Los Angeles, California Progressive Voter Guide for the November 2024 General Election by LA Forward

Welcome to LA Forward’s most comprehensive voter guide yet with recommendations and write ups of candidates for council, legislature, and judge plus measures for Los Angeles County, State of California, and dozens of cities including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Culver City, Burbank, Pomona, Cudahy, Lynwood, Montebello, and many more!

The very first thing LA Forward ever did when we were founded in 2016 was to create a voter guide to all the propositions on the ballot. Since then, we’ve done an extensive voter guide every major election. In 2022, we began endorsing and featuring candidates for the first time ever. This year, we endorsed more candidates than ever before, making endorsements in cities across LA County such as Santa Monica, Culver City, Burbank, West Covina, Claremont, and Pomona in addition to our LA City and Countywide endorsements.

Our official candidate endorsements are the result of a multi-step process. We contact all candidates in a race, ask them to fill out policy-focused questionnaires. Our endorsement taskforce of dues-paying members reviews the written questionnaires from each candidate and conducts interviews with the candidates who submit a questionnaire. Based on questionnaires and interviews, our endorsement task force makes recommendations to our full membership, which votes on them. To protect our process and the voices of our members, we don’t allow anyone – including candidates – to buy memberships for their supporters to attempt to influence our endorsement votes.

All of those endorsed candidates are included below AND we also know that there are dozens of races in cities across LA County that deserved to be uplifted where we didn’t have the capacity to do full endorsement.

For all other candidates and measures, the recommendations below were written by a team of journalists and LA Forward’s staff, led by its Executive Director. Our team consulted publicly available media coverage, candidate and organizational websites, and conducted interviews with people in our networks and on the ground to make our decisions and complete our write-ups.

We hope this is a helpful resource for you, in addition to other guides from Knock LA, Courage California, and many others!

• LA County

  • Measures - A, E, G

  • Candidates

    • District Attorney

    • Judges - Seats 39, 48, 97, 135, 147

• LA City & LAUSD

  • Candidates - Council Districts 2, 10, 14

  • Measures

• Long Beach Candidates & Measures

• More Local Candidates & Measures - Alhambra, Baldwin Park, Bellflower, Bell Gardens, Burbank, Burbank USD, Claremont, Cudahy, Culver City, El Segundo, Glendora USD, Lomita, Lynwood, Malibu, Montebello, Monterey Park, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Pasadena, Pomona, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, South Pasadena, West Covina, & West Hollywood

• State Ballot Propositions

• State Legislature

  • State Senate

  • State Assembly

LA County Measure A - Affordable Housing and Homelessness Prevention: Yes

LA Forward urges a YES vote on Measure A. If approved, Measure A would repeal and replace the existing ¼ cent sales tax to fund homelessness that was approved by Los Angeles County voters in March 2017 (Measure H), and replace it with a ½ cent sales tax that funds both the homeless response as well as critical affordable housing and tenant protections that serve a larger population of County residents.

Many buckets of ink have been spilled about why Measure H has not resulted in marked reductions in homelessness. Audits commissioned by County Supervisors, the creation of a Blue Ribbon Commission, and endless public hearings have discussed the matter and various culprits: a byzantine system of governance for LA’s homeless response, insufficient staff capacity at frontline non-profit organizations, finger-pointing between County and local city entities, insufficient emphasis on one aspect or another ranging from mental health to homelessness prevention, and other factors have been named. 

While there are important nuances in these conversations, what’s clear is an overarching truth: homelessness in Los Angeles persists because the housing market remains far too unaffordable for far too many people, leading to vulnerable people continuing to fall into homelessness every day, even as existing publicly-funded services work to lift them back into housing. 

This truth, and the continuation of visible encampments on street corners from San Pedro to Lancaster, has obscured important impacts of Measure H: Over the last five years, homeless services funded by a range of sources, including Measure H, have rehoused an average of over 20,000 people each year in Los Angeles County, while sheltering and providing services to many more. 

