Tom Daly (listed in Progressive Voters Guide)

Democrat
Tom Daly

Website Endorsements
Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Tom Daly

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Tom Daly

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Endorsed By: AFSCME 3299, AFSCME State Council, California Labor Federation, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, Equality California, National Union of Healthcare Workers, United Domestic Workers

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Democrat
Tom Daly

Website Endorsements
Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Federal

President and Vice President

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

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

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

About the Position

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

About the Race

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

About the Candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elect 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

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

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

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

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

About the Position

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

About the Race

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

About the Candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

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

Los Angeles Community College Board

Los Angeles Community College Trustee, Seat No. 1

Charné Tunson

Website
Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.\

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Charné Tunson, a former Crenshaw High School teacher, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Tunson and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to teaching at Crenshaw High School, her alma mater, Charné Tunson recently founded the Tunson Leadership Foundation, aiming to impart the importance of community engagement and mentorship within local communities.

According to our analysis, Charné Tunson and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Charné Tunson
Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.\

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Charné Tunson, a former Crenshaw High School teacher, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Tunson and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:

“Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.

Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.

Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.

Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”

Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to teaching at Crenshaw High School, her alma mater, Charné Tunson recently founded the Tunson Leadership Foundation, aiming to impart the importance of community engagement and mentorship within local communities.

According to our analysis, Charné Tunson and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Charné Tunson

Community College

Los Angeles Community College
Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.\

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Charné Tunson, a former Crenshaw High School teacher, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Tunson and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to teaching at Crenshaw High School, her alma mater, Charné Tunson recently founded the Tunson Leadership Foundation, aiming to impart the importance of community engagement and mentorship within local communities.

According to our analysis, Charné Tunson and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Charné Tunson
Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.\

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Charné Tunson, a former Crenshaw High School teacher, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Tunson and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:

“Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.

Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.

Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.

Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”

Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to teaching at Crenshaw High School, her alma mater, Charné Tunson recently founded the Tunson Leadership Foundation, aiming to impart the importance of community engagement and mentorship within local communities.

According to our analysis, Charné Tunson and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Charné Tunson

Community College

Los Angeles Community College

Charné Tunson

Website
Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.\

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Charné Tunson, a former Crenshaw High School teacher, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Tunson and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to teaching at Crenshaw High School, her alma mater, Charné Tunson recently founded the Tunson Leadership Foundation, aiming to impart the importance of community engagement and mentorship within local communities.

According to our analysis, Charné Tunson and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Last updated: 2023-04-05

Los Angeles Community College Trustee, Seat No. 3

Sylvia Brooks Griffin

Website
Elect Sylvia Brooks Griffin to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Sylvia Brooks Griffin, a special-needs advocate who is active with LAUSD and the Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Griffin and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Sylvia Brooks Griffin and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Sylvia Brooks Griffin
Elect Sylvia Brooks Griffin to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Sylvia Brooks Griffin, a special-needs advocate who is active with LAUSD and the Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Griffin and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:

“Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.

Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.

Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.

Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”

Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Sylvia Brooks Griffin and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Sylvia Brooks Griffin

Community College

Los Angeles Community College
Elect Sylvia Brooks Griffin to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Sylvia Brooks Griffin, a special-needs advocate who is active with LAUSD and the Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Griffin and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Sylvia Brooks Griffin and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Sylvia Brooks Griffin
Elect Sylvia Brooks Griffin to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Sylvia Brooks Griffin, a special-needs advocate who is active with LAUSD and the Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Griffin and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:

“Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.

Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.

Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.

Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”

Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Sylvia Brooks Griffin and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Sylvia Brooks Griffin

Community College

Los Angeles Community College

Sylvia Brooks Griffin

Website
Elect Sylvia Brooks Griffin to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

About the Candidate

Sylvia Brooks Griffin, a special-needs advocate who is active with LAUSD and the Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Griffin and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Sylvia Brooks Griffin and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Last updated: 2023-04-05

Los Angeles Community College Trustee, Seat No. 5

Two candidates in this district offer the chance to make LACC more reflective of its highly diverse student population, Dr. Nichet James-Gray and Nichelle M. Henderson.

About the Position

Members of the Los Angeles Community College District Board are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other.

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

Nichelle M. Henderson

Website Endorsements
Nichelle M. Henderson, an academic faculty advisor and teacher/lecturer at California State University Los Angeles, is a lifelong LA resident. She is a leader in the California Faculty Association (CFA)/SEIU 1983 where she is CSULA Chapter Vice President, a member and former Chair of the Faculty Rights Team, and a member of the statewide Bargaining and Representation Teams. In addition to her union work, Nichelle is actively involved in several community based clubs and committees, serving as the 1st Vice President of the Los Angeles African American Women PAC and an elected delegate to the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee representing Assembly District 66; where she serves as the Co-Chair of the Credentials Team and Region 5 Vice Chair. If elected to office, Henderson promises to focus on increasing funding and offering greater accountability to students and citizens, enhancing student services such as academic and mental health counseling, offering vocational education and dual enrollment for high school Juniors and Senior, and improving outreach and recruitment to underserved groups such as people of color, the LGBTQIA+ community, foster youth, and the formerly incarcerated.

Nichelle M. Henderson is endorsed by many progressive organizations such as the Stonewall Young Democrats/Democratic Club, the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Black Women Organized for Political Action, Women Count, a number of local trade unions, and Courage California endorsee Holly J. Mitchell. According to our analysis, Nichelle M. Henderson will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Nichelle M. Henderson

Nichelle M. Henderson, an academic faculty advisor and teacher/lecturer at California State University Los Angeles, is a lifelong LA resident. She is a leader in the California Faculty Association (CFA)/SEIU 1983 where she is CSULA Chapter Vice President, a member and former Chair of the Faculty Rights Team, and a member of the statewide Bargaining and Representation Teams. In addition to her union work, Nichelle is actively involved in several community based clubs and committees, serving as the 1st Vice President of the Los Angeles African American Women PAC and an elected delegate to the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee representing Assembly District 66; where she serves as the Co-Chair of the Credentials Team and Region 5 Vice Chair. If elected to office, Henderson promises to focus on increasing funding and offering greater accountability to students and citizens, enhancing student services such as academic and mental health counseling, offering vocational education and dual enrollment for high school Juniors and Senior, and improving outreach and recruitment to underserved groups such as people of color, the LGBTQIA+ community, foster youth, and the formerly incarcerated.

Nichelle M. Henderson is endorsed by many progressive organizations such as the Stonewall Young Democrats/Democratic Club, the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Black Women Organized for Political Action, Women Count, a number of local trade unions, and Courage California endorsee Holly J. Mitchell. According to our analysis, Nichelle M. Henderson will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Nichelle M. Henderson

Community College

Los Angeles Community College

Nichelle M. Henderson, an academic faculty advisor and teacher/lecturer at California State University Los Angeles, is a lifelong LA resident. She is a leader in the California Faculty Association (CFA)/SEIU 1983 where she is CSULA Chapter Vice President, a member and former Chair of the Faculty Rights Team, and a member of the statewide Bargaining and Representation Teams. In addition to her union work, Nichelle is actively involved in several community based clubs and committees, serving as the 1st Vice President of the Los Angeles African American Women PAC and an elected delegate to the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee representing Assembly District 66; where she serves as the Co-Chair of the Credentials Team and Region 5 Vice Chair. If elected to office, Henderson promises to focus on increasing funding and offering greater accountability to students and citizens, enhancing student services such as academic and mental health counseling, offering vocational education and dual enrollment for high school Juniors and Senior, and improving outreach and recruitment to underserved groups such as people of color, the LGBTQIA+ community, foster youth, and the formerly incarcerated.

Nichelle M. Henderson is endorsed by many progressive organizations such as the Stonewall Young Democrats/Democratic Club, the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Black Women Organized for Political Action, Women Count, a number of local trade unions, and Courage California endorsee Holly J. Mitchell. According to our analysis, Nichelle M. Henderson will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Nichelle M. Henderson

Nichelle M. Henderson, an academic faculty advisor and teacher/lecturer at California State University Los Angeles, is a lifelong LA resident. She is a leader in the California Faculty Association (CFA)/SEIU 1983 where she is CSULA Chapter Vice President, a member and former Chair of the Faculty Rights Team, and a member of the statewide Bargaining and Representation Teams. In addition to her union work, Nichelle is actively involved in several community based clubs and committees, serving as the 1st Vice President of the Los Angeles African American Women PAC and an elected delegate to the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee representing Assembly District 66; where she serves as the Co-Chair of the Credentials Team and Region 5 Vice Chair. If elected to office, Henderson promises to focus on increasing funding and offering greater accountability to students and citizens, enhancing student services such as academic and mental health counseling, offering vocational education and dual enrollment for high school Juniors and Senior, and improving outreach and recruitment to underserved groups such as people of color, the LGBTQIA+ community, foster youth, and the formerly incarcerated.

Nichelle M. Henderson is endorsed by many progressive organizations such as the Stonewall Young Democrats/Democratic Club, the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Black Women Organized for Political Action, Women Count, a number of local trade unions, and Courage California endorsee Holly J. Mitchell. According to our analysis, Nichelle M. Henderson will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Nichelle M. Henderson

Community College

Los Angeles Community College

Dr. Nichet James-Gray

Website
Dr. Nichet James-Gray, a teacher and proud LACC parent, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. James-Gray and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Dr. Nichet James-Gray and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Dr. Nichet James-Gray
Dr. Nichet James-Gray, a teacher and proud LACC parent, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. James-Gray and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:

“Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.

Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.

Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.

Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”

Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Dr. Nichet James-Gray and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Dr. Nichet James-Gray

Community College

Los Angeles Community College
Dr. Nichet James-Gray, a teacher and proud LACC parent, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. James-Gray and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Dr. Nichet James-Gray and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Dr. Nichet James-Gray
Dr. Nichet James-Gray, a teacher and proud LACC parent, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. James-Gray and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:

“Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.

Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.

Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.

Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”

Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

According to our analysis, Dr. Nichet James-Gray and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Dr. Nichet James-Gray

Community College

Los Angeles Community College

Los Angeles Community College Trustee, Seat No. 7

Two candidates in this district offer the chance for progressive leadership: Incumbent Mike Fong, a policy director and community advocate, and Raquel Watts, a workers compensation lawyer and community volunteer.

About the Position

About the District

The Los Angeles Community College District is located in Los Angeles County and includes nine colleges, serving a population of roughly 240,000 Californians.

Mike Fong

Website Endorsements
Elect Mike Fong to continue progressive and equitable leadership for the diverse LACCD community.

Mike Fong, a lifelong Angeleno and the District 7 incumbent, currently serves as Director of Policy and Government Relations for the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. As an LACCD board member, Fong created job-training programs and collaborated with Mayor Eric Garcetti on the Los Angeles College Promise program, making two years of community college tuition-free expanding college access for thousands of local students. He supported the creation of Dream Resource Centers and secured additional resources and partnerships to address food insecurity and housing insecurity. Fong also supported the African American Outreach Initiative and LACCD Framework for Racial Equity and Social Justice.

According to campaign materials, Mike Fong’s continued goals for his next term include expanding workforce education and high-growth sector job training programs, expanding dual enrollment programs enabling high school students to enroll in college courses, and increasing access to distance learning technology.

Additionally, Mike Fong’s long record of community leadership includes serving as Chair of the PBS Southern California Asian Pacific Islander Community Council, Vice Chair of the White Memorial Medical Center Community Leadership Council, and Southern Vice Chair of the California Democratic Party’s Asian Pacific Islander Caucus.

According to our analysis, Mike Fong will continue to provide progressive and equitable leadership for the diverse LACCD community.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Mike Fong

Elect Mike Fong to continue progressive and equitable leadership for the diverse LACCD community.

Mike Fong, a lifelong Angeleno and the District 7 incumbent, currently serves as Director of Policy and Government Relations for the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. As an LACCD board member, Fong created job-training programs and collaborated with Mayor Eric Garcetti on the Los Angeles College Promise program, making two years of community college tuition-free expanding college access for thousands of local students. He supported the creation of Dream Resource Centers and secured additional resources and partnerships to address food insecurity and housing insecurity. Fong also supported the African American Outreach Initiative and LACCD Framework for Racial Equity and Social Justice.

According to campaign materials, Mike Fong’s continued goals for his next term include expanding workforce education and high-growth sector job training programs, expanding dual enrollment programs enabling high school students to enroll in college courses, and increasing access to distance learning technology.

