does not reflect the values of her district.

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.

State Assembly, 77th District

Member of the State Assembly

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 77th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego County. Republicans held this district from 2012 to 2019, when Rep. Brian Maienschein changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic. The most recent election results show AD-76 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Brian Maeinschein led Republican challenger June Yang Cutter by a margin of 15 percent. Maeinschein’s campaign has raised $851,134 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Cutter’s campaign has raised $345,505 and has also not committed to any campaign finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Rep. Brian Maeinschein is the incumbent, having served as assemblymember since 2012. In 2019, Rep. Maeinschein changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic with little change in voting habits. He scores a lifetime 19 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Rep. Maeinschein voted no on almost all progressive bills that made it to a vote from 2012 to 2018. In 2019, he scored a 53 out of 100, but abstained from many votes, including strengthening emissions and food-safety regulations, banning biometric surveillance and facial recognition from use in police body cameras, prohibiting no-rehire provisions that bar victims of mistreatment from employment with the offending company, and preventing dialysis companies from steering patients away from Medi-Cal to boost profits. Rep. Maeinschein cast No votes on repealing sentencing enhancements for those with prior offenses and prohibiting the state from charging admin fees to inmates for medical visits. He also notably abstained from several final votes on bills he had previously supported, such as capping rent increases and requiring landlords to provide just cause for evictions.

A review of Rep. Brain Maeinschein’s financial disclosures reveals donations from Chevron, BP North America, Exxon Mobil, PG&E, Edison International, Walmart, Pfizer, Clorox, Phillip Morris, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Organization, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Association of Licensed Investigators, and the California Charter Schools Association. His campaigns have accepted a total of $720,866 from pharmaceutical and health-care interests and a total of $231,746 from real estate and property development/management interests. While we recognize some of Rep. Maeinschein’s voting tendencies have changed since his switch to the Democratic party, a comparison of his voting record with his campaign’s financial disclosures indicates the continued influence of problematic corporate PACs and 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.

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 77th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego County. Republicans held this district from 2012 to 2019, when Rep. Brian Maienschein changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic. The most recent election results show AD-76 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Brian Maeinschein led Republican challenger June Yang Cutter by a margin of 15 percent. Maeinschein’s campaign has raised $851,134 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Cutter’s campaign has raised $345,505 and has also not committed to any campaign finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Rep. Brian Maeinschein is the incumbent, having served as assemblymember since 2012. In 2019, Rep. Maeinschein changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democratic with little change in voting habits. He scores a lifetime 19 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Rep. Maeinschein voted no on almost all progressive bills that made it to a vote from 2012 to 2018. In 2019, he scored a 53 out of 100, but abstained from many votes, including strengthening emissions and food-safety regulations, banning biometric surveillance and facial recognition from use in police body cameras, prohibiting no-rehire provisions that bar victims of mistreatment from employment with the offending company, and preventing dialysis companies from steering patients away from Medi-Cal to boost profits. Rep. Maeinschein cast No votes on repealing sentencing enhancements for those with prior offenses and prohibiting the state from charging admin fees to inmates for medical visits. He also notably abstained from several final votes on bills he had previously supported, such as capping rent increases and requiring landlords to provide just cause for evictions.

A review of Rep. Brain Maeinschein’s financial disclosures reveals donations from Chevron, BP North America, Exxon Mobil, PG&E, Edison International, Walmart, Pfizer, Clorox, Phillip Morris, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Organization, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Association of Licensed Investigators, and the California Charter Schools Association. His campaigns have accepted a total of $720,866 from pharmaceutical and health-care interests and a total of $231,746 from real estate and property development/management interests. While we recognize some of Rep. Maeinschein’s voting tendencies have changed since his switch to the Democratic party, a comparison of his voting record with his campaign’s financial disclosures indicates the continued influence of problematic corporate PACs and 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.

State Assembly, 78th District

Member of the State Assembly

Christopher Ward photo
Democrat

Christopher Ward

Website Endorsements

Elect Christopher Ward to keep AD-78 on the right track.

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 78th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego Counties. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-78 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democratic challenger Christopher Ward led Democratic challenger Sarah Davis by a margin of 27.7 percent. Ward’s campaign has raised $766,626 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Despite the lack of a pledge, analysis of Ward’s campaign finance disclosures reveals no money accepted from fossil fuel companies to date. Davis’s campaign has raised $111,896 and has committed not to accept money from the fossil fuel industry.