Quite simply, without Measure H, homelessness in Los Angeles would be far more dire and far more visible. But Measure H expires in 2027 — leading to the urgent need of a replacement for this funding source. This is where Measure A comes in — and Measure A provides two major improvements on Measure H.

First, by raising additional funding for the bureaucracy-busting Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency (LACAHSA), Measure A will generate more resources to serve those tens of thousands of households in Los Angeles County that are not homeless — but are vulnerable and in need of a stable, affordable home to ensure they don’t reach homelessness when a crisis such as a lost job, a medical emergency, or an eviction comes their way. 

Second, Measure A sets tangible, measurable goals for the Los Angeles region’s homeless response, adding more transparency and clarity to a system that is too often abstruse for even the most informed citizens. The Measure creates five topline goals related to reducing encampments and increasing move-ins to housing, increasing housing placements for people with mental illness, and increasing services to prevent people from entering homelessness, among others. The text of the ballot measure also stipulates that should the region fail to meet these goals, funding can be reallocated to more effective strategies.

The impacts if Measure A does not pass are also dire. If the Measure fails, LA Count’s existing funding would likely expire by early 2027, which would drop over $500 million annually from the existing homelessness response. Measure A’s proponents estimate that this would lead to an immediate 25% increase in homelessness, as LA County would have to severely curtail funding for a number of existing programs: supportive housing developments would lose operations and subsidy funding to keep residents and buildings safe, shelter programs would lose the dollars that allow them to keep their doors (and beds) open, outreach workers would lose their jobs, and formerly homeless people using rental subsidies to live in existing market rate housing would lose the funding that covers most of their rent. 

Los Angeles County has a long road ahead on homelessness—but the road becomes much harder without a stable, well-designed funding source for the programs that work. Measure A would provide just that, and voters should support it. 

LA County Measure E - Funding for LA County Fire Department: Yes

If you voted in California’s primary election four years ago, Measure E might look familiar. It’s nearly identical to Measure FD, a proposal that appeared on many Los Angeles County ballots in 2020. The proposal would assess a $0.06-per-square-foot tax on most properties served by the County Fire Department, excluding those owned by low-income seniors. This is expected to generate $152 million annually for emergency response services.

Not all county residents will vote on this proposal. Those in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and other cities outside of the County Fire District don’t have to worry about this one. Only voters in unincorporated areas and the 59 cities served by the County Fire Department will see this on their ballots. The parcel tax proposed would also only apply to properties in these areas.

Last time voters saw this proposal, a narrow majority (52.6%) supported the measure. That was far from the two-thirds majority it needed to pass, due to California’s requirement that new special taxes like this one must be approved by a super-majority of voters. 

Why trot it out again four years later, without any significant changes? Probably because of recent court rulings that have allowed ballot measures proposing new taxes to pass with a simple majority, so long as they are placed on the ballot through the initiative (i.e. signature-gathering) process. In 2020, a vote of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors put Measure FD on the ballot. This time around, the firefighters’ union gathered the necessary signatures to qualify the item for the November election, meaning it only needs to get past the 50% mark to pass.

The fact that the union representing county firefighters was willing to go through this process to give this proposal another shot speaks to the need for the funds this measure would provide. There’s also language in the bill specifying that the tax revenue generated has to be used to hire new first responders and upgrade emergency infrastructure; it can’t simply substitute funds dedicated to workers’ compensation or pension liabilities. 

In the last four years, we’ve seen how vital — and how stretched thin — our frontline workers can be. And with wildfires now routinely threatening homes and infrastructure throughout the County Fire District, this should be easy for residents of those areas to support.

LA County Measure G - County Governance Reform

Recommendation and analysis coming soon

One of the best ways to understand Measure G is to listen to Mike Bonin’s recent podcast episode where he interviews its champion, County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, and an opponent, County Supervisor Holly Mitchell.