Additionally, Mike Fong’s long record of community leadership includes serving as Chair of the PBS Southern California Asian Pacific Islander Community Council, Vice Chair of the White Memorial Medical Center Community Leadership Council, and Southern Vice Chair of the California Democratic Party’s Asian Pacific Islander Caucus.

According to our analysis, Mike Fong will continue to provide progressive and equitable leadership for the diverse LACCD community.

Read more about Mike Fong

Community College

Los Angeles Community College

Elect Mike Fong to continue progressive and equitable leadership for the diverse LACCD community.

Mike Fong, a lifelong Angeleno and the District 7 incumbent, currently serves as Director of Policy and Government Relations for the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. As an LACCD board member, Fong created job-training programs and collaborated with Mayor Eric Garcetti on the Los Angeles College Promise program, making two years of community college tuition-free expanding college access for thousands of local students. He supported the creation of Dream Resource Centers and secured additional resources and partnerships to address food insecurity and housing insecurity. Fong also supported the African American Outreach Initiative and LACCD Framework for Racial Equity and Social Justice.

According to campaign materials, Mike Fong’s continued goals for his next term include expanding workforce education and high-growth sector job training programs, expanding dual enrollment programs enabling high school students to enroll in college courses, and increasing access to distance learning technology.

Additionally, Mike Fong’s long record of community leadership includes serving as Chair of the PBS Southern California Asian Pacific Islander Community Council, Vice Chair of the White Memorial Medical Center Community Leadership Council, and Southern Vice Chair of the California Democratic Party’s Asian Pacific Islander Caucus.

According to our analysis, Mike Fong will continue to provide progressive and equitable leadership for the diverse LACCD community.

Mike Fong

Elect Mike Fong to continue progressive and equitable leadership for the diverse LACCD community.

Mike Fong, a lifelong Angeleno and the District 7 incumbent, currently serves as Director of Policy and Government Relations for the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. As an LACCD board member, Fong created job-training programs and collaborated with Mayor Eric Garcetti on the Los Angeles College Promise program, making two years of community college tuition-free expanding college access for thousands of local students. He supported the creation of Dream Resource Centers and secured additional resources and partnerships to address food insecurity and housing insecurity. Fong also supported the African American Outreach Initiative and LACCD Framework for Racial Equity and Social Justice.

According to campaign materials, Mike Fong’s continued goals for his next term include expanding workforce education and high-growth sector job training programs, expanding dual enrollment programs enabling high school students to enroll in college courses, and increasing access to distance learning technology.

Additionally, Mike Fong’s long record of community leadership includes serving as Chair of the PBS Southern California Asian Pacific Islander Community Council, Vice Chair of the White Memorial Medical Center Community Leadership Council, and Southern Vice Chair of the California Democratic Party’s Asian Pacific Islander Caucus.

According to our analysis, Mike Fong will continue to provide progressive and equitable leadership for the diverse LACCD community.

Read more about Mike Fong

Community College

Los Angeles Community College

Raquel Watts

Website
Elect Raquel Watts to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

Raquel Watts, a legal representative serving injured workers in their fight for benefits, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Watts and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to her 28 years of service in the workers’ compensation field, Raquel Watts is a long-standing volunteer at Crenshaw Christian Center. As an undergraduate at USC, she was executive director of Troy Camp and president of the Student Committee on Admissions and Recruitment, advocating for underserved applicants.

According to our analysis, Raquel Watts and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Raquel Watts
Elect Raquel Watts to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

Raquel Watts, a legal representative serving injured workers in their fight for benefits, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Watts and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:

“Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.

Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.

Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.

Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”

Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to her 28 years of service in the workers’ compensation field, Raquel Watts is a long-standing volunteer at Crenshaw Christian Center. As an undergraduate at USC, she was executive director of Troy Camp and president of the Student Committee on Admissions and Recruitment, advocating for underserved applicants.

According to our analysis, Raquel Watts and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Raquel Watts

Community College

Los Angeles Community College
Elect Raquel Watts to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

Raquel Watts, a legal representative serving injured workers in their fight for benefits, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Watts and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to her 28 years of service in the workers’ compensation field, Raquel Watts is a long-standing volunteer at Crenshaw Christian Center. As an undergraduate at USC, she was executive director of Troy Camp and president of the Student Committee on Admissions and Recruitment, advocating for underserved applicants.

According to our analysis, Raquel Watts and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Raquel Watts
Elect Raquel Watts to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

Raquel Watts, a legal representative serving injured workers in their fight for benefits, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Watts and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:

“Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.

Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.

Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.

Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”

Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to her 28 years of service in the workers’ compensation field, Raquel Watts is a long-standing volunteer at Crenshaw Christian Center. As an undergraduate at USC, she was executive director of Troy Camp and president of the Student Committee on Admissions and Recruitment, advocating for underserved applicants.

According to our analysis, Raquel Watts and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.

Read more about Raquel Watts

Community College

Los Angeles Community College

Raquel Watts

Website
Elect Raquel Watts to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

Raquel Watts, a legal representative serving injured workers in their fight for benefits, is running as part of a coalition called Justice 4 LACCD, a coalition of four Black women seeking to diversify the board to reflect the 74 percent POC and 56 percent women student population it serves. Watts and Justice 4 LACCD are running on the shared values of what they call “The 4 R’s,” which are defined on their website as the following:
- “Representation – We are a united group of women who will make up a Board of Trustees that truly reflects and speaks on behalf of the LACCD community it serves.
- Recruitment and Retention – Creating policy to attract, retain and support more students and faculty that are under-represented. This includes more women, students and faculty of color, members of the LGBTQ+ community and those with disabilities.
- Reform – Designate a committee to investigate police policy and response on LACCD campuses.
- Response to COVID-19 – Position our Community Colleges to lead in creating an equitable COVID strategy that prioritizes the needs of the most impacted members of our community.”
Furthermore, the coalition promises to fight for the rights of part-time, disabled, and unhoused students, as well as those with health conditions that prevent them from regularly accessing a college campus.

In addition to her 28 years of service in the workers’ compensation field, Raquel Watts is a long-standing volunteer at Crenshaw Christian Center. As an undergraduate at USC, she was executive director of Troy Camp and president of the Student Committee on Admissions and Recruitment, advocating for underserved applicants.

According to our analysis, Raquel Watts and the Justice 4 LACCD coalition will provide leadership that promotes the shared interests of communities historically excluded from the policymaking process.
Last updated: 2023-04-05

State Assembly, 69th District

Member of the State Assembly

Democrat
Tom Daly

Website Endorsements
Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Tom Daly

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Tom Daly

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 on the right track.

About the Position

About the District

About the Race

About the Candidate

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Democrat
Tom Daly

Website Endorsements
Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 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 four-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 69th Assembly District includes parts of Orange County and the cities of Anaheim, Orange, and Santa Ana. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show AD-69 voted for Clinton for president in 2016 and Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Daly led Republican challenger Jon Paul White by a margin of 47.8 percent. Daly’s campaign has raised $658,495.02. Daly has not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, and his campaign has accepted all three. Challenger White has not reported any campaign fundraising this cycle, and his campaign has also not committed to refusing corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Tom Daly is from Anaheim, CA, and is a lifelong resident of Orange County. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, Daly is running for re-election to ensure a balanced budget, maintain and improve statewide infrastructure, and reduce bureaucratic red tape while promoting government efficiency.

In the State Assembly, Assemblymember Daly has been responsible for a variety of bills that have been signed into law that protect Californians and reduce barriers to opportunity for them. In 2019, Daly authored legislation that protects homeowners’ access to insurance policies in high or very high fire hazard severity zones and eliminates fees for Californians who have been involved in the juvenile-justice system to request the sealing of their juvenile records. He currently serves as chair of the Insurance Committee, and also serves on the Appropriations, Veterans’ Affairs, and Transportation Committees, among others.

Assemblymember Daly has also championed increased efficiency through the modernization of technology and record-keeping, improving access for veterans and businesses. That said, he often abstains from taking positions on key progressive bills in areas that include affordable housing, criminal-justice reform, and worker protections. Assemblymember Daly has a lifetime score of only 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislators’ progressive voting records. Daly’s priorities for AD-69 this year include government efficiency. As an assemblymember, Daly has co-sponsored one bill expanding worker protections to cover COVID-19 illness or death this year. He scores 32 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Daly has supported some progressive bills that made it to a vote. That said, Daly has not supported key legislation for economic justice or consumer and environmental protection.

Assemblymember Daly is endorsed by labor organizations in the district. He is also endorsed by police groups and Crime Victims United, a group that pushes for stronger punishments for offenders. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Jon Paul White’s potential policies greatly outweighs Daly’s moderate voting record. Though we disagree with Assemblymember Daly's stance on the many issues named above, and know that a stronger progressive candidate would more accurately represent the 69th district, Daly is the most progressive candidate on the ballot. That said, we encourage more progressive candidates that will better reflect this community’s needs to run in future cycles.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Congress

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

42nd Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

Democrat
William “Liam” O’Mara
Elect William “Liam” O’Mara to push CA-42 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 42nd Congressional District includes parts of Riverside County. While Republicans typically hold this district, demographically, it is purple. The most recent election results show 53.4 percent of AD-52 voted for Trump for president in 2016, and 58.8 percent of the district voted for Cox for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat challenger William “Liam” O’Mara trailed Republican incumbent Representative Ken Calvert by a margin of 35.3 percent. O’Mara’s campaign has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money but has yet to pledge to refuse corporate PAC and police money. O’Mara’s campaign has raised $55,686.53, and is funded by Democratic Party–aligned PACs and small amounts of corporate donations. Calvert’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, and police money. Calvert’s campaign has raised $1,098,245.86 and is largely funded by multinational defense conglomerates like Honeywell International, L3 Harris, and Raytheon Technologies, as well as fossil fuel companies like Edison International.

About the Candidate

William “Liam” O'Mara resides in Lake Elsinore, CA. According to campaign materials, he is running for Congress to advocate for his community’s needs and to fight for an America that benefits all, not just those at the top.

O’Mara is a history professor at Chapman University, where he works to spread knowledge and share his expertise, as well as learn from his students about the difficult experiences people face in today’s society. He put himself through college and pursued a PhD in history while working as a cook and a longshoreman, and in technology.

O’Mara is committed to enacting progressive policies, such as Medicare for All, so that people have access to quality health care regardless of financial circumstances, paid sick and family leave to provide stability when people experience unexpected situations, a $15 minimum wage, and tuition-free public college so that people have access to learning the necessary skills for a job in today’s economy.

William “Liam” O’Mara is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. Ken Calvert is endorsed by anti-choice groups. Calvert has a 27-year track record of inaction on constituents’ needs, and he is marred by a history of corruption issues, including using earmarks for personal gain and illegally purchasing land. The threat of another term with Ken Calvert, named one of the most corrupt members of Congress five times by Citizens for Ethics in Washington in their annual report, makes William “Liam” O’Mara the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

William “Liam” O’Mara

Elect William “Liam” O’Mara to push CA-42 in the right direction.

About the Position

Elect William “Liam” O’Mara to push CA-42 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 42nd Congressional District includes parts of Riverside County. While Republicans typically hold this district, demographically, it is purple. The most recent election results show 53.4 percent of AD-52 voted for Trump for president in 2016, and 58.8 percent of the district voted for Cox for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat challenger William “Liam” O’Mara trailed Republican incumbent Representative Ken Calvert by a margin of 35.3 percent. O’Mara’s campaign has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money but has yet to pledge to refuse corporate PAC and police money. O’Mara’s campaign has raised $55,686.53, and is funded by Democratic Party–aligned PACs and small amounts of corporate donations. Calvert’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, and police money. Calvert’s campaign has raised $1,098,245.86 and is largely funded by multinational defense conglomerates like Honeywell International, L3 Harris, and Raytheon Technologies, as well as fossil fuel companies like Edison International.

About the Candidate

William “Liam” O'Mara resides in Lake Elsinore, CA. According to campaign materials, he is running for Congress to advocate for his community’s needs and to fight for an America that benefits all, not just those at the top.

O’Mara is a history professor at Chapman University, where he works to spread knowledge and share his expertise, as well as learn from his students about the difficult experiences people face in today’s society. He put himself through college and pursued a PhD in history while working as a cook and a longshoreman, and in technology.