About the Candidate

Christopher Ward is a longtime public servant, having held many positions in multiple offices, serving San Diego and District 78. According to campaign materials, he is running for election to update care and housing solutions for unhoused residents, continue his fight against climate change and pollution, and secure funding for childcare and paid family leave.

Christopher Ward is a San Diego City Councilmember focused on housing, homelessness, economic development, and public safety. He authored San Diego’s landmark Equal Pay Ordinance and passed the law that made San Diego the largest city in California to ban Styrofoam. Ward currently serves as chair of the Land Use and Housing Committee, and has previously served as chair of the San Diego County Regional Task Force on the Homeless, where he helped to establish shelters serving a total of 1,200 unhoused people. His early career included time as an environmental planner and chief of staff to State Senator Marty Block.

Christopher Ward is endorsed by a strong majority of local progressive groups in the district. He is also endorsed by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and DaVita Inc. However, we judge Ward’s record in previous offices to greatly outweigh his lack of campaign finance pledges and problematic endorsements. According to our analysis, Christopher Ward is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Elect Christopher Ward to keep AD-78 on the right track.

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 78th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego Counties. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-78 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democratic challenger Christopher Ward led Democratic challenger Sarah Davis by a margin of 27.7 percent. Ward’s campaign has raised $766,626 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Despite the lack of a pledge, analysis of Ward’s campaign finance disclosures reveals no money accepted from fossil fuel companies to date. Davis’s campaign has raised $111,896 and has committed not to accept money from the fossil fuel industry.

About the Candidate

Christopher Ward is a longtime public servant, having held many positions in multiple offices, serving San Diego and District 78. According to campaign materials, he is running for election to update care and housing solutions for unhoused residents, continue his fight against climate change and pollution, and secure funding for childcare and paid family leave.

Christopher Ward is a San Diego City Councilmember focused on housing, homelessness, economic development, and public safety. He authored San Diego’s landmark Equal Pay Ordinance and passed the law that made San Diego the largest city in California to ban Styrofoam. Ward currently serves as chair of the Land Use and Housing Committee, and has previously served as chair of the San Diego County Regional Task Force on the Homeless, where he helped to establish shelters serving a total of 1,200 unhoused people. His early career included time as an environmental planner and chief of staff to State Senator Marty Block.

Christopher Ward is endorsed by a strong majority of local progressive groups in the district. He is also endorsed by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and DaVita Inc. However, we judge Ward’s record in previous offices to greatly outweigh his lack of campaign finance pledges and problematic endorsements. According to our analysis, Christopher Ward is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

State Assembly, 79th District

Member of the State Assembly

Shirley Weber photo
Democrat

Shirley Weber

Website

Re-elect State Assemblymember Shirley Weber to keep AD-79 on the right track.

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 79th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego Counties. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-79 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Shirley Weber led Republican challenger John Moore by a margin of 48.3 percent. Weber’s campaign has raised $282,688 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Moore’s campaign has no apparent public financial data, no functioning campaign website, and has also not committed to any finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Rep. Shirley Weber, a former San Diego State University professor and longtime assemblymember, is from Los Angeles, and has lived in the 79th district for over 30 years. According to campaign materials, Rep. Weber is running for re-election to fight for education that is accessible at all levels.

Rep. Shirley Weber’s priorities for AD-79 this year include strengthening civil rights protections, improving education, protecting persons with disabilities, and securing voting rights. She currently sits on six committees: the Legislative Budget, Banking and Finance, Budget, Education, Elections and Redistricting, and Higher Education Committees. Rep. Weber has sponsored 264 bills on such topics as school safety, full-day kindergarten, reducing the use of deadly force by police, and strengthening the CalFresh program this year, of which over 10 percent have successfully passed. She scores a lifetime 93 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Rep. Weber has supported nearly all progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Rep. Weber has not supported lowering the voting age to 17 and evaluating charter school applications based on economic impact criteria.

Prior to her election to the State Assembly, Rep. Shirley Weber founded the Department of African-American Studies at San Diego State University in 1972 and taught there for forty years. She also served as president of the National Council for Black Studies from 2002 to 2006, board member and later president of the San Diego Board of Education from 1988 to 1996, and as chairwoman of the San Diego Citizens’ Equal Opportunity Commission. Her time as assemblymember for AD-79 has included successes in environmental cleanup, increasing food access for food-insecure communities, establishing protections for residents of long-term nursing facilities, and lowering the cost of childcare. Rep. Weber holds three degrees from UCLA and is a longtime supporter of the power of well-funded and well-staffed public education.

