By Courage California
Not in 77th Assembly District? Click here to choose your customized guide.
Depending on where you live, you may have one of the below congressional districts on your ballot.
Endorsed By: Stonewall Democratic Club, Bend The Arc (PAC), California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California League of Conservation Voters, California Teachers Association, Democracy for America, Flip the West, NARAL Pro-Choice California, National Union of Healthcare Workers, Orange County Democrats, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, SEIU 221, United Farm Workers
Representative Mike Levin was raised in South Orange County and Los Angeles before moving away briefly for university and law school. He has returned to live in Orange County, where he currently represents District 49 in Congress.
Rep. Levin was elected to Congress in 2018 and he has been a champion on issues of sustainability and climate change. He is a member of the Natural Resources and Veterans Affairs Committees, as well as the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. He has sponsored legislation across a broad range of progressive issues, including electoral reforms, protection of voting rights, protection against discrimination, pay equity, and environmental protections. Prior to his election to Congress, Rep. Levin was a bold advocate for clean energy and sustainability in Orange County, San Diego, and beyond.
Rep. Levin is being challenged by Brian Maryott (R), a conservative businessman and mayor of San Juan Capistrano. Rep. Levin stands out as a strong progressive voice in Congress who has had significant impact in his first term. According to recent election results, this has been a tough race for Democrats to win, as Levin did in 2018. His strong progressive track record and ability to keep this flipped district make him the strongest choice in this race.
Last updated: 2020-02-28
Scott Peters is the incumbent, having served as Representative since 2013. Peters has often touted himself as independent and has a mixed record on progressive issues.
Peters is an environmental lawyer by trade and served on the San Diego City Council before his election to Congress. He supports women’s rights and reproductive choice, including abortion rights, and LGBTQ equality. He is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, NARAL, and Human Rights Campaign. He is also a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and called for laws to toughen background checks and bans on high capacity magazines and assault-style weapons. While he does not support the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, he has supported investing in renewable energy, protections for California’s Coastline, and introduced the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act.”
After the 2010 census redistricting, the district began to slowly trend towards Democrats. Peters narrowly won this race in 2012 and 2014 against a Republican, but in 2016 and 2018 won by comfortable margins. This is now a safe Democratic seat, and constituents deserve strong progressive representation.
Peters is being challenged by Nancy Casady (D), a progressive activist who is running on a Green New Deal platform, however, according to our analysis, she has been unable to mount a viable challenge to Peters, given her lack of fundraising and partner endorsements. We look forward to supporting a viable challenge to Peters in the future.
Two other challengers have qualified for the ballot: Jim DeBello (R) and Ryan Cunningham (NPP). Given the fact that Peters is infinitely preferable to a Republican occupying this seat and his Democratic challenger isn’t viable, we believe Peters is the strongest candidate for this office.
Last updated: 2020-02-28
There are two well-qualified candidates in this race who have received broad support from progressive advocates and leaders: Georgette Gomez and Janessa Goldbeck. After extensive research, we believe both are good choices. Read the full descriptions of each candidate to find the candidate who best fits your values and priorities for Congressional District 53 Representative.
Georgette Gomez was born in San Diego and grew up in the Barrio Logan neighborhood in south central San Diego, the daughter of working class immigrants. She continues to live in San Diego, where she currently represents Council District 9 on the San Diego City Council. According to campaign materials, Councilmember Gomez is running to represent Congressional District 53 in order to stand up against Trump’s dangerous agenda and put the focus back on what working families in our community need.
Councilmember Gomez was elected to the San Diego City Council in 2016 and became the first LGBTQ Latina to be elected as Council President in 2018. During her tenure, Councilmember Gomez has helped expand affordable housing and renter protections, helped lead the implementation of the San Diego’s Climate Action Plan, and secured funding for community priorities including street repairs, parks and libraries.
Prior to election to the City Council, Councilmember Gomez led the Toxic Free Neighborhoods Campaign at the Environmental Health Coalition to protect kids from lead paint and keep polluting industries out of residential communities and worked as a victims’ advocate for survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Her personal and professional experiences have opened her eyes to the issues faced by low income families and immigrant families, and has led to her unwavering commitment to creating a better, more inclusive government for all.