O’Mara is committed to enacting progressive policies, such as Medicare for All, so that people have access to quality health care regardless of financial circumstances, paid sick and family leave to provide stability when people experience unexpected situations, a $15 minimum wage, and tuition-free public college so that people have access to learning the necessary skills for a job in today’s economy.

William “Liam” O’Mara is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. Ken Calvert is endorsed by anti-choice groups. Calvert has a 27-year track record of inaction on constituents’ needs, and he is marred by a history of corruption issues, including using earmarks for personal gain and illegally purchasing land. The threat of another term with Ken Calvert, named one of the most corrupt members of Congress five times by Citizens for Ethics in Washington in their annual report, makes William “Liam” O’Mara the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

William “Liam” O’Mara

Elect William “Liam” O’Mara to push CA-42 in the right direction.

About the Position

Endorsed By: California Progressive Alliance, California Democratic Party, Indivisible CA 39, Indivisible OC 48

Elect William “Liam” O’Mara to push CA-42 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 42nd Congressional District includes parts of Riverside County. While Republicans typically hold this district, demographically, it is purple. The most recent election results show 53.4 percent of AD-52 voted for Trump for president in 2016, and 58.8 percent of the district voted for Cox for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat challenger William “Liam” O’Mara trailed Republican incumbent Representative Ken Calvert by a margin of 35.3 percent. O’Mara’s campaign has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money but has yet to pledge to refuse corporate PAC and police money. O’Mara’s campaign has raised $55,686.53, and is funded by Democratic Party–aligned PACs and small amounts of corporate donations. Calvert’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, and police money. Calvert’s campaign has raised $1,098,245.86 and is largely funded by multinational defense conglomerates like Honeywell International, L3 Harris, and Raytheon Technologies, as well as fossil fuel companies like Edison International.

About the Candidate

William “Liam” O'Mara resides in Lake Elsinore, CA. According to campaign materials, he is running for Congress to advocate for his community’s needs and to fight for an America that benefits all, not just those at the top.

O’Mara is a history professor at Chapman University, where he works to spread knowledge and share his expertise, as well as learn from his students about the difficult experiences people face in today’s society. He put himself through college and pursued a PhD in history while working as a cook and a longshoreman, and in technology.

O’Mara is committed to enacting progressive policies, such as Medicare for All, so that people have access to quality health care regardless of financial circumstances, paid sick and family leave to provide stability when people experience unexpected situations, a $15 minimum wage, and tuition-free public college so that people have access to learning the necessary skills for a job in today’s economy.

William “Liam” O’Mara is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. Ken Calvert is endorsed by anti-choice groups. Calvert has a 27-year track record of inaction on constituents’ needs, and he is marred by a history of corruption issues, including using earmarks for personal gain and illegally purchasing land. The threat of another term with Ken Calvert, named one of the most corrupt members of Congress five times by Citizens for Ethics in Washington in their annual report, makes William “Liam” O’Mara the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Democrat
William “Liam” O’Mara
Elect William “Liam” O’Mara to push CA-42 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 42nd Congressional District includes parts of Riverside County. While Republicans typically hold this district, demographically, it is purple. The most recent election results show 53.4 percent of AD-52 voted for Trump for president in 2016, and 58.8 percent of the district voted for Cox for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat challenger William “Liam” O’Mara trailed Republican incumbent Representative Ken Calvert by a margin of 35.3 percent. O’Mara’s campaign has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money but has yet to pledge to refuse corporate PAC and police money. O’Mara’s campaign has raised $55,686.53, and is funded by Democratic Party–aligned PACs and small amounts of corporate donations. Calvert’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, and police money. Calvert’s campaign has raised $1,098,245.86 and is largely funded by multinational defense conglomerates like Honeywell International, L3 Harris, and Raytheon Technologies, as well as fossil fuel companies like Edison International.

About the Candidate

William “Liam” O'Mara resides in Lake Elsinore, CA. According to campaign materials, he is running for Congress to advocate for his community’s needs and to fight for an America that benefits all, not just those at the top.

O’Mara is a history professor at Chapman University, where he works to spread knowledge and share his expertise, as well as learn from his students about the difficult experiences people face in today’s society. He put himself through college and pursued a PhD in history while working as a cook and a longshoreman, and in technology.

O’Mara is committed to enacting progressive policies, such as Medicare for All, so that people have access to quality health care regardless of financial circumstances, paid sick and family leave to provide stability when people experience unexpected situations, a $15 minimum wage, and tuition-free public college so that people have access to learning the necessary skills for a job in today’s economy.

William “Liam” O’Mara is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups in the district. Ken Calvert is endorsed by anti-choice groups. Calvert has a 27-year track record of inaction on constituents’ needs, and he is marred by a history of corruption issues, including using earmarks for personal gain and illegally purchasing land. The threat of another term with Ken Calvert, named one of the most corrupt members of Congress five times by Citizens for Ethics in Washington in their annual report, makes William “Liam” O’Mara the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Endorsed By: California Progressive Alliance, California Democratic Party, Indivisible CA 39, Indivisible OC 48

44th Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

Democrat
Nanette Barragán

Website Endorsements
Re-elect Congressional Representative Nanette Barragán to keep CA-44 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 44th Congressional District includes parts of Los Angeles Counties. Republicans held this district until 2012, when Janice Hahn won and flipped CA-44 from red to blue. The most recent election results show 83 percent of CD-44 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 81.4 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Barragán led Democratic challenger Analilia Joya by a margin of 49 percent. Barragán’s campaign has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money, but has yet to pledge to refuse corporate PAC and police money. While Barragan’s campaign has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, it has still accepted money from Edison International, whose subsidiaries still use fossil-fuel-generating facilities. Barragan’s campaign is also funded by corporate PACs and labor organizations. Analilia Joya’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, nor has it made any FEC filings.

About the Candidate

Representative Nanette Barragán is from Los Angeles and currently resides in San Pedro, CA. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2017. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to fight for immigration reform, veterans, access to quality health care, and the environment.

In Congress, Rep. Barragán works to protect vulnerable communities, social security, and Medicare from Republican attacks. She became a leading critic and leader against the administration's policy of child separations. Prior to her election to Congress, she served as mayor of Beach City and worked at the NAACP to address racial health disparities and discrimination.

Rep. Nanette Barragán’s priorities for CA-44 this year have included advocating for protecting the USPS, improving air-quality monitoring, and increasing federal support for schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. She currently sits on two committees: the Committees on Homeland Security and on Natural Resources. This year, Rep. Barragán has voted 97 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 96 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Barragán has co-sponsored five bills this year--about expanding childcare, policy accountability, and protecting the USPS--all of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Nanette Barragán

Re-elect Congressional Representative Nanette Barragán to keep CA-44 on the right track.

About the Position

Re-elect Congressional Representative Nanette Barragán to keep CA-44 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 44th Congressional District includes parts of Los Angeles Counties. Republicans held this district until 2012, when Janice Hahn won and flipped CA-44 from red to blue. The most recent election results show 83 percent of CD-44 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 81.4 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Barragán led Democratic challenger Analilia Joya by a margin of 49 percent. Barragán’s campaign has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money, but has yet to pledge to refuse corporate PAC and police money. While Barragan’s campaign has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, it has still accepted money from Edison International, whose subsidiaries still use fossil-fuel-generating facilities. Barragan’s campaign is also funded by corporate PACs and labor organizations. Analilia Joya’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, nor has it made any FEC filings.

About the Candidate

Representative Nanette Barragán is from Los Angeles and currently resides in San Pedro, CA. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2017. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to fight for immigration reform, veterans, access to quality health care, and the environment.

In Congress, Rep. Barragán works to protect vulnerable communities, social security, and Medicare from Republican attacks. She became a leading critic and leader against the administration's policy of child separations. Prior to her election to Congress, she served as mayor of Beach City and worked at the NAACP to address racial health disparities and discrimination.

Rep. Nanette Barragán’s priorities for CA-44 this year have included advocating for protecting the USPS, improving air-quality monitoring, and increasing federal support for schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. She currently sits on two committees: the Committees on Homeland Security and on Natural Resources. This year, Rep. Barragán has voted 97 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 96 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Barragán has co-sponsored five bills this year--about expanding childcare, policy accountability, and protecting the USPS--all of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.

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

Nanette Barragán

Re-elect Congressional Representative Nanette Barragán to keep CA-44 on the right track.

About the Position

Endorsed By: AFSCME 3299, AFSCME State Council, California Labor Federation, SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California League of Conservation Voters, Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, National Union of Healthcare Workers, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, SEIU CA, Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Re-elect Congressional Representative Nanette Barragán to keep CA-44 on the right track.

About the Position

About the District

California's 44th Congressional District includes parts of Los Angeles Counties. Republicans held this district until 2012, when Janice Hahn won and flipped CA-44 from red to blue. The most recent election results show 83 percent of CD-44 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 81.4 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Barragán led Democratic challenger Analilia Joya by a margin of 49 percent. Barragán’s campaign has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money, but has yet to pledge to refuse corporate PAC and police money. While Barragan’s campaign has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, it has still accepted money from Edison International, whose subsidiaries still use fossil-fuel-generating facilities. Barragan’s campaign is also funded by corporate PACs and labor organizations. Analilia Joya’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, nor has it made any FEC filings.

About the Candidate

Representative Nanette Barragán is from Los Angeles and currently resides in San Pedro, CA. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2017. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to fight for immigration reform, veterans, access to quality health care, and the environment.

In Congress, Rep. Barragán works to protect vulnerable communities, social security, and Medicare from Republican attacks. She became a leading critic and leader against the administration's policy of child separations. Prior to her election to Congress, she served as mayor of Beach City and worked at the NAACP to address racial health disparities and discrimination.

Rep. Nanette Barragán’s priorities for CA-44 this year have included advocating for protecting the USPS, improving air-quality monitoring, and increasing federal support for schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. She currently sits on two committees: the Committees on Homeland Security and on Natural Resources. This year, Rep. Barragán has voted 97 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 96 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Barragán has co-sponsored five bills this year--about expanding childcare, policy accountability, and protecting the USPS--all of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Democrat
Nanette Barragán

Website Endorsements
Re-elect Congressional Representative Nanette Barragán to keep CA-44 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 44th Congressional District includes parts of Los Angeles Counties. Republicans held this district until 2012, when Janice Hahn won and flipped CA-44 from red to blue. The most recent election results show 83 percent of CD-44 voted for Clinton for president in 2016, and 81.4 percent of the district voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Barragán led Democratic challenger Analilia Joya by a margin of 49 percent. Barragán’s campaign has pledged to refuse fossil fuel money, but has yet to pledge to refuse corporate PAC and police money. While Barragan’s campaign has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, it has still accepted money from Edison International, whose subsidiaries still use fossil-fuel-generating facilities. Barragan’s campaign is also funded by corporate PACs and labor organizations. Analilia Joya’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money, nor has it made any FEC filings.

About the Candidate

Representative Nanette Barragán is from Los Angeles and currently resides in San Pedro, CA. She is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2017. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to fight for immigration reform, veterans, access to quality health care, and the environment.

In Congress, Rep. Barragán works to protect vulnerable communities, social security, and Medicare from Republican attacks. She became a leading critic and leader against the administration's policy of child separations. Prior to her election to Congress, she served as mayor of Beach City and worked at the NAACP to address racial health disparities and discrimination.

Rep. Nanette Barragán’s priorities for CA-44 this year have included advocating for protecting the USPS, improving air-quality monitoring, and increasing federal support for schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. She currently sits on two committees: the Committees on Homeland Security and on Natural Resources. This year, Rep. Barragán has voted 97 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 96 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rep. Barragán has co-sponsored five bills this year--about expanding childcare, policy accountability, and protecting the USPS--all of which have successfully passed the House but remain in the Senate.

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Long Beach Ballot Measures

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

Measure #US

VOTE YES

Vote YES on Measure US in Long Beach
Vote YES on Measure US to increase the oil production tax to raise an estimated $1.6 million annually for the city’s general purpose fund.