Rep. Shirley is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. She is also backed by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Chevron, Macpherson Oil Company, Walmart, and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association. However, the threat of Republican challenger John Moore’s potential policies greatly outweighs Rep. Weber’s lack of campaign finance pledges and problematic endorsements. According to our analysis, Rep. Shirley Weber is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Re-elect State Assemblymember Shirley Weber to keep AD-79 on the right track.

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 79th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego Counties. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-79 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Shirley Weber led Republican challenger John Moore by a margin of 48.3 percent. Weber’s campaign has raised $282,688 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Moore’s campaign has no apparent public financial data, no functioning campaign website, and has also not committed to any finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Rep. Shirley Weber, a former San Diego State University professor and longtime assemblymember, is from Los Angeles, and has lived in the 79th district for over 30 years. According to campaign materials, Rep. Weber is running for re-election to fight for education that is accessible at all levels.

Rep. Shirley Weber’s priorities for AD-79 this year include strengthening civil rights protections, improving education, protecting persons with disabilities, and securing voting rights. She currently sits on six committees: the Legislative Budget, Banking and Finance, Budget, Education, Elections and Redistricting, and Higher Education Committees. Rep. Weber has sponsored 264 bills on such topics as school safety, full-day kindergarten, reducing the use of deadly force by police, and strengthening the CalFresh program this year, of which over 10 percent have successfully passed. She scores a lifetime 93 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Rep. Weber has supported nearly all progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Rep. Weber has not supported lowering the voting age to 17 and evaluating charter school applications based on economic impact criteria.

Prior to her election to the State Assembly, Rep. Shirley Weber founded the Department of African-American Studies at San Diego State University in 1972 and taught there for forty years. She also served as president of the National Council for Black Studies from 2002 to 2006, board member and later president of the San Diego Board of Education from 1988 to 1996, and as chairwoman of the San Diego Citizens’ Equal Opportunity Commission. Her time as assemblymember for AD-79 has included successes in environmental cleanup, increasing food access for food-insecure communities, establishing protections for residents of long-term nursing facilities, and lowering the cost of childcare. Rep. Weber holds three degrees from UCLA and is a longtime supporter of the power of well-funded and well-staffed public education.

Rep. Shirley is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. She is also backed by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Chevron, Macpherson Oil Company, Walmart, and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association. However, the threat of Republican challenger John Moore’s potential policies greatly outweighs Rep. Weber’s lack of campaign finance pledges and problematic endorsements. According to our analysis, Rep. Shirley Weber is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

State Assembly, 80th District

Member of the State Assembly

Lorena Gonzalez photo
Democrat

Lorena Gonzalez

Re-elect State Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez to keep AD-80 on the right track.

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 80th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego Counties. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-80 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Lorena Gonzalez led Republican challenger John Vogel by a margin of 54.8 percent. Gonzalez’s campaign has raised $853,194 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Vogel’s campaign has raised $8,957 and also has not committed to any campaign finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Rep. Lorena Gonzalez, a former labor organizer, is from Oceanside, CA. According to campaign materials, Rep. Gonzalez is running for re-election to continue fighting for just labor protections and passing progressive legislation.

Rep. Lorena Gonzalez currently sits on three committees: the Appropriations (chair), Judiciary, and Labor and Employment Committees. Rep. Gonzalez has sponsored 385 bills, on such topics as reducing the use of deadly force by police, sexual harassment prevention in the workplace, and public banking this year, of which over 20 percent have successfully passed. She scores a lifetime 92 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Rep. Gonzalez has supported nearly all progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Rep. Gonzalez has not supported allowing the state to contract safe-injection site operators in the Bay Area.

Prior to her election to the State Assembly, Rep. Lorena Gonzalez was the first woman and person of color to serve as CEO and secretary-treasurer for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO. She also worked as senior advisor to California’s Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, and served on the California State Lands and Coastal Commissions. During her time in the Assembly, she has authored and successfully passed legislation allowing 6.5 million additional Californians to earn paid sick leave, ensuring automatic voter registration, and making California the first state to subsidize diapers for parents in need. She is a longtime supporter of workers’ rights, having authored several bills to fight against the classification of employees as independent contractors.