Return to the Top

District Attorney: George Gascón

This race is simple. The challenger, Nathan Hochman, is a long-time Republican who left the party in 2022 only after losing his race for California Attorney General as a Republican. His opponent is the incumbent, George Gascón, who has been one of the most important reform-minded prosecutors in the U.S. since he was elected in 2020.

Gascón won election over long-time DA Jackie Lacey, whose business-as-usual approach was no longer acceptable to the voting public. Every Wednesday for more than three years, from 2017 to 2020, members of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles stood outside LA’s Hall of Justice joined by families of Angelenos killed by police, chanting “Jackie Lacey must go!” The racial justice uprising of spring 2020 brought new attention to the importance of prosecutors. And community organizing groups launched electoral efforts at a huge scale for the first time to help Gascón.

A former LAPD assistant chief of police and San Francisco chief of police, Gascón was perhaps not the person anyone would have expected to run as a progressive prosecutor. And yet, he went for it, announcing sweeping changes in his first week in office, including ending cash bail for nonviolent and misdemeanor offenses, a ban on sentencing enhancements, a vow to reexamine cases of nonviolent offenders sentenced to excessive prison terms, and a diversion program to connect nonviolent offenders with social services instead of jail time. Blowback from LA’s reactionary forces was swift, led by some of his own prosecutors and culminating in two failed recall attempts over the course of his first four-year term.

Though statistics show that violent crime in Los Angeles is declining, as it is across the country since the spike seen during the pandemic, Gascón’s foes have nonetheless done a pretty good job of persuading the public that the city is a dangerous hellscape. And Gascón has moderated his approach as a result, walking back his promise not to charge children as adults, not to seek life sentences without the possibility of parole, and to stop using sentence enhancements. According to his office, he has filed nearly 15,000 enhancements in cases where a gun was involved.

Still, he hasn’t abandoned his ideals. Among the criticisms of Gascón’s predecessor, Lacey, was that she would not prosecute police officers even in cases where the police itself had determined the officer should be prosecuted. In eight years in office, she brought charges against a police officer for an officer-involved shooting only once. Gascón has brought charges against five officers for officer-involved shootings, securing one conviction. That may not seem like a lot but it was nonetheless the first time in two decades that any police officer in Los Angeles County had received jail time for such a crime. Gascón’s office’s Conviction Integrity Unit has exonerated 14 people, including a man convicted of life without the possibility of parole at just 14 years old. Gascón has cut filings for disturbing the peace and trespassing on public property (charges frequently used to criminalize homelessness) in half compared to his predecessor. His Resentencing Unit has resentenced 300 people, most of whom were subsequently released from prison with a 0% recidivism rate. Gascón also founded a Labor Justice Unit to prosecute wage theft. And last year Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill authored by Gascón that encourages undocumented victims and witnesses of crime to come forward without fear of deportation.

Gascón is endorsed by gun-violence prevention organization Moms Demand Action as one of their Gun Sense Candidates, and also has the endorsement of the LA Times, La Opinión, Planned Parenthood, LA Forward, the California Working Families Party, Initiate Justice Action, CHIRLA Action Fund, the Sunrise Movement, and numerous labor unions. 

Gascón’s opponent, Nathan Hochman, was a Republican until this race. He previously served in the George W. Bush administration as a U.S. attorney general in the tax division and ran for California attorney general against Rob Bonta in 2022 as a Republican, then switched to independent in 2023. On his campaign site, Hochman states that he is running as an independent because he believes “the DA needs to be fiercely independent.” That statement is at odds with his accepting the endorsement of 39 different law enforcement groups, an obvious conflict of interest for a DA tasked with deciding when to prosecute police. Hochman is also endorsed by Jackie Lacey and Republican Congressman Mike Garcia.