Measure US asks Long Beach voters to decide whether to adjust the tax collected on each barrel of oil produced in the City of Long Beach. Currently, the city receives 48 cents of each barrel produced, and distributes 33 cents to special purposes and 15 cents to general purposes. Measure US seeks to double the tax contribution to the general purpose fund by raising it to 30 cents. This would increase the overall oil production tax to 62 cents per barrel. This tax is only paid by individuals and entities who have mineral rights or produce oil in Long Beach, and will not have an impact on the tax rates of residents who have no affiliation with the oil industry. The proposed tax increase, with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment applied to oil barrels, would add an estimated $1.6 million to the city’s general purpose fund during the first year. Oil production diminishes annually, so these funds would decrease by nearly 10 percent year over year. If approved by voters, this increase of the oil production tax would go into effect on October 1, 2021.

Why voting YES on Measure US matters:
- The current city council has adopted a Resolution outlining its intent for the increased tax funds. It includes:
  - Addressing climate change and environmental issues through increased education, emissions reductions, air-quality awareness efforts, and funding other climate programs
  - Improving community health by funding trauma-informed practices, community health programs, workforce training, and other health initiatives
  - Supporting youth and community services by funding early childhood education, youth workforce development, and other youth-focused initiatives
  - Aligning to Measure B to put 1 percent of the collected tax into a Rainy Day Fund to support future city funding challenges
- The implementation of Measure US would allow the city to begin to address economic disparities and racial-justice issues without increasing property or income taxes. The funds raised would be reinvested into youth and community development programs to improve access and outcomes for city residents. Making these investments without raising taxes on residents will create substantial benefits for the Long Beach community.
- In Long Beach, pollution disproportionately affects low-income workers and people of color who live and work near pollution sources. Passing Measure US will allow the city to reinvest in health care and enact climate protections that will yield positive outcomes for these marginalized communities.
- While the Resolution passed by the city council to dictate the distribution of the funds is not permanent, it does provide a meaningful guide for use of the collected funds in years to come. Importantly, the passage of Measure US will include required annual audits on the funds, which will provide frequent opportunities for revaluation of projects and spending.
At this time, no committee contributions opposing Measure US have been filed with the Long Beach City Clerk’s office. Notable supporters of this measure include the California Donor Table, which has recommended a YES vote on Measure US.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Vote YES on Measure US to increase the oil production tax to raise an estimated $1.6 million annually for the city’s general purpose fund.

Measure US asks Long Beach voters to decide whether to adjust the tax collected on each barrel of oil produced in the City of Long Beach. Currently, the city receives 48 cents of each barrel produced, and distributes 33 cents to special purposes and 15 cents to general purposes. Measure US seeks to double the tax contribution to the general purpose fund by raising it to 30 cents. This would increase the overall oil production tax to 62 cents per barrel. This tax is only paid by individuals and entities who have mineral rights or produce oil in Long Beach, and will not have an impact on the tax rates of residents who have no affiliation with the oil industry. The proposed tax increase, with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment applied to oil barrels, would add an estimated $1.6 million to the city’s general purpose fund during the first year. Oil production diminishes annually, so these funds would decrease by nearly 10 percent year over year. If approved by voters, this increase of the oil production tax would go into effect on October 1, 2021.

Why voting YES on Measure US matters:
- The current city council has adopted a Resolution outlining its intent for the increased tax funds. It includes:
  - Addressing climate change and environmental issues through increased education, emissions reductions, air-quality awareness efforts, and funding other climate programs
  - Improving community health by funding trauma-informed practices, community health programs, workforce training, and other health initiatives
  - Supporting youth and community services by funding early childhood education, youth workforce development, and other youth-focused initiatives
  - Aligning to Measure B to put 1 percent of the collected tax into a Rainy Day Fund to support future city funding challenges
- The implementation of Measure US would allow the city to begin to address economic disparities and racial-justice issues without increasing property or income taxes. The funds raised would be reinvested into youth and community development programs to improve access and outcomes for city residents. Making these investments without raising taxes on residents will create substantial benefits for the Long Beach community.
- In Long Beach, pollution disproportionately affects low-income workers and people of color who live and work near pollution sources. Passing Measure US will allow the city to reinvest in health care and enact climate protections that will yield positive outcomes for these marginalized communities.
- While the Resolution passed by the city council to dictate the distribution of the funds is not permanent, it does provide a meaningful guide for use of the collected funds in years to come. Importantly, the passage of Measure US will include required annual audits on the funds, which will provide frequent opportunities for revaluation of projects and spending.
At this time, no committee contributions opposing Measure US have been filed with the Long Beach City Clerk’s office. Notable supporters of this measure include the California Donor Table, which has recommended a YES vote on Measure US.
Vote YES on Measure US to increase the oil production tax to raise an estimated $1.6 million annually for the city’s general purpose fund.

Measure US asks Long Beach voters to decide whether to adjust the tax collected on each barrel of oil produced in the City of Long Beach. Currently, the city receives 48 cents of each barrel produced, and distributes 33 cents to special purposes and 15 cents to general purposes. Measure US seeks to double the tax contribution to the general purpose fund by raising it to 30 cents. This would increase the overall oil production tax to 62 cents per barrel. This tax is only paid by individuals and entities who have mineral rights or produce oil in Long Beach, and will not have an impact on the tax rates of residents who have no affiliation with the oil industry. The proposed tax increase, with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment applied to oil barrels, would add an estimated $1.6 million to the city’s general purpose fund during the first year. Oil production diminishes annually, so these funds would decrease by nearly 10 percent year over year. If approved by voters, this increase of the oil production tax would go into effect on October 1, 2021.

Why voting YES on Measure US matters:
- The current city council has adopted a Resolution outlining its intent for the increased tax funds. It includes:
  - Addressing climate change and environmental issues through increased education, emissions reductions, air-quality awareness efforts, and funding other climate programs
  - Improving community health by funding trauma-informed practices, community health programs, workforce training, and other health initiatives
  - Supporting youth and community services by funding early childhood education, youth workforce development, and other youth-focused initiatives
  - Aligning to Measure B to put 1 percent of the collected tax into a Rainy Day Fund to support future city funding challenges
- The implementation of Measure US would allow the city to begin to address economic disparities and racial-justice issues without increasing property or income taxes. The funds raised would be reinvested into youth and community development programs to improve access and outcomes for city residents. Making these investments without raising taxes on residents will create substantial benefits for the Long Beach community.
- In Long Beach, pollution disproportionately affects low-income workers and people of color who live and work near pollution sources. Passing Measure US will allow the city to reinvest in health care and enact climate protections that will yield positive outcomes for these marginalized communities.
- While the Resolution passed by the city council to dictate the distribution of the funds is not permanent, it does provide a meaningful guide for use of the collected funds in years to come. Importantly, the passage of Measure US will include required annual audits on the funds, which will provide frequent opportunities for revaluation of projects and spending.
At this time, no committee contributions opposing Measure US have been filed with the Long Beach City Clerk’s office. Notable supporters of this measure include the California Donor Table, which has recommended a YES vote on Measure US.
Measure US asks Long Beach voters to decide whether to adjust the tax collected on each barrel of oil produced in the City of Long Beach. Currently, the city receives 48 cents of each barrel produced, and distributes 33 cents to special purposes and 15 cents to general purposes. Measure US seeks to double the tax contribution to the general purpose fund by raising it to 30 cents. This would increase the overall oil production tax to 62 cents per barrel. This tax is only paid by individuals and entities who have mineral rights or produce oil in Long Beach, and will not have an impact on the tax rates of residents who have no affiliation with the oil industry. The proposed tax increase, with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment applied to oil barrels, would add an estimated $1.6 million to the city’s general purpose fund during the first year. Oil production diminishes annually, so these funds would decrease by nearly 10 percent year over year. If approved by voters, this increase of the oil production tax would go into effect on October 1, 2021.

Vote YES on Measure US to increase the oil production tax to raise an estimated $1.6 million annually for the city’s general purpose fund.

Measure US asks Long Beach voters to decide whether to adjust the tax collected on each barrel of oil produced in the City of Long Beach. Currently, the city receives 48 cents of each barrel produced, and distributes 33 cents to special purposes and 15 cents to general purposes. Measure US seeks to double the tax contribution to the general purpose fund by raising it to 30 cents. This would increase the overall oil production tax to 62 cents per barrel. This tax is only paid by individuals and entities who have mineral rights or produce oil in Long Beach, and will not have an impact on the tax rates of residents who have no affiliation with the oil industry. The proposed tax increase, with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment applied to oil barrels, would add an estimated $1.6 million to the city’s general purpose fund during the first year. Oil production diminishes annually, so these funds would decrease by nearly 10 percent year over year. If approved by voters, this increase of the oil production tax would go into effect on October 1, 2021.

Why voting YES on Measure US matters:

The current city council has adopted a Resolution outlining its intent for the increased tax funds. It includes:
- Addressing climate change and environmental issues through increased education, emissions reductions, air-quality awareness efforts, and funding other climate programs
- Improving community health by funding trauma-informed practices, community health programs, workforce training, and other health initiatives
- Supporting youth and community services by funding early childhood education, youth workforce development, and other youth-focused initiatives
- Aligning to Measure B to put 1 percent of the collected tax into a Rainy Day Fund to support future city funding challenges
The implementation of Measure US would allow the city to begin to address economic disparities and racial-justice issues without increasing property or income taxes. The funds raised would be reinvested into youth and community development programs to improve access and outcomes for city residents. Making these investments without raising taxes on residents will create substantial benefits for the Long Beach community.
In Long Beach, pollution disproportionately affects low-income workers and people of color who live and work near pollution sources. Passing Measure US will allow the city to reinvest in health care and enact climate protections that will yield positive outcomes for these marginalized communities.
While the Resolution passed by the city council to dictate the distribution of the funds is not permanent, it does provide a meaningful guide for use of the collected funds in years to come. Importantly, the passage of Measure US will include required annual audits on the funds, which will provide frequent opportunities for revaluation of projects and spending.

At this time, no committee contributions opposing Measure US have been filed with the Long Beach City Clerk’s office. Notable supporters of this measure include the California Donor Table, which has recommended a YES vote on Measure US.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

VOTE YES

Vote YES on Measure US in Long Beach
Vote YES on Measure US to increase the oil production tax to raise an estimated $1.6 million annually for the city’s general purpose fund.

Measure US asks Long Beach voters to decide whether to adjust the tax collected on each barrel of oil produced in the City of Long Beach. Currently, the city receives 48 cents of each barrel produced, and distributes 33 cents to special purposes and 15 cents to general purposes. Measure US seeks to double the tax contribution to the general purpose fund by raising it to 30 cents. This would increase the overall oil production tax to 62 cents per barrel. This tax is only paid by individuals and entities who have mineral rights or produce oil in Long Beach, and will not have an impact on the tax rates of residents who have no affiliation with the oil industry. The proposed tax increase, with an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment applied to oil barrels, would add an estimated $1.6 million to the city’s general purpose fund during the first year. Oil production diminishes annually, so these funds would decrease by nearly 10 percent year over year. If approved by voters, this increase of the oil production tax would go into effect on October 1, 2021.

Why voting YES on Measure US matters:
- The current city council has adopted a Resolution outlining its intent for the increased tax funds. It includes:
  - Addressing climate change and environmental issues through increased education, emissions reductions, air-quality awareness efforts, and funding other climate programs
  - Improving community health by funding trauma-informed practices, community health programs, workforce training, and other health initiatives
  - Supporting youth and community services by funding early childhood education, youth workforce development, and other youth-focused initiatives
  - Aligning to Measure B to put 1 percent of the collected tax into a Rainy Day Fund to support future city funding challenges
- The implementation of Measure US would allow the city to begin to address economic disparities and racial-justice issues without increasing property or income taxes. The funds raised would be reinvested into youth and community development programs to improve access and outcomes for city residents. Making these investments without raising taxes on residents will create substantial benefits for the Long Beach community.
- In Long Beach, pollution disproportionately affects low-income workers and people of color who live and work near pollution sources. Passing Measure US will allow the city to reinvest in health care and enact climate protections that will yield positive outcomes for these marginalized communities.
- While the Resolution passed by the city council to dictate the distribution of the funds is not permanent, it does provide a meaningful guide for use of the collected funds in years to come. Importantly, the passage of Measure US will include required annual audits on the funds, which will provide frequent opportunities for revaluation of projects and spending.
At this time, no committee contributions opposing Measure US have been filed with the Long Beach City Clerk’s office. Notable supporters of this measure include the California Donor Table, which has recommended a YES vote on Measure US.
Last updated: 2023-04-05

Los Angeles County

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

Los Angeles District Attorney

Non-Partisan
George Gascón

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

About the Position

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

About the District

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

About the Race

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

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

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

About the Candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a time of heightened injustice, Gascón stands out from other political candidates in that he has studied his past actions and outcomes, listened to communities affected by the system, and changed his views and behaviors in response to become a more effective and compassionate leader. His willingness to prosecute police brutality cases and his track record on creating solutions that have become models for criminal justice reform advocates are highlights of his case for becoming Los Angeles’s next district attorney.