Councilmember Gomez is running for the open seat of Congressional District 53, as current Representative Susan Davis has announced her retirement. Other candidates include Annette Meza (D), Chris Stoddard (R), Devorah Ann Fox (D), Eric Kutner (D), Famela Ramos (R), Fernando Garcia (I), Janessa Goldbeck (D), Joaquin Vazquez (D), John E. Brooks (D), Jose Caballero (D), Joseph Fountain (D), Michael Oristian (R), Sara Jacobs (D), Suzette Santori (D), and Tom Wong (D). Councilmember Gomez stands out in a crowded field as a strong progressive choice for office because of her track record as a champion of progressive values and numerous endorsements from progressive organizations.
According to our analysis, Councilmember Gomez is a strong choice for progressive leadership in office.
Last updated: 2020-02-24
Janessa Goldbeck, a veteran, was born and raised in San Diego, the daughter of a public school teacher and a tow truck driver. She currently lives in Talmage. According to campaign materials, she is running to fight for bold, progressive solutions that make a difference in the lives of San Diegans.
Janessa left active service in the Marines in 2019. During her time in service, Janessa served as a Uniformed Victim Advocate, providing support to Marines who had experienced sexual assault. Prior to joining the Marines in December 2012, she was a human rights lobbyist. She is a co-founder of the local chapter of the Truman National Security Project in San Diego.
Goldbeck holds progressive positions in areas including health care and electoral reform. She is a strong supporter of the Family and Insurance Medical Leave Act, which proposes a national program which would guarantee all workers up to 12 weeks paid leave no matter the size of the company or type of work they do. She pledges to support efforts to codify the right to an abortion into law, guarantee full Medicare coverage of contraception coverage and family planning methods, and ensure Title X funds only go to providers who offer comprehensive, evidence-based care. She also identifies as a supporter of the Second Amendment who favors common-sense efforts to reduce gun violence and promote gun safety.
Goldbeck is running for the open seat of Congressional District 53, as current Representative Susan Davis has announced her retirement. Other candidates include Annette Meza (D), Chris Stoddard (R), Devorah Ann Fox (D), Eric Kutner (D), Famela Ramos (R), Fernando Garcia (I), Georgette Gomez (D), Joaquin Vazquez (D), John E. Brooks (D), Jose Caballero (D), Joseph Fountain (D), Michael Oristian (R), Sara Jacobs (D), Suzette Santori (D), and Tom Wong (D). Goldbeck stands out in a crowded field as one of two openly LGBT progressive candidates competing for the same office.
According to our analysis, Goldbeck is a strong choice for progressive leadership in office.
Last updated: 2020-02-24
Brian Maienschein grew up in Assembly District 77. He is the incumbent, having served in this position since 2012. According to campaign materials, he is running again to continue his work to improve policy around homelessness and mental health in the district.
In the State Assembly, he has worked on various efforts toward increased public safety. Maienschein introduced legislation to allow for criminal background checks on youth sports coaches and has supported legislation that reduces the impacts of prisoner realignment. He has been recognized by the March of Dimes for working to improve maternal mental health and has championed disability rights efforts. He currently serves on six committees, including Housing Affordability for the Middle and Working Class. Prior to his election, Maienschein served two terms in the San Diego City Council and was the founding Commissioner on Homelessness.
Maienschein has progressive positions on mental healthcare and climate change. That said, he served in the State Assembly as a Republican from 2012 to 2018, voted against prisoner protections, and has been silent on protection efforts for youth offenders and former inmates.
Maienschein is being challenged by Jane Yang Cutter (R). He only has an 18 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of a legislator's progressive voting record. According to recent election results, it will be very difficult for Democrats to win this seat. Though we disagree with Maienschein's stance on the issues listed above, his base of support in a conservative district makes him a strong choice in this race.
Last updated: 2020-02-21
Vote YES On Prop 13, School and College Facilities Bond
This proposition would provide $9 billion for desperately needed renovations to public preschools and grade schools throughout the state, and $6 billion for construction to community colleges, the Cal State system, and the UC system. This will allow the state of California to use tax revenue to pay for improvements that local communities cannot afford.
The funding would come from bonds the state would pay back over 35 years, totaling an estimated $26 billion, which includes $15 billion in principal and $11 billion in interest. This investment is well worth the costs. It takes money, after all, to ensure that students -- especially those in districts that can’t afford major capital improvement projects -- do not have to learn in dangerous environments.