In previous elections, Hochman personally donated to Sheriff Lee Baca, Jackie Lacey, and Alex Villanueva, which alone should be disqualifying. Hochman is quite literally a defender of the status quo: He served as defense attorney to Sheriff Baca during his trial for covering up systematic abuse in Los Angeles County jails. (Baca was convicted and served time in federal prison.)

Hochman also supports the death penalty, which is illegal in 23 U.S. states but sadly not in California. Gascón has vowed to never seek the death penalty as LA County DA and has called on Governor Gavin Newsom to commute the sentences of everyone on death row in this state and instead sentence them to life without the possibility of parole.

Choosing Hochman over Gascón would be a step backward in every way for Los Angeles.

LA Forward is proud to endorse George Gascón for another four years to enact his vision of a Los Angeles that is serious about stopping the cycles of violence.

Superior Court Judge Seat 39: George Turner

The choice is abundantly clear in this judicial contest: we need George Turner on the bench.

A member of the Defenders of Justice slate and an endorsed candidate of LA Forward, Turner is the Supervising Public Defender of the Mobile Homelessness Unit with the Public Defender's Office. In that position, he has been an effective advocate for the rights of the unhoused, and for mental health and addiction treatment. A lifelong Inglewood resident and graduate of UCLA Law School, Turner said he is running in part because he was frustrated by judges’ reluctance to consider pre-trial release or implement alternatives to incarceration for his clients. His platform calls for more alternatives to sentencing and fighting a culture of mass incarceration.

Turner’s opponent is Steve Napolitano, an administrative law judge and longtime member of the Manhattan Beach City Council. He is a conservative-leaning public official who would add little new to the bench.

Turner is endorsed by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor,  Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, City Controller Kenneth Mejia, the Working Families Party, and others. Napolitano is endorsed by the Los Angeles Times, Association of LA County Deputy Sheriffs, Association of Deputy District Attorneys, former District Attorney Steve Cooley, County Supervisors Janice Hahn, Holly Mitchell, and Kathryn Barger, and others. We urge you to vote for George Turner.

Superior Court Judge Seat 48: Ericka Wiley

Deputy Public Defender Ericka J. Wiley is the clear choice in this race.  Another Defenders of Justice and LA Forward-endorsed candidate, She would be an exceptional judge who would bring a wealth of valuable experience to the role. A former tenants attorney who fought unjust evictions, she has served 24 years as a public defender, including in supervisory capacities. She has conducted felony, misdemeanor and juvenile trials, and has seen how people suffering from mental illness, homelessness and drug addiction are thrown into a system that harms them. She volunteers with expungement clinics and with a program that educates young people about their rights and how to have safe interactions with police.

Her opponent is Deputy District Attorney Renee Rose. Rose has thirty years experience as a prosecutor, working in the Hardcore Gang Unit, the Major Narcotics Division, and the Arson and Explosives Unit. She is currently Deputy-in-Charge of the Elder Abuse Unit.  

Wiley has been endorsed by the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Los Angeles Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia, and others.

Rose has been endorsed by the Association of LA County Deputy Sheriffs, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, former District Attorney Jackie Lacey, former DIstrict Attorney Steve Cooley, Democrats for Protection of Animals, and others.

Superior Court Judge Seat 97: La Shae Henderson

In this contest, voters have a choice between two strong candidates. But they should not pass up an opportunity to put an advocate for children on the bench. We recommend La Shae Henderson for this position.

Henderson has been a public defender for almost two decades and spent much of that time defending children in juvenile court. Both of Henderson’s parents died while she was in college, leaving her to care for her four younger siblings at age 22 — while also studying for the bar exam. She joined the public defender’s office in 2005 and has represented clients in misdemeanor, felony, and juvenile cases. She says she decided to run because she has too often seen judges treat young defendants too harshly, forgoing alternative sentencing that could have positively altered the trajectory of their lives. She also talks about seeing courts exercising damaging racial bias toward Black and Latino defendants.