Gascón is a compelling challenger to incumbent Jackie Lacey, who has consistently resisted public pressure to hold police accountable for the more than 618 people who have been killed by police in Los Angeles County since her election in 2013. According to our analysis, George Gascón is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

About Courage California’s Endorsement

After a comprehensive review of George Gascón’s record and from local partners, we have determined that he is committed to criminal justice reform, environmental justice, racial equity and justice, and immigrant rights. His experience in the community and pledges to refuse money from corporate PACs, police, and the fossil fuel industry are in alignment with the progressive future Courage California hopes to achieve in which special interests have no place in politics. Gascón’s dedication to holding law enforcement accountable for police brutality demonstrates the integrity Californians need more now than ever. We are confident that he will rule cases with equity and justice. Courage California is proud to endorse George Gascón.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

George Gascón

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

About the Position

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

About the Position

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

About the District

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

About the Race

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

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

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

About the Candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a time of heightened injustice, Gascón stands out from other political candidates in that he has studied his past actions and outcomes, listened to communities affected by the system, and changed his views and behaviors in response to become a more effective and compassionate leader. His willingness to prosecute police brutality cases and his track record on creating solutions that have become models for criminal justice reform advocates are highlights of his case for becoming Los Angeles’s next district attorney.

Gascón is a compelling challenger to incumbent Jackie Lacey, who has consistently resisted public pressure to hold police accountable for the more than 618 people who have been killed by police in Los Angeles County since her election in 2013. According to our analysis, George Gascón is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

About Courage California’s Endorsement

After a comprehensive review of George Gascón’s record and from local partners, we have determined that he is committed to criminal justice reform, environmental justice, racial equity and justice, and immigrant rights. His experience in the community and pledges to refuse money from corporate PACs, police, and the fossil fuel industry are in alignment with the progressive future Courage California hopes to achieve in which special interests have no place in politics. Gascón’s dedication to holding law enforcement accountable for police brutality demonstrates the integrity Californians need more now than ever. We are confident that he will rule cases with equity and justice. Courage California is proud to endorse George Gascón.

George Gascón

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

About the Position

Endorsed By: The Working Families Party, CHIRLA Action fund, Courage California

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

About the Position

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

About the District

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

About the Race

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

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

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

About the Candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a time of heightened injustice, Gascón stands out from other political candidates in that he has studied his past actions and outcomes, listened to communities affected by the system, and changed his views and behaviors in response to become a more effective and compassionate leader. His willingness to prosecute police brutality cases and his track record on creating solutions that have become models for criminal justice reform advocates are highlights of his case for becoming Los Angeles’s next district attorney.

Gascón is a compelling challenger to incumbent Jackie Lacey, who has consistently resisted public pressure to hold police accountable for the more than 618 people who have been killed by police in Los Angeles County since her election in 2013. According to our analysis, George Gascón is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

About Courage California’s Endorsement

After a comprehensive review of George Gascón’s record and from local partners, we have determined that he is committed to criminal justice reform, environmental justice, racial equity and justice, and immigrant rights. His experience in the community and pledges to refuse money from corporate PACs, police, and the fossil fuel industry are in alignment with the progressive future Courage California hopes to achieve in which special interests have no place in politics. Gascón’s dedication to holding law enforcement accountable for police brutality demonstrates the integrity Californians need more now than ever. We are confident that he will rule cases with equity and justice. Courage California is proud to endorse George Gascón.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Non-Partisan
George Gascón

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

About the Position

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

About the District

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

About the Race

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

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

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

About the Candidate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a time of heightened injustice, Gascón stands out from other political candidates in that he has studied his past actions and outcomes, listened to communities affected by the system, and changed his views and behaviors in response to become a more effective and compassionate leader. His willingness to prosecute police brutality cases and his track record on creating solutions that have become models for criminal justice reform advocates are highlights of his case for becoming Los Angeles’s next district attorney.

Gascón is a compelling challenger to incumbent Jackie Lacey, who has consistently resisted public pressure to hold police accountable for the more than 618 people who have been killed by police in Los Angeles County since her election in 2013. According to our analysis, George Gascón is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

About Courage California’s Endorsement

After a comprehensive review of George Gascón’s record and from local partners, we have determined that he is committed to criminal justice reform, environmental justice, racial equity and justice, and immigrant rights. His experience in the community and pledges to refuse money from corporate PACs, police, and the fossil fuel industry are in alignment with the progressive future Courage California hopes to achieve in which special interests have no place in politics. Gascón’s dedication to holding law enforcement accountable for police brutality demonstrates the integrity Californians need more now than ever. We are confident that he will rule cases with equity and justice. Courage California is proud to endorse George Gascón.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Endorsed By: The Working Families Party, CHIRLA Action fund, Courage California

Los Angeles County Superior Court

Los Angeles County, Judge of the Superior Court, Position #72

Myanna Dellinger

Website Endorsements
Elect Myanna Dellinger to push Los Angeles County in the right direction.

About the Position

Judges of the California Superior Courts are elected in nonpartisan, county-wide elections to six-year terms. Once voted in, a judge can run for retention at the expiration of their term. A retention election is a process by which voters decide whether an incumbent judge should remain for another term. If the judge, when not facing an opponent, does not obtain a certain percentage of voters (often 50 percent), they are removed from the position. Many judges join the court through a gubernatorial appointment. Once a judge is appointed, they compete in the next general election following the appointment.

California has 58 trial courts, or superior courts, one in each county. In the more than 450 courthouses of the superior courts, a judge and sometimes a jury hears witness testimony and other evidence. These courts hear civil, criminal, family, probate, and juvenile cases. The judge decides cases through the application of relevant law to the relevant facts.

About the Jurisdiction

The Superior Court of Los Angeles comprises the appellate, civil, criminal, family law, juvenile, mental health, probate, small claims, and traffic courts. The court system sees 2.7 million new cases per year. As of 2016, Los Angeles County’s incarceration rate was 609 per 100,000 adults aged 18–69, higher than California’s overall 486 per 100,000 average.

About the Race

In the March 3 primary election, Myanna Dellinger trailed challenger Steve Morgan by a margin of 3 percent. Dellinger’s campaign has raised $104,439.91 and is 55 percent self-funded, with the rest coming from individuals. Dellinger’s campaign has pledged to avoid fossil fuel money, and records show no donations from fossil fuels, police unions, or corporate PACs. Morgan’s campaign has raised $96,919.29, is 26 percent self-funded, and has received contributions from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, SEIU 721, and Govern For California (GFC). Morgan’s campaign has not committed to any campaign finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Myanna Dellinger is from Denmark, graduated at the top of her law school class, and moved to Southern California in 1997. Dellinger lives in Eagle Rock with her husband and is currently a law professor teaching human rights, contracts, sales, and public international law. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to help reduce racial disparity in the criminal-justice system and to provide greater access to justice.

Dellinger has worked on thousands of cases with state and federal judges at the trial and appellate levels, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dellinger also researches and writes extensively on the intersection between climate change and business law. She has personally translated and interpreted in such projects as multimillion-dollar patent-infringement lawsuits and Holocaust-survivor class-action lawsuits against Swiss banks. Her research has contributed to contemporary understanding about endangered species law and policy, and in particular the potential effects of trophy hunting to threatened and endangered species.

Myanna Dellinger is endorsed by many local progressive groups in the district. Her opponent, Steve Morgan, is endorsed by more moderate groups. According to our analysis, Myanna Dellinger is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Myanna Dellinger

Elect Myanna Dellinger to push Los Angeles County in the right direction.

About the Position

Elect Myanna Dellinger to push Los Angeles County in the right direction.

About the Position

Judges of the California Superior Courts are elected in nonpartisan, county-wide elections to six-year terms. Once voted in, a judge can run for retention at the expiration of their term. A retention election is a process by which voters decide whether an incumbent judge should remain for another term. If the judge, when not facing an opponent, does not obtain a certain percentage of voters (often 50 percent), they are removed from the position. Many judges join the court through a gubernatorial appointment. Once a judge is appointed, they compete in the next general election following the appointment.

California has 58 trial courts, or superior courts, one in each county. In the more than 450 courthouses of the superior courts, a judge and sometimes a jury hears witness testimony and other evidence. These courts hear civil, criminal, family, probate, and juvenile cases. The judge decides cases through the application of relevant law to the relevant facts.

About the Jurisdiction

The Superior Court of Los Angeles comprises the appellate, civil, criminal, family law, juvenile, mental health, probate, small claims, and traffic courts. The court system sees 2.7 million new cases per year. As of 2016, Los Angeles County’s incarceration rate was 609 per 100,000 adults aged 18–69, higher than California’s overall 486 per 100,000 average.

About the Race

In the March 3 primary election, Myanna Dellinger trailed challenger Steve Morgan by a margin of 3 percent. Dellinger’s campaign has raised $104,439.91 and is 55 percent self-funded, with the rest coming from individuals. Dellinger’s campaign has pledged to avoid fossil fuel money, and records show no donations from fossil fuels, police unions, or corporate PACs. Morgan’s campaign has raised $96,919.29, is 26 percent self-funded, and has received contributions from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, SEIU 721, and Govern For California (GFC). Morgan’s campaign has not committed to any campaign finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Myanna Dellinger is from Denmark, graduated at the top of her law school class, and moved to Southern California in 1997. Dellinger lives in Eagle Rock with her husband and is currently a law professor teaching human rights, contracts, sales, and public international law. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to help reduce racial disparity in the criminal-justice system and to provide greater access to justice.

Dellinger has worked on thousands of cases with state and federal judges at the trial and appellate levels, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dellinger also researches and writes extensively on the intersection between climate change and business law. She has personally translated and interpreted in such projects as multimillion-dollar patent-infringement lawsuits and Holocaust-survivor class-action lawsuits against Swiss banks. Her research has contributed to contemporary understanding about endangered species law and policy, and in particular the potential effects of trophy hunting to threatened and endangered species.

Myanna Dellinger is endorsed by many local progressive groups in the district. Her opponent, Steve Morgan, is endorsed by more moderate groups. According to our analysis, Myanna Dellinger is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Myanna Dellinger

Elect Myanna Dellinger to push Los Angeles County in the right direction.

About the Position

Elect Myanna Dellinger to push Los Angeles County in the right direction.

About the Position

Judges of the California Superior Courts are elected in nonpartisan, county-wide elections to six-year terms. Once voted in, a judge can run for retention at the expiration of their term. A retention election is a process by which voters decide whether an incumbent judge should remain for another term. If the judge, when not facing an opponent, does not obtain a certain percentage of voters (often 50 percent), they are removed from the position. Many judges join the court through a gubernatorial appointment. Once a judge is appointed, they compete in the next general election following the appointment.

California has 58 trial courts, or superior courts, one in each county. In the more than 450 courthouses of the superior courts, a judge and sometimes a jury hears witness testimony and other evidence. These courts hear civil, criminal, family, probate, and juvenile cases. The judge decides cases through the application of relevant law to the relevant facts.

About the Jurisdiction

The Superior Court of Los Angeles comprises the appellate, civil, criminal, family law, juvenile, mental health, probate, small claims, and traffic courts. The court system sees 2.7 million new cases per year. As of 2016, Los Angeles County’s incarceration rate was 609 per 100,000 adults aged 18–69, higher than California’s overall 486 per 100,000 average.

About the Race

In the March 3 primary election, Myanna Dellinger trailed challenger Steve Morgan by a margin of 3 percent. Dellinger’s campaign has raised $104,439.91 and is 55 percent self-funded, with the rest coming from individuals. Dellinger’s campaign has pledged to avoid fossil fuel money, and records show no donations from fossil fuels, police unions, or corporate PACs. Morgan’s campaign has raised $96,919.29, is 26 percent self-funded, and has received contributions from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, SEIU 721, and Govern For California (GFC). Morgan’s campaign has not committed to any campaign finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Myanna Dellinger is from Denmark, graduated at the top of her law school class, and moved to Southern California in 1997. Dellinger lives in Eagle Rock with her husband and is currently a law professor teaching human rights, contracts, sales, and public international law. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to help reduce racial disparity in the criminal-justice system and to provide greater access to justice.