Rep. Lorena Gonzalez is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. She is also backed by the California Association of Realtors, the Peace Officers Research Association of America, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association, the California State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Chevron, Phillips 66, the California Independent Petroleum Association, PG&E, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, and the California Apartment Association. While we are concerned about the large number of problematic interests present in her financial disclosures, especially law-enforcement organizations both inside and outside her district, Rep. Gonzalez’s voting record and the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter John Vogel’s potential policies outweighs her lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Rep. Lorena Gonzalez is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Re-elect State Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez to keep AD-80 on the right track.

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 80th Assembly District includes parts of San Diego Counties. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-80 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Lorena Gonzalez led Republican challenger John Vogel by a margin of 54.8 percent. Gonzalez’s campaign has raised $853,194 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Vogel’s campaign has raised $8,957 and also has not committed to any campaign finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Rep. Lorena Gonzalez, a former labor organizer, is from Oceanside, CA. According to campaign materials, Rep. Gonzalez is running for re-election to continue fighting for just labor protections and passing progressive legislation.

Rep. Lorena Gonzalez currently sits on three committees: the Appropriations (chair), Judiciary, and Labor and Employment Committees. Rep. Gonzalez has sponsored 385 bills, on such topics as reducing the use of deadly force by police, sexual harassment prevention in the workplace, and public banking this year, of which over 20 percent have successfully passed. She scores a lifetime 92 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Rep. Gonzalez has supported nearly all progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Rep. Gonzalez has not supported allowing the state to contract safe-injection site operators in the Bay Area.

Prior to her election to the State Assembly, Rep. Lorena Gonzalez was the first woman and person of color to serve as CEO and secretary-treasurer for the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO. She also worked as senior advisor to California’s Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, and served on the California State Lands and Coastal Commissions. During her time in the Assembly, she has authored and successfully passed legislation allowing 6.5 million additional Californians to earn paid sick leave, ensuring automatic voter registration, and making California the first state to subsidize diapers for parents in need. She is a longtime supporter of workers’ rights, having authored several bills to fight against the classification of employees as independent contractors.

Rep. Lorena Gonzalez is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district. She is also backed by the California Association of Realtors, the Peace Officers Research Association of America, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association, the California State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Chevron, Phillips 66, the California Independent Petroleum Association, PG&E, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, and the California Apartment Association. While we are concerned about the large number of problematic interests present in her financial disclosures, especially law-enforcement organizations both inside and outside her district, Rep. Gonzalez’s voting record and the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter John Vogel’s potential policies outweighs her lack of campaign finance pledges. According to our analysis, Rep. Lorena Gonzalez is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

State Senator, 39th District

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

Member of the State Senate

Toni Atkins photo
Democrat

Toni Atkins

Website

Re-elect State Senate Representative Toni Atkins to continue effective leadership in SD-39.

About the Position

State senators represent and advocate 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 39th Senate District includes parts of San Diego County. Democrats have typically held this district since at least 2012. The most recent election results show SD-39 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Toni Atkins led Republican challenger Linda Blankenship by a margin of 83.8 percent. Sen. Atkins’ campaign has raised $4.1 million, and has not pledged to refuse fossil fuel, police, or corporate PAC money. She has received donations from a variety of problematic donors, including FedEx Corporation, Exxon Mobil, and Los Angeles Police Protective League. Challenger Blankenship’s campaign has raised $20,000, primarily through individual donations. She has not committed to refusing fossil fuel, police, or corporate PAC money.

About the Candidate

Sen. Atkins, a former city councilmember and member of the State Assembly, lives in San Diego. According to campaign materials, Sen. Atkins is running for re-election to continue to deliver results on the issues affecting working families in her district.

Sen. Atkins’ priorities for SD-39 this year include environmental protections for the San Diego Bay, housing reforms, and medical service accessibility. She currently sits on two committees: Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Rules (chair). Sen. Atkins is also a member of the California State Senate leadership, currently acting as the president pro tempore. She is both the first woman and the first LGBTQIA+ person to hold this position. Sen. Atkins has sponsored eight bills about housing and homelessness protections, peace officer training, improvements to medical services, and environmental protections this year. Of these, four have been signed by the governor.

She scores a lifetime 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Senator Atkins has supported the most progressive bills that made it to a vote.

Prior to her election to the State Senate, Sen. Atkins was a women’s health-care administrator, a member of the San Diego City Council, acting mayor of San Diego, and a member of the State Assembly. She is a longtime supporter of women’s health care, LGBTQIA+ rights, affordable housing reform, and environmental protections. Sen. Atkins has worked to support these issues through responsible fiscal stewardship in government.

