-
-
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: 2023-04-05Scott Peters
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.
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.
Scott Peters
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.
-
-
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: 2023-04-05
California
Not in California? Click here to choose your customized guide.
-
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: 2023-04-05This 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.
Customizing the Progressive Voters Guide for your location...
Customizing the Progressive Voters Guide for your location...