Dellinger has worked on thousands of cases with state and federal judges at the trial and appellate levels, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dellinger also researches and writes extensively on the intersection between climate change and business law. She has personally translated and interpreted in such projects as multimillion-dollar patent-infringement lawsuits and Holocaust-survivor class-action lawsuits against Swiss banks. Her research has contributed to contemporary understanding about endangered species law and policy, and in particular the potential effects of trophy hunting to threatened and endangered species.

Myanna Dellinger is endorsed by many local progressive groups in the district. Her opponent, Steve Morgan, is endorsed by more moderate groups. According to our analysis, Myanna Dellinger is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Myanna Dellinger

Website Endorsements
Elect Myanna Dellinger to push Los Angeles County in the right direction.

About the Position

Judges of the California Superior Courts are elected in nonpartisan, county-wide elections to six-year terms. Once voted in, a judge can run for retention at the expiration of their term. A retention election is a process by which voters decide whether an incumbent judge should remain for another term. If the judge, when not facing an opponent, does not obtain a certain percentage of voters (often 50 percent), they are removed from the position. Many judges join the court through a gubernatorial appointment. Once a judge is appointed, they compete in the next general election following the appointment.

California has 58 trial courts, or superior courts, one in each county. In the more than 450 courthouses of the superior courts, a judge and sometimes a jury hears witness testimony and other evidence. These courts hear civil, criminal, family, probate, and juvenile cases. The judge decides cases through the application of relevant law to the relevant facts.

About the Jurisdiction

The Superior Court of Los Angeles comprises the appellate, civil, criminal, family law, juvenile, mental health, probate, small claims, and traffic courts. The court system sees 2.7 million new cases per year. As of 2016, Los Angeles County’s incarceration rate was 609 per 100,000 adults aged 18–69, higher than California’s overall 486 per 100,000 average.

About the Race

In the March 3 primary election, Myanna Dellinger trailed challenger Steve Morgan by a margin of 3 percent. Dellinger’s campaign has raised $104,439.91 and is 55 percent self-funded, with the rest coming from individuals. Dellinger’s campaign has pledged to avoid fossil fuel money, and records show no donations from fossil fuels, police unions, or corporate PACs. Morgan’s campaign has raised $96,919.29, is 26 percent self-funded, and has received contributions from the Los Angeles Police Protective League, SEIU 721, and Govern For California (GFC). Morgan’s campaign has not committed to any campaign finance pledges.

About the Candidate

Myanna Dellinger is from Denmark, graduated at the top of her law school class, and moved to Southern California in 1997. Dellinger lives in Eagle Rock with her husband and is currently a law professor teaching human rights, contracts, sales, and public international law. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to help reduce racial disparity in the criminal-justice system and to provide greater access to justice.

Dellinger has worked on thousands of cases with state and federal judges at the trial and appellate levels, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dellinger also researches and writes extensively on the intersection between climate change and business law. She has personally translated and interpreted in such projects as multimillion-dollar patent-infringement lawsuits and Holocaust-survivor class-action lawsuits against Swiss banks. Her research has contributed to contemporary understanding about endangered species law and policy, and in particular the potential effects of trophy hunting to threatened and endangered species.

Myanna Dellinger is endorsed by many local progressive groups in the district. Her opponent, Steve Morgan, is endorsed by more moderate groups. According to our analysis, Myanna Dellinger is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Los Angeles County, Judge of the Superior Court, Position #80

There are two candidates for this seat. Courage California does not have enough information to recommend one over the others in this race and other progressive organizations are split on their endorsements, so we have compiled basic biographical information for your reference. The two candidates for this position have distinct visions for Los Angeles County. Challenger David Berger promises to prioritize juvenile justice reform and drug offender rehabilitation. Challenger Klint James McKay promises to promote fairness and impartiality in the court, and resolve disputes with competence and empathy.

About the Position

California has 58 trial courts, or superior courts, one in each county. In the more than 450 courthouses of the superior courts, a judge and sometimes a jury hears witness testimony and other evidence. These courts hear civil, criminal, family, probate, small claims, traffic, and juvenile cases. The judge decides cases through the application of relevant law to the relevant facts.

About the Jurisdiction

About the Race

In the primary, challenger David A. Berger led challenger Klint James McKay by a margin of 7.4 percent. Berger’s campaign has raised $105,396.11 and is 47 percent self-funded, with the rest primarily made by individual donors. Berger’s campaign has received contributions from the Los Angeles Police Protective League and Govern For California (GFC), a donor network led by Stanford professor David Crane, who lost his position on the UC Board of Regents after criticizing the value of collective bargaining rights for California's teachers, nurses, firefighters, university employees, and other public sector workers. Berger’s campaign has not signed on to any pledges to avoid money from fossil fuels, police unions, or corporate PACs, and has not received funding from these sources. McKay’s campaign has not filed any public reports with the California Secretary of State and has not signed on to any pledges to avoid money from fossil fuels or police unions.

David Berger
David Berger is a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. During his career, Berger has served as alternative sentencing designee for the District Attorney's Office, where he worked with judges, public defenders, and rehabilitation programs to place suitable nonviolent candidates into intensive programs through the Community Collaborative Courts. This includes Drug Court, Veterans Court, Co-Existing Disorders Court, and Second Chance Women’s Re-Entry Courts -- programs that are designed to give people opportunity, guidance, and support to exit the criminal-justice system. Berger is endorsed by many local progressive groups in the district, including the Stonewall Democratic Club and Our Revolution SCV. He is also endorsed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League  and the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.  

Last updated: 2023-04-05

David Berger

David Berger is a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

David Berger is a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. During his career, Berger has served as alternative sentencing designee for the District Attorney's Office, where he worked with judges, public defenders, and rehabilitation programs to place suitable nonviolent candidates into intensive programs through the Community Collaborative Courts. This includes Drug Court, Veterans Court, Co-Existing Disorders Court, and Second Chance Women’s Re-Entry Courts -- programs that are designed to give people opportunity, guidance, and support to exit the criminal-justice system. Berger is endorsed by many local progressive groups in the district, including the Stonewall Democratic Club and Our Revolution SCV. He is also endorsed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League  and the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.  

David Berger

David Berger is a deputy district attorney for the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

Klint James Mckay
Klint James Mckay is an Administrative Law Judge based in Los Angeles County. Throughout his career McKay has served in a variety of roles, including administrative judge, judge pro tempore and statewide liaison between the California Department of Justice and the Board of Psychology, Emergency Medical Services Authority, and the Acupuncture Board. In addition to these roles, McKay ran a law firm that prosecuted doctors and health care professionals for over a decade. He also wrote the Department of Justice practice manual for the Emergency Medical Services Authority. Additionally, he has served on the Board of Directors for the Exceptional Children’s Fund. McKay values judicial temperament and discretion, and believes that a judge should “understand we are all more than the worst thing we have done”. He has received endorsements from some progressive organizations, including LA Progressive majority Voter Guide and SEIU Local 721.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Klint James Mckay

Klint James Mckay is an Administrative Law Judge based in Los Angeles County.

Klint James Mckay is an Administrative Law Judge based in Los Angeles County. Throughout his career McKay has served in a variety of roles, including administrative judge, judge pro tempore and statewide liaison between the California Department of Justice and the Board of Psychology, Emergency Medical Services Authority, and the Acupuncture Board. In addition to these roles, McKay ran a law firm that prosecuted doctors and health care professionals for over a decade. He also wrote the Department of Justice practice manual for the Emergency Medical Services Authority. Additionally, he has served on the Board of Directors for the Exceptional Children’s Fund. McKay values judicial temperament and discretion, and believes that a judge should “understand we are all more than the worst thing we have done”. He has received endorsements from some progressive organizations, including LA Progressive majority Voter Guide and SEIU Local 721.

Klint James Mckay

Klint James Mckay is an Administrative Law Judge based in Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles County, Judge of the Superior Court, Position #162

There are two candidates for this seat. Courage California does not have enough information to recommend one over the other in this race and other progressive organizations are split on their endorsements. The two candidates for this position have distinct visions for Los Angeles County. Challenger Scott Yang promises to protect and advocate for victims of violence, and give back to Los Angeles County communities. Challenger David Diamond promises to represent every litigant with fairness and impartiality.

About the Position

About the Jurisdiction

The Superior Court of Los Angeles comprises the appellate, civil, criminal, family law, juvenile, mental health, probate, small claims, and traffic courts. The court system sees 2.7 million new cases per year. As of 2016, Los Angeles County’s incarceration rate was 609 per 100,000 adults ages 18–69, higher than California’s overall 486 per 100,000 average.

About the Race

In the March 3 primary election, Scott Yang led David Diamond by a margin of 18 percent.

David Diamond
David Diamond, a practicing attorney and professor of law is a lifetime resident of Los Angeles County. Diamond graduated from Southwestern Law School, and has over 20 years of experience practicing law. He has also served as temporary judge for the Los Angeles Superior Court, as chairperson of the Burbank Police Commission, and currently works as a university professor of courts and criminal law. In addition to his extensive legal work, Diamond is the co-founder of the CACJ National Criminal Trial Advocacy Competition, vice president of the local Little League, and member of the National Sports Coaches Association, and he also serves as a volunteer football and baseball coach. David Diamond is endorsed by many progressive organizations, including the Action Network, LA Progressive, and AFSCME 36. However, he has five police commissioner endorsements.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

David Diamond

David Diamond, a practicing attorney and professor of law is a lifetime resident of Los Angeles County. Diamond graduated from Southwestern Law School, and has over 20 years of experience practicing law.

David Diamond, a practicing attorney and professor of law is a lifetime resident of Los Angeles County. Diamond graduated from Southwestern Law School, and has over 20 years of experience practicing law. He has also served as temporary judge for the Los Angeles Superior Court, as chairperson of the Burbank Police Commission, and currently works as a university professor of courts and criminal law. In addition to his extensive legal work, Diamond is the co-founder of the CACJ National Criminal Trial Advocacy Competition, vice president of the local Little League, and member of the National Sports Coaches Association, and he also serves as a volunteer football and baseball coach. David Diamond is endorsed by many progressive organizations, including the Action Network, LA Progressive, and AFSCME 36. However, he has five police commissioner endorsements.

David Diamond

David Diamond, a practicing attorney and professor of law is a lifetime resident of Los Angeles County. Diamond graduated from Southwestern Law School, and has over 20 years of experience practicing law.

Scott Yang
Scott Yang, a deputy district attorney for more than 11 years, is originally from Vietnam and settled with his family in Echo Park in 1984. Yang graduated from Southwestern University School of Law and previously worked for the Los Angeles County District Attorney in the Victim Impact Program, where he prosecuted cases that ranged from domestic violence to child murder. Scott Yang has led victim advocacy trainings for the Desert Oasis Center of the Antelope Valley, supporting volunteers who help domestic violence and sex crimes victims advocate for their rights and access to services. Yang has also worked with the Los Angeles County DA’s Law Clerk Program to help mentor college and law school students interested in a legal career. Scott Yang is endorsed by many local progressive organizations, including Honor PAC and the Stonewall Democratic Club; however, he is also endorsed by multiple law-enforcement organizations.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

Scott Yang

Scott Yang, a deputy district attorney for more than 11 years, is originally from Vietnam and settled with his family in Echo Park in 1984.

Scott Yang, a deputy district attorney for more than 11 years, is originally from Vietnam and settled with his family in Echo Park in 1984. Yang graduated from Southwestern University School of Law and previously worked for the Los Angeles County District Attorney in the Victim Impact Program, where he prosecuted cases that ranged from domestic violence to child murder. Scott Yang has led victim advocacy trainings for the Desert Oasis Center of the Antelope Valley, supporting volunteers who help domestic violence and sex crimes victims advocate for their rights and access to services. Yang has also worked with the Los Angeles County DA’s Law Clerk Program to help mentor college and law school students interested in a legal career. Scott Yang is endorsed by many local progressive organizations, including Honor PAC and the Stonewall Democratic Club; however, he is also endorsed by multiple law-enforcement organizations.

Scott Yang

Scott Yang, a deputy district attorney for more than 11 years, is originally from Vietnam and settled with his family in Echo Park in 1984.