Rep. Atkins is endorsed by some progressive groups in the district, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. She is also endorsed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California. Regardless, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Blankenship’s potential policies greatly outweigh Sen. Atkins’s affiliation with police organizations. According to our analysis, Rep. Atkins is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Re-elect State Senate Representative Toni Atkins to continue effective leadership in SD-39.

About the Position

State senators represent and advocate 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 39th Senate District includes parts of San Diego County. Democrats have typically held this district since at least 2012. The most recent election results show SD-39 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Toni Atkins led Republican challenger Linda Blankenship by a margin of 83.8 percent. Sen. Atkins’ campaign has raised $4.1 million, and has not pledged to refuse fossil fuel, police, or corporate PAC money. She has received donations from a variety of problematic donors, including FedEx Corporation, Exxon Mobil, and Los Angeles Police Protective League. Challenger Blankenship’s campaign has raised $20,000, primarily through individual donations. She has not committed to refusing fossil fuel, police, or corporate PAC money.

About the Candidate

Sen. Atkins, a former city councilmember and member of the State Assembly, lives in San Diego. According to campaign materials, Sen. Atkins is running for re-election to continue to deliver results on the issues affecting working families in her district.

Sen. Atkins’ priorities for SD-39 this year include environmental protections for the San Diego Bay, housing reforms, and medical service accessibility. She currently sits on two committees: Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Rules (chair). Sen. Atkins is also a member of the California State Senate leadership, currently acting as the president pro tempore. She is both the first woman and the first LGBTQIA+ person to hold this position. Sen. Atkins has sponsored eight bills about housing and homelessness protections, peace officer training, improvements to medical services, and environmental protections this year. Of these, four have been signed by the governor.

She scores a lifetime 98 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Senator Atkins has supported the most progressive bills that made it to a vote.

Prior to her election to the State Senate, Sen. Atkins was a women’s health-care administrator, a member of the San Diego City Council, acting mayor of San Diego, and a member of the State Assembly. She is a longtime supporter of women’s health care, LGBTQIA+ rights, affordable housing reform, and environmental protections. Sen. Atkins has worked to support these issues through responsible fiscal stewardship in government.

Rep. Atkins is endorsed by some progressive groups in the district, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. She is also endorsed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California. Regardless, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Blankenship’s potential policies greatly outweigh Sen. Atkins’s affiliation with police organizations. According to our analysis, Rep. Atkins is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

San Diego County, District 3

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

San Diego County Board of Supervisors, District 3

Terra Lawson-Remer photo
Non-Partisan

Terra Lawson-Remer

Website Endorsements

Elect Terra Lawson-Remer to push San Diego 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

San Diego County is California's 2nd most populous county. San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors oversees the needs of 3.3 million people and manages an estimated budget of $6.4 billion annually. According to the County Charter, San Diego is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors, elected at large for a staggered four-year term in their respective districts. A chief administrative officer is appointed by the Board.

About the Race

In the primary, challenger Terra Lawson-Remer trailed incumbent Supervisor Kristin Gaspar by a margin of 11.6 percent. Lawson-Remer’s campaign has raised $633,419 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Gaspar’s campaign has raised $522,602, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, and is endorsed by the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association, San Diego Probation Officers Association, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County, San Diego District Attorney Investigators Association, Southern California Rental Housing Association, Greater San Diego Association of Realtors, and North County Realtors. In 2012, the San Diego Reader reported on a controversy surrounding Gaspar’s city council campaign, during which a series of mailers supporting her candidacy were sent to voters that purported to be from a nonprofit organization that later was found not to exist. In 2019, the San Diego Tribune reported that Gaspar attempted to secure a multimillion-dollar city contract for a nonprofit organization she worked for without disclosing her role at the organization.

About the Candidate

Terra Lawson-Remer, an economist, environmental attorney, community organizer, and educator, is a third-generation San Diegan. According to campaign materials, Lawson-Remer is running to improve the quality of life for all San Diegans and defend against Trump administration attacks on “our civil rights, public health and quality of life.”

