Skip to main content
  • Democrat

    Janessa Goldbeck

    Builds Power
    Builds Progress
    Builds Representation
  • 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: 2023-04-05

    Janessa Goldbeck

    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.

    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.
     

    Janessa Goldbeck

    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.

  • VOTE YES

    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: 2023-04-05

    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.

    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.

    CA Prop 13

    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.

Locate My Guide

Find your guide by automatically detecting your location or by entering your voting address.

Choose My Guide

You can also choose your jurisdiction from the following list below