Los Angeles County Ballot Measures

Measure #Measure HH: Local Fire Prevention and Open Space by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority - YES

VOTE YES

Measure HH: Local Fire Prevention and Open Space by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority -- YES

Website
Vote YES on Measure HH to establish a ten-year special tax of $68 per year on developed parcels within the district, in order to drive approximately $1,940,000 toward fire prevention.

Measure HH asks voters to approve a flat-rate parcel tax of $68 on developed land in the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills, directing approximately $1,940,000 toward much-needed fire-prevention measures. This work will be carried out by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), which does not receive permanent ongoing funding from local or state taxes. Unimproved parcels are exempt from the tax, as are families earning at or below 50 percent of the median family income for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale areas. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Metro Fair Market Rents Areas are also exempt from the tax, ensuring that only those who can afford it are asked to pay.

Why voting YES on Measure HH matters:
- While climate change and record temperatures have lengthened and strengthened fire seasons, brush clearing can reduce the ease with which fires spread.
- In addition to improving brush-clearing efforts, the funds raised by Measure HH will be used to address water quality, park ranger safety, and the acquisition of additional land to be protected against development.
- Deploy additional park ranger patrols on high fire-risk days
- Improve fire safety around Mulholland Overlooks with additional irrigation and green space
- Additional protection efforts in the region will not only keep human habitants safe, but provide species such as mountain lions and deer with the proper amount of space they need to thrive and ensure that populations do not crash.
Top Funders
- Unfortunately, financial disclosures in regards to Measure HH have not been filed electronically and are not publicly available.
- Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW) has been vocal in their support of Measure HH.
- No committees were formed in opposition to Measure HH.
Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure HH.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Vote YES on Measure HH to establish a ten-year special tax of $68 per year on developed parcels within the district, in order to drive approximately $1,940,000 toward fire prevention.

Measure HH asks voters to approve a flat-rate parcel tax of $68 on developed land in the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills, directing approximately $1,940,000 toward much-needed fire-prevention measures. This work will be carried out by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), which does not receive permanent ongoing funding from local or state taxes. Unimproved parcels are exempt from the tax, as are families earning at or below 50 percent of the median family income for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale areas. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Metro Fair Market Rents Areas are also exempt from the tax, ensuring that only those who can afford it are asked to pay.

Why voting YES on Measure HH matters:
- While climate change and record temperatures have lengthened and strengthened fire seasons, brush clearing can reduce the ease with which fires spread.
- In addition to improving brush-clearing efforts, the funds raised by Measure HH will be used to address water quality, park ranger safety, and the acquisition of additional land to be protected against development.
- Deploy additional park ranger patrols on high fire-risk days
- Improve fire safety around Mulholland Overlooks with additional irrigation and green space
- Additional protection efforts in the region will not only keep human habitants safe, but provide species such as mountain lions and deer with the proper amount of space they need to thrive and ensure that populations do not crash.
Top Funders
- Unfortunately, financial disclosures in regards to Measure HH have not been filed electronically and are not publicly available.
- Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW) has been vocal in their support of Measure HH.
- No committees were formed in opposition to Measure HH.
Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure HH.
Vote YES on Measure HH to establish a ten-year special tax of $68 per year on developed parcels within the district, in order to drive approximately $1,940,000 toward fire prevention.

Measure HH asks voters to approve a flat-rate parcel tax of $68 on developed land in the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills, directing approximately $1,940,000 toward much-needed fire-prevention measures. This work will be carried out by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), which does not receive permanent ongoing funding from local or state taxes. Unimproved parcels are exempt from the tax, as are families earning at or below 50 percent of the median family income for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale areas. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Metro Fair Market Rents Areas are also exempt from the tax, ensuring that only those who can afford it are asked to pay.

Why voting YES on Measure HH matters:
- While climate change and record temperatures have lengthened and strengthened fire seasons, brush clearing can reduce the ease with which fires spread.
- In addition to improving brush-clearing efforts, the funds raised by Measure HH will be used to address water quality, park ranger safety, and the acquisition of additional land to be protected against development.
- Deploy additional park ranger patrols on high fire-risk days
- Improve fire safety around Mulholland Overlooks with additional irrigation and green space
- Additional protection efforts in the region will not only keep human habitants safe, but provide species such as mountain lions and deer with the proper amount of space they need to thrive and ensure that populations do not crash.
Top Funders
- Unfortunately, financial disclosures in regards to Measure HH have not been filed electronically and are not publicly available.
- Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW) has been vocal in their support of Measure HH.
- No committees were formed in opposition to Measure HH.
Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure HH.
Measure HH: Local Fire Prevention and Open Space by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority - YES
Vote YES on Measure HH to establish a ten-year special tax of $68 per year on developed parcels within the district, in order to drive approximately $1,940,000 toward fire prevention.

Measure HH asks voters to approve a flat-rate parcel tax of $68 on developed land in the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills, directing approximately $1,940,000 toward much-needed fire-prevention measures. This work will be carried out by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), which does not receive permanent ongoing funding from local or state taxes. Unimproved parcels are exempt from the tax, as are families earning at or below 50 percent of the median family income for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale areas. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Metro Fair Market Rents Areas are also exempt from the tax, ensuring that only those who can afford it are asked to pay.

Why voting YES on Measure HH matters:

While climate change and record temperatures have lengthened and strengthened fire seasons, brush clearing can reduce the ease with which fires spread.

In addition to improving brush-clearing efforts, the funds raised by Measure HH will be used to address water quality, park ranger safety, and the acquisition of additional land to be protected against development.

Deploy additional park ranger patrols on high fire-risk days

Improve fire safety around Mulholland Overlooks with additional irrigation and green space

Additional protection efforts in the region will not only keep human habitants safe, but provide species such as mountain lions and deer with the proper amount of space they need to thrive and ensure that populations do not crash.

Top Funders

Unfortunately, financial disclosures in regards to Measure HH have not been filed electronically and are not publicly available.

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW) has been vocal in their support of Measure HH.

No committees were formed in opposition to Measure HH.

Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure HH.

VOTE YES

Measure HH: Local Fire Prevention and Open Space by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority -- YES

Website
Vote YES on Measure HH to establish a ten-year special tax of $68 per year on developed parcels within the district, in order to drive approximately $1,940,000 toward fire prevention.

Measure HH asks voters to approve a flat-rate parcel tax of $68 on developed land in the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills, directing approximately $1,940,000 toward much-needed fire-prevention measures. This work will be carried out by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), which does not receive permanent ongoing funding from local or state taxes. Unimproved parcels are exempt from the tax, as are families earning at or below 50 percent of the median family income for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale areas. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Metro Fair Market Rents Areas are also exempt from the tax, ensuring that only those who can afford it are asked to pay.

Why voting YES on Measure HH matters:
- While climate change and record temperatures have lengthened and strengthened fire seasons, brush clearing can reduce the ease with which fires spread.
- In addition to improving brush-clearing efforts, the funds raised by Measure HH will be used to address water quality, park ranger safety, and the acquisition of additional land to be protected against development.
- Deploy additional park ranger patrols on high fire-risk days
- Improve fire safety around Mulholland Overlooks with additional irrigation and green space
- Additional protection efforts in the region will not only keep human habitants safe, but provide species such as mountain lions and deer with the proper amount of space they need to thrive and ensure that populations do not crash.
Top Funders
- Unfortunately, financial disclosures in regards to Measure HH have not been filed electronically and are not publicly available.
- Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW) has been vocal in their support of Measure HH.
- No committees were formed in opposition to Measure HH.
Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure HH.
Last updated: 2023-04-05

Measure #RR

VOTE YES

Measure RR: School Upgrades and Safety Measure -- YES

Website
Vote YES on Measure RR to authorize $7 billion in bonds to update and modernize public schools within the LAUSD.

Measure RR asks voters in the Los Angeles Unified School District to extend the current property tax rate that was previously authorized by voters. According to the ballot text itself, the rate and the duration of the tax may vary over the term of repayment but is estimated to be approximately $21 per $100,000 of assessed property value through 2055. Measure RR is estimated to generate roughly $330 million annually. This measure requires 55 percent voter approval.

Why voting YES on Measure RR matters:
- Measure RR will fund the desperately needed renovations for upgrading the 70 percent of Los Angeles public schools that were built over 50 years ago.
- By funding upgrades to remove lead paint, asbestos, and water-quality hazards in these schools, Measure RR is expected to create 120,000 jobs. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, a steady source of jobs over the next ten years will give a boost to the local Los Angeles economy.
- Measure RR is for technology and school facilities only; no funds will be allocated to employee or administrator salaries and is subject to strict oversight through annual independent performance and financial audits.
- COVID-19 distance-learning has greatly affected children and schools unable to afford the technology required to safely and effectively distance-learn. Measure RR will ensure that all Los Angeles public students will not be left behind in this new era of learning.
Top Funders

The committee created in support of Measure RR “Yes on Measure RR - Committee for Safe, Updated, Modernized Schools” has yet to file any contributions with the Secretary of State’s office. We are unable to provide monetary information until contributions are filed.

Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure RR.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Vote YES on Measure RR to authorize $7 billion in bonds to update and modernize public schools within the LAUSD.

Measure RR asks voters in the Los Angeles Unified School District to extend the current property tax rate that was previously authorized by voters. According to the ballot text itself, the rate and the duration of the tax may vary over the term of repayment but is estimated to be approximately $21 per $100,000 of assessed property value through 2055. Measure RR is estimated to generate roughly $330 million annually. This measure requires 55 percent voter approval.

Why voting YES on Measure RR matters:
- Measure RR will fund the desperately needed renovations for upgrading the 70 percent of Los Angeles public schools that were built over 50 years ago.
- By funding upgrades to remove lead paint, asbestos, and water-quality hazards in these schools, Measure RR is expected to create 120,000 jobs. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, a steady source of jobs over the next ten years will give a boost to the local Los Angeles economy.
- Measure RR is for technology and school facilities only; no funds will be allocated to employee or administrator salaries and is subject to strict oversight through annual independent performance and financial audits.
- COVID-19 distance-learning has greatly affected children and schools unable to afford the technology required to safely and effectively distance-learn. Measure RR will ensure that all Los Angeles public students will not be left behind in this new era of learning.
Top Funders

The committee created in support of Measure RR “Yes on Measure RR - Committee for Safe, Updated, Modernized Schools” has yet to file any contributions with the Secretary of State’s office. We are unable to provide monetary information until contributions are filed.

Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure RR.
Vote YES on Measure RR to authorize $7 billion in bonds to update and modernize public schools within the LAUSD.

Measure RR asks voters in the Los Angeles Unified School District to extend the current property tax rate that was previously authorized by voters. According to the ballot text itself, the rate and the duration of the tax may vary over the term of repayment but is estimated to be approximately $21 per $100,000 of assessed property value through 2055. Measure RR is estimated to generate roughly $330 million annually. This measure requires 55 percent voter approval.

Why voting YES on Measure RR matters:
- Measure RR will fund the desperately needed renovations for upgrading the 70 percent of Los Angeles public schools that were built over 50 years ago.
- By funding upgrades to remove lead paint, asbestos, and water-quality hazards in these schools, Measure RR is expected to create 120,000 jobs. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, a steady source of jobs over the next ten years will give a boost to the local Los Angeles economy.
- Measure RR is for technology and school facilities only; no funds will be allocated to employee or administrator salaries and is subject to strict oversight through annual independent performance and financial audits.
- COVID-19 distance-learning has greatly affected children and schools unable to afford the technology required to safely and effectively distance-learn. Measure RR will ensure that all Los Angeles public students will not be left behind in this new era of learning.
Top Funders

The committee created in support of Measure RR “Yes on Measure RR - Committee for Safe, Updated, Modernized Schools” has yet to file any contributions with the Secretary of State’s office. We are unable to provide monetary information until contributions are filed.

Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure RR.
Measure RR: School Upgrades and Safety Measure -- YES
Vote YES on Measure RR to authorize $7 billion in bonds to update and modernize public schools within the LAUSD.

Measure RR asks voters in the Los Angeles Unified School District to extend the current property tax rate that was previously authorized by voters. According to the ballot text itself, the rate and the duration of the tax may vary over the term of repayment but is estimated to be approximately $21 per $100,000 of assessed property value through 2055. Measure RR is estimated to generate roughly $330 million annually. This measure requires 55 percent voter approval.