Terra Lawson-Remer’s priorities for San Diego County this term include ending sprawl development, protecting open spaces, updating the water system, and encouraging affordable housing development via a single-purpose public bank and reduced taxation/fees for buildings near public transit and work centers. She supports the creation of a social service taskforce to respond to emergency calls regarding unhoused or mentally-ill individuals, guaranteeing asylum-seekers’ legal right to counsel, and ensuring that all families have access to affordable health care and childcare. Lawson-Remer has authored a comprehensive, multistep climate-action plan for 2021–2035, with the end goal of 90 percent clean energy and significantly reduced private vehicle traffic.

Terra Lawson-Remer served as senior advisor in the Obama Administration, developing environmental policies to cut pollution from oil drilling and mining. She has also worked with the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, and Amnesty International, and taught public policy at The New School and University of California--San Diego. Her scholarship and journalism has appeared in the New York Times, The Economist, Foreign Policy, the Washington Post, the Chronicle of Higher Education, HuffPost, and on CNN. She is a longtime supporter of environmentalism.

Terra Lawson-Remer is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district and is, according to our analysis, the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Elect Terra Lawson-Remer to push San Diego 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

San Diego County is California's 2nd most populous county. San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors oversees the needs of 3.3 million people and manages an estimated budget of $6.4 billion annually. According to the County Charter, San Diego is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors, elected at large for a staggered four-year term in their respective districts. A chief administrative officer is appointed by the Board.

About the Race

In the primary, challenger Terra Lawson-Remer trailed incumbent Supervisor Kristin Gaspar by a margin of 11.6 percent. Lawson-Remer’s campaign has raised $633,419 and has not committed to any campaign finance pledges. Gaspar’s campaign has raised $522,602, has not committed to any campaign finance pledges, and is endorsed by the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association, San Diego Probation Officers Association, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County, San Diego District Attorney Investigators Association, Southern California Rental Housing Association, Greater San Diego Association of Realtors, and North County Realtors. In 2012, the San Diego Reader reported on a controversy surrounding Gaspar’s city council campaign, during which a series of mailers supporting her candidacy were sent to voters that purported to be from a nonprofit organization that later was found not to exist. In 2019, the San Diego Tribune reported that Gaspar attempted to secure a multimillion-dollar city contract for a nonprofit organization she worked for without disclosing her role at the organization.

About the Candidate

Terra Lawson-Remer, an economist, environmental attorney, community organizer, and educator, is a third-generation San Diegan. According to campaign materials, Lawson-Remer is running to improve the quality of life for all San Diegans and defend against Trump administration attacks on “our civil rights, public health and quality of life.”

Terra Lawson-Remer’s priorities for San Diego County this term include ending sprawl development, protecting open spaces, updating the water system, and encouraging affordable housing development via a single-purpose public bank and reduced taxation/fees for buildings near public transit and work centers. She supports the creation of a social service taskforce to respond to emergency calls regarding unhoused or mentally-ill individuals, guaranteeing asylum-seekers’ legal right to counsel, and ensuring that all families have access to affordable health care and childcare. Lawson-Remer has authored a comprehensive, multistep climate-action plan for 2021–2035, with the end goal of 90 percent clean energy and significantly reduced private vehicle traffic.

Terra Lawson-Remer served as senior advisor in the Obama Administration, developing environmental policies to cut pollution from oil drilling and mining. She has also worked with the World Bank, the Brookings Institution, and Amnesty International, and taught public policy at The New School and University of California--San Diego. Her scholarship and journalism has appeared in the New York Times, The Economist, Foreign Policy, the Washington Post, the Chronicle of Higher Education, HuffPost, and on CNN. She is a longtime supporter of environmentalism.

Terra Lawson-Remer is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district and is, according to our analysis, the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Statewide Ballot Measures

Proposition #14

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #15

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #16

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #17

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #18

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #19

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

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #20

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #21

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #22

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #23

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #24

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Proposition #25

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

 

Last updated: 2023-04-05

City of San Diego

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

San Diego Mayor

Todd Gloria photo
Non-Partisan

Todd Gloria

Website Endorsements

Elect Todd Gloria as mayor to keep San Diego on the right track.

About the Position

The mayor of San Diego is elected in a two-round citywide election. The first round, the primary election, is open to all candidates. The top two candidates from the primary election advance to the general election. Write-in candidates are only allowed to contest the primary election and are not allowed in the general election. The mayor is elected to a four-year term, with a limit of two consecutive terms. The city of San Diego uses a strong mayor and city council system. In this form of municipal government, the city council serves as the city's primary legislative body, while the mayor serves as the city's chief executive.