The vast majority of Democrats in the state legislature support it, as does Gov. Newsom, and the only major opposition is a group called the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. This is the group famous for destroying California’s school funding system in 1978 through another proposition, ironically one that was also dubbed Prop 13. The group spends most of its time lobbying to reduce tax rates. It has never shown any interest in supporting California’s children, at least if that means wealthy individuals or giant corporations would pay their fair share in taxes.
Critics of the measure have pointed out that the ballot measure’s language includes a provision that frees new multi-family developments around subway stops and bus stations from school impact fees. This provision will make it easier for developers to build apartment buildings within a half-mile of public transit but could also drive up the cost of new housing and take funds away from school districts across the state. Despite this provision, the measure is still supported by most education groups in the state, who believe the overall funding allocation to schools outweighs the impact of reduced funding to school districts located near transit hubs. 2020’s Prop 13 is worth the investment since it means children will soon be able to attend school in buildings that are retrofitted to withstand earthquakes and no longer have lead in their water.
We strongly recommend a YES vote on Prop 13.
Last updated: 2020-03-02
Vote YES on Measure A
Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure B is related to the future of a specific development -- the one that inspired both of these measures -- Measure A would address the approval process for all developments in the unincorporated lands around San Diego.
Dubbed by advocates as the “Save Our San Diego Countryside Measure,” Measure A would require a countywide vote on any major projects granted a General Plan amendment. (The county’s General Plan covers zoning and land use was last updated in 2012. Large housing developments generally require an amendment in order to proceed.) Developers rarely fare well in these kinds of public votes, but proponents of the measure believe residents should have a greater voice in any changes that involve building in the fire-prone areas in the outskirts of the county. They also note that the county government is too easily bought off by donations from the building industry and developers.
The opposition, unsurprisingly, comes primarily from those very people -- the building industry and developers. Opponents claim it’s being financed by the ultra wealthy and primarily designed to save properties like the Golden Door Spa, the luxury retreat funding the opposition to Measure B, from development despite the fact that over a dozen environmental groups support the measure. They reiterate the conservative claim that Measure A would stymie new housing projects due to the expense involved in putting anything before a public vote.
Developers often are irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing. Measure A would ensure that the public's voice is heard when it comes to amending the General Plan, which impacts both affordable housing and safety. It would prevent elected officials from changing the General Plan without justifying those amendments to voters in order to appease developers. While it might be well-meaning to build more housing in an attempt to address the housing crisis, if it's done in high-risk areas where families may lose their homes and potentially their lives down the line, it is misguided -- as we've seen with the countless wildfires throughout the state that have devastated various communities in fire-risk areas.
Vote YES on Measure A.
Last updated: 2020-03-03
Vote NO on Measure B
Both Measures A and B on the San Diego County March ballot deal with housing development in the county’s unincorporated areas. While Measure A is designed to increase public oversight and approval over any large development project in San Diego County, Measure B reaffirms the approval of a specific large development project called Newland Sierra by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
San Diego County’s Measure B would uphold the approval of Newland Sierra, a planned high density development just north of Escondido on land currently zoned as rural or semi-rural. The Newland Sierra project would build 2,135 homes on land previously zoned for 99 residences, as well as the development of about 2 million square feet of commercial space. In addition to approving the land rezoning, the San Diego County’s Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the county’s development guidelines specifically for Newland Sierra.
The Supervisors have failed to set in place any long-term action plans on affordable housing or climate for the county, which is how Newland Sierra was approved with no affordable housing guarantees in part of the county identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as an area of severe fire danger.
Proponents of Measure B argue that a legal agreement signed by the the developer of the project guarantees affordable housing be included in the project, and that the project will help alleviate the housing crisis in the area. Opponents of Measure B, have pointed out that the signed legal agreement can be changed at any time by the developer and is therefore not enforceable by the county or the public. This is a strong example of how developers are often irresponsible stewards of our responsibility to build and expand affordable housing, while making sure that this housing is built in areas safe from excessive wildfire danger.
We recommend a NO on Measure B.
Last updated: 2020-03-03
Sign Up To Get Future Guides
Enter your name, email and zip code to be the first to receive future Voter Guides and to learn more about Courage California!