Why voting YES on Measure RR matters:

Measure RR will fund the desperately needed renovations for upgrading the 70 percent of Los Angeles public schools that were built over 50 years ago.

By funding upgrades to remove lead paint, asbestos, and water-quality hazards in these schools, Measure RR is expected to create 120,000 jobs. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, a steady source of jobs over the next ten years will give a boost to the local Los Angeles economy.

Measure RR is for technology and school facilities only; no funds will be allocated to employee or administrator salaries and is subject to strict oversight through annual independent performance and financial audits.

COVID-19 distance-learning has greatly affected children and schools unable to afford the technology required to safely and effectively distance-learn. Measure RR will ensure that all Los Angeles public students will not be left behind in this new era of learning.

Top Funders

The committee created in support of Measure RR “Yes on Measure RR - Committee for Safe, Updated, Modernized Schools” has yet to file any contributions with the Secretary of State’s office. We are unable to provide monetary information until contributions are filed.

Misinformation

There is no prominent misinformation about Measure RR.

County Measure #J

VOTE YES

Invest in Alternatives to Incarceration

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

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

Why Voting YES on Measure J Matters
- Los Angeles County runs the world’s largest jail system, with an inmate population of 17,000, nearly one-third of whom have mental-health concerns, making the system the largest de facto mental-health facility in the country.
- According to the RAND Corporation, more than half of the inmates in the Mental Health Unit at Los Angeles Jail are candidates for diversion to community programs rather than incarceration.
- California’s penal code criminalizes poverty, substance abuse, and mental-health illness while denying residents of color their fair share of community resources needed to thrive.
- In recent years, residents and advocates have won key victories with the Board of Supervisors, creating new investments in housing and care for those experiencing homelessness. The essential element to scale up these interventions is funding. With more than 40 percent of Los Angeles County’s local tax revenues going to incarceration and policing, there are not enough resources for programs that can make a real difference in communities. Measure J could help close this gap.
- This measure responds to the growing calls from the community to defund the police and prioritize public services by requiring that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to investments that support communities – including affordable housing, community counseling, mental-health services, youth-development programs, small businesses, and job creation.
Funders of Measure J
- Top funders in support of Measure J include philanthropists Patty Quillin and Nicole Shanahan and the ACLU of Southern California.
- Top funders in opposition to Measure J include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.
Misinformation about Measure J
- "The measure will further challenge the county's essential workers, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic." -- FALSE. Funding for essential workers is not being challenged. The measure would guarantee at least 10 percent of unrestricted funding to address racial injustice, overreliance on police interventions, and health and housing disparities.
- "The measure will raise taxes." -- FALSE. The proposed ballot measure does not involve a tax increase; instead, it redistributes existing local tax revenue.
Last updated: 2023-04-05
Vote Yes on Measure J to increase spending on housing and mental-health services while decreasing funding for law enforcement.

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

Why Voting YES on Measure J Matters
- Los Angeles County runs the world’s largest jail system, with an inmate population of 17,000, nearly one-third of whom have mental-health concerns, making the system the largest de facto mental-health facility in the country.
- According to the RAND Corporation, more than half of the inmates in the Mental Health Unit at Los Angeles Jail are candidates for diversion to community programs rather than incarceration.
- California’s penal code criminalizes poverty, substance abuse, and mental-health illness while denying residents of color their fair share of community resources needed to thrive.
- In recent years, residents and advocates have won key victories with the Board of Supervisors, creating new investments in housing and care for those experiencing homelessness. The essential element to scale up these interventions is funding. With more than 40 percent of Los Angeles County’s local tax revenues going to incarceration and policing, there are not enough resources for programs that can make a real difference in communities. Measure J could help close this gap.
- This measure responds to the growing calls from the community to defund the police and prioritize public services by requiring that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to investments that support communities – including affordable housing, community counseling, mental-health services, youth-development programs, small businesses, and job creation.
Funders of Measure J
- Top funders in support of Measure J include philanthropists Patty Quillin and Nicole Shanahan and the ACLU of Southern California.
- Top funders in opposition to Measure J include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.
Misinformation about Measure J
- "The measure will further challenge the county's essential workers, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic." -- FALSE. Funding for essential workers is not being challenged. The measure would guarantee at least 10 percent of unrestricted funding to address racial injustice, overreliance on police interventions, and health and housing disparities.
- "The measure will raise taxes." -- FALSE. The proposed ballot measure does not involve a tax increase; instead, it redistributes existing local tax revenue.
Vote Yes on Measure J to increase spending on housing and mental-health services while decreasing funding for law enforcement.

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

Why Voting YES on Measure J Matters
- Los Angeles County runs the world’s largest jail system, with an inmate population of 17,000, nearly one-third of whom have mental-health concerns, making the system the largest de facto mental-health facility in the country.
- According to the RAND Corporation, more than half of the inmates in the Mental Health Unit at Los Angeles Jail are candidates for diversion to community programs rather than incarceration.
- California’s penal code criminalizes poverty, substance abuse, and mental-health illness while denying residents of color their fair share of community resources needed to thrive.
- In recent years, residents and advocates have won key victories with the Board of Supervisors, creating new investments in housing and care for those experiencing homelessness. The essential element to scale up these interventions is funding. With more than 40 percent of Los Angeles County’s local tax revenues going to incarceration and policing, there are not enough resources for programs that can make a real difference in communities. Measure J could help close this gap.
- This measure responds to the growing calls from the community to defund the police and prioritize public services by requiring that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to investments that support communities – including affordable housing, community counseling, mental-health services, youth-development programs, small businesses, and job creation.
Funders of Measure J
- Top funders in support of Measure J include philanthropists Patty Quillin and Nicole Shanahan and the ACLU of Southern California.
- Top funders in opposition to Measure J include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.
Misinformation about Measure J
- "The measure will further challenge the county's essential workers, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic." -- FALSE. Funding for essential workers is not being challenged. The measure would guarantee at least 10 percent of unrestricted funding to address racial injustice, overreliance on police interventions, and health and housing disparities.
- "The measure will raise taxes." -- FALSE. The proposed ballot measure does not involve a tax increase; instead, it redistributes existing local tax revenue.
Los Angeles County Measure J
Vote Yes on Measure J to increase spending on housing and mental-health services while decreasing funding for law enforcement.

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

Why Voting YES on Measure J Matters

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

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

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

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

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

Funders of Measure J

Top funders in support of Measure J include philanthropists Patty Quillin and Nicole Shanahan and the ACLU of Southern California.

Top funders in opposition to Measure J include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.

Misinformation about Measure J

"The measure will further challenge the county's essential workers, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic." -- FALSE. Funding for essential workers is not being challenged. The measure would guarantee at least 10 percent of unrestricted funding to address racial injustice, overreliance on police interventions, and health and housing disparities.

"The measure will raise taxes." -- FALSE. The proposed ballot measure does not involve a tax increase; instead, it redistributes existing local tax revenue.

Endorsed By Bend The Arc: Jewish Action

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

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

Why Voting YES on Measure J Matters

Los Angeles County runs the world’s largest jail system, with an inmate population of 17,000, nearly one-third of whom have mental-health concerns, making the system the largest de facto mental-health facility in the country.
According to the RAND Corporation, more than half of the inmates in the Mental Health Unit at Los Angeles Jail are candidates for diversion to community programs rather than incarceration.
California’s penal code criminalizes poverty, substance abuse, and mental-health illness while denying residents of color their fair share of community resources needed to thrive.
In recent years, residents and advocates have won key victories with the Board of Supervisors, creating new investments in housing and care for those experiencing homelessness. The essential element to scale up these interventions is funding. With more than 40 percent of Los Angeles County’s local tax revenues going to incarceration and policing, there are not enough resources for programs that can make a real difference in communities. Measure J could help close this gap.
This measure responds to the growing calls from the community to defund the police and prioritize public services by requiring that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to investments that support communities – including affordable housing, community counseling, mental-health services, youth-development programs, small businesses, and job creation.

Funders of Measure J

Top funders in support of Measure J include philanthropists Patty Quillin and Nicole Shanahan and the ACLU of Southern California.
Top funders in opposition to Measure J include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.

Misinformation about Measure J

"The measure will further challenge the county's essential workers, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic." -- FALSE. Funding for essential workers is not being challenged. The measure would guarantee at least 10 percent of unrestricted funding to address racial injustice, overreliance on police interventions, and health and housing disparities.
"The measure will raise taxes." -- FALSE. The proposed ballot measure does not involve a tax increase; instead, it redistributes existing local tax revenue.

Last updated: 2023-04-05

VOTE YES

Invest in Alternatives to Incarceration

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

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

Why Voting YES on Measure J Matters
- Los Angeles County runs the world’s largest jail system, with an inmate population of 17,000, nearly one-third of whom have mental-health concerns, making the system the largest de facto mental-health facility in the country.
- According to the RAND Corporation, more than half of the inmates in the Mental Health Unit at Los Angeles Jail are candidates for diversion to community programs rather than incarceration.
- California’s penal code criminalizes poverty, substance abuse, and mental-health illness while denying residents of color their fair share of community resources needed to thrive.
- In recent years, residents and advocates have won key victories with the Board of Supervisors, creating new investments in housing and care for those experiencing homelessness. The essential element to scale up these interventions is funding. With more than 40 percent of Los Angeles County’s local tax revenues going to incarceration and policing, there are not enough resources for programs that can make a real difference in communities. Measure J could help close this gap.
- This measure responds to the growing calls from the community to defund the police and prioritize public services by requiring that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to investments that support communities – including affordable housing, community counseling, mental-health services, youth-development programs, small businesses, and job creation.
Funders of Measure J
- Top funders in support of Measure J include philanthropists Patty Quillin and Nicole Shanahan and the ACLU of Southern California.
- Top funders in opposition to Measure J include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association.
Misinformation about Measure J
- "The measure will further challenge the county's essential workers, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic." -- FALSE. Funding for essential workers is not being challenged. The measure would guarantee at least 10 percent of unrestricted funding to address racial injustice, overreliance on police interventions, and health and housing disparities.
- "The measure will raise taxes." -- FALSE. The proposed ballot measure does not involve a tax increase; instead, it redistributes existing local tax revenue.
Last updated: 2023-04-05

Endorsed By Bend The Arc: Jewish Action

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
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
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
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.

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

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
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.

Progressive Landscape
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.

Progressive Landscape
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.

Progressive Landscape
Prop 15: Schools and Local Communities Funding Act - YES

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

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

Last updated: 2023-04-05

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.

Progressive Landscape
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
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
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
Prop 16: Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment - YES

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

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

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
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
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
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
Proposition 17: Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole - YES

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

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
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
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
Prop 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment - YES

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 #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
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
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
Prop 19

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

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
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
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
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
Prop 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative - NO

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

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
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
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
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
Prop 21: The Rental Affordability Act - YES

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

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
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.
Progressive Landscape
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.
Progressive Landscape
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.
Progressive Landscape
Proposition 22: App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (AB5) - NO

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

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

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.
Progressive Landscape
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
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
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
Prop 23

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

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
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
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
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
Prop 24: Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative - NO

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

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

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
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
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
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
Prop 25

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

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

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
Last updated: 2023-04-05

Tom Daly

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 on the right track.

About the Position

About the District

About the Race

About the Candidate

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 on the right track.

About the Position

About the District

About the Race

About the Candidate

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 on the right track.

About the Position

About the District

About the Race

About the Candidate

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 on the right track.

About the Position

About the District

About the Race

About the Candidate

Tom Daly

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 on the right track.

About the Position

About the District

About the Race

About the Candidate

Tom Daly

Re-elect State Assemblymember Tom Daly to keep AD-69 on the right track.

About the Position

About the District

About the Race

About the Candidate

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

About the Position

About the Race

About the Candidate

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

About the Position

About the Race

About the Candidate

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

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

About the Position

About the Race

About the Candidate

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

About the Position

About the Race

About the Candidate

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

About the Position

About the Race

About the Candidate

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

About the Position

About the Race

About the Candidate

Kamala Harris

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

About the Position

About the Race

About the Candidate

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

About the Position

About the Race

About the Candidate

Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

About the District

About the Candidate

Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

About the District

About the Candidate

Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.

About the Position

About the District

About the Candidate

Elect Charné Tunson to make the Los Angeles Community College District Board more reflective of its highly diverse student population.