About the City

San Diego is San Diego County’s most populous city, with significant Latinx and Asian communities. The mayor’s office of San Diego oversees the needs of an estimated 1.4 million people and will manage an estimated budget of $3.9 billion for 2021.

About the Race

In the primary, challenger Todd Gloria led challenger Barbara Bry by a margin of 18.6 percent. According to currently available records, neither candidate has committed to any campaign finance pledges. While mayoral elections are officially nonpartisan, both Gloria and Bry have a personal preference for the Democratic Party. Despite that stated preference, Bry’s campaign has made statements regarding property development, climate change, and stricter law enforcement that are causes of concern for progressive voters.

About the Candidate

Todd Gloria is a third-generation San Diegan and grew up in Claremont, CA. According to campaign materials, he is running for mayor because he believes public systems should work dynamically to benefit all members of a community, not just the wealthy and connected.

Todd Gloria is a California State Assemblymember representing the 78th District, where he focuses on affordable housing, gun violence prevention, and climate change. He was elected to this seat in 2016, serving as the Assistant Majority Whip before assuming his current role of Majority Whip. Early in his career, Gloria worked for the County of San Diego’s Health and Human Services Agency and then as district director for Congresswoman Susan Davis. He served eight years on the San Diego City Council, eventually taking over as interim mayor of San Diego after the resignation of former Mayor Bob Filner. During his time as interim mayor, Gloria authored a progressive and nationally recognized Climate Action Plan. Gloria is a popular and accessible member of city government, advocating for local infrastructure projects, championing LGBTQIA+ rights, and working to raise the city’s minimum wage.

As an assemblymember, Todd Gloria scores a lifetime 94 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Gloria supported nearly all progressive bills that made it to a vote, abstaining from only two votes during his last session. Endorsed by organizations such as Stonewall Young Democrats and Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, Gloria stands out due to his accessibility and record of passing legislation benefiting the diverse communities of San Diego. According to our analysis, Todd Gloria is the strongest choice for representative and equitable leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Elect Todd Gloria as mayor to keep San Diego on the right track.

About the Position

The mayor of San Diego is elected in a two-round citywide election. The first round, the primary election, is open to all candidates. The top two candidates from the primary election advance to the general election. Write-in candidates are only allowed to contest the primary election and are not allowed in the general election. The mayor is elected to a four-year term, with a limit of two consecutive terms. The city of San Diego uses a strong mayor and city council system. In this form of municipal government, the city council serves as the city's primary legislative body, while the mayor serves as the city's chief executive.

About the City

San Diego is San Diego County’s most populous city, with significant Latinx and Asian communities. The mayor’s office of San Diego oversees the needs of an estimated 1.4 million people and will manage an estimated budget of $3.9 billion for 2021.

About the Race

In the primary, challenger Todd Gloria led challenger Barbara Bry by a margin of 18.6 percent. According to currently available records, neither candidate has committed to any campaign finance pledges. While mayoral elections are officially nonpartisan, both Gloria and Bry have a personal preference for the Democratic Party. Despite that stated preference, Bry’s campaign has made statements regarding property development, climate change, and stricter law enforcement that are causes of concern for progressive voters.

About the Candidate

Todd Gloria is a third-generation San Diegan and grew up in Claremont, CA. According to campaign materials, he is running for mayor because he believes public systems should work dynamically to benefit all members of a community, not just the wealthy and connected.

Todd Gloria is a California State Assemblymember representing the 78th District, where he focuses on affordable housing, gun violence prevention, and climate change. He was elected to this seat in 2016, serving as the Assistant Majority Whip before assuming his current role of Majority Whip. Early in his career, Gloria worked for the County of San Diego’s Health and Human Services Agency and then as district director for Congresswoman Susan Davis. He served eight years on the San Diego City Council, eventually taking over as interim mayor of San Diego after the resignation of former Mayor Bob Filner. During his time as interim mayor, Gloria authored a progressive and nationally recognized Climate Action Plan. Gloria is a popular and accessible member of city government, advocating for local infrastructure projects, championing LGBTQIA+ rights, and working to raise the city’s minimum wage.

As an assemblymember, Todd Gloria scores a lifetime 94 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Gloria supported nearly all progressive bills that made it to a vote, abstaining from only two votes during his last session. Endorsed by organizations such as Stonewall Young Democrats and Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, Gloria stands out due to his accessibility and record of passing legislation benefiting the diverse communities of San Diego. According to our analysis, Todd Gloria is the strongest choice for representative and equitable leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05