Her opponent, Sharon Ransom, is a well-respected prosecutor. Ransom has been a Deputy DIstrict Attorney for 18 years, becoming an attorney at age 38 after working for 17 years as a dispatcher with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. She has done extensive work in the D.A.’s mental health unit, and in prosecuting elder abuse and child molestation.

Ransom has the lion’s share of the endorsements in this race – LA Times, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the LA County Federation of Labor, Association of LA County Deputy Sheriffs, Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, Thrive LA, and others. 

Henderson has the support of Los Angeles Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, Los Angeles Controller Kenneth Mejia, LA council candidate Ysabel Jurado, and Superior Court Judge Holly Hancock.

We recommend you vote for La Shae Henderson.

Superior Court Judge Seat 135: Georgia Huerta

This is a race between two prosecutors, which is a bit of a Hobson’s choice for voters looking to support reform of the criminal legal system. 

Georgia Huerta has 30 years of experience as a Deputy District Attorney, working in units such as Juvenile, Employee Relations, and Workers’ Compensation Fraud. She previously led the Alternative Sentencing and Community Collaborative Court at the Compton Courthouse. Huerta has the support of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the Los Angeles Sentinel, LA Progressive, and a long list of local Democratic Clubs. 

Steven Yee Mac is a Deputy District Attorney with a background in prosecution, military defense, and civil law. He joined the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 2013, where he handled felony trials and murder cases. Prior to this, he served in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps (JAG), focusing on defending soldiers accused of misconduct. Mac has the support of the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, SEIU 721, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), Stonewall Democratic Club, and LGBTQ+ prosecutors associations.

La Defensa, which is a useful barometer on judicial races and criminal legal system reform matters, is neutral in the race, lacking enthusiasm for either candidate. But it does note that Huerta “is noted for her commitment to restorative justice and alternative sentencing,” is encouraging. Moreover, Mac’s Instagram page shows a post of the Thin Blue Line flag to commemorate National Police Week last May.  While many find the flag to be a politically neutral sign of support for police, others say its appropriation by the Far Right has made it a symbol of racism. The controversy grew so heated, LAPD Police Chief Michel Moore in 2023 banned the use of the symbol on police uniforms, police cars, or in police station lobbies. Regardless of Mac’s intent, posting the symbol shows a sign of poor judgment – that that should surely be a big consideration in a judicial race.

We recommend voting for Georgia Huerta.

Superior Court Judge Seat 137: Luz Herrera

This race is highly unusual for a judicial contest. It does not feature a current or former prosecutor. Instead, it features two candidates with very different backgrounds.

Luz Herrera has a background in public interest and corporate law, as well as legal education, serving as a dean at Texas A&M Law School and UCLA Law School. She emphasizes making the court system more accessible and applying her legal experience to her judicial role. Herrera’s endorsements include the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, SEIU 721, La Opinion, the Mexican American Bar Association, State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, and Congresswoman Nanette Barragan. 

Tracey Blount has over 20 years of legal experience handling child abuse, neglect, and family law cases. She currently works for the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office and has a background in criminal appeals, having previously served as an attorney handling criminal appeals for the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office. Blount’s endorsements include the LA County Democratic Party, the LA Times, the Association of LA County Deputy Sheriffs, the National Women’s Political Caucus and several Democratic clubs.

The Los Angeles County judicial bench is replete with former prosecutors, so it is refreshing to have a race that has two candidates offering different perspectives. While both of them would bring different voices to the bench, we recommend Herrera given the Sheriffs union’s support for Blount.

Return to the Top

LA City Council District 2: Jillian Burgos

City Council President Paul Krekorian is termed out, meaning that voters in his southeastern San Fernando Valley district are set to pick a new councilmember for the first time since 2010. Former State Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian is Krekorian’s choice for the job and the favorite to prevail in November. Challenger Jillian Burgos is less politically experienced but offers a more progressive vision for the district.

Burgos is a true political outsider. A licensed optician and the owner of a murder mystery theater company, she has also served on the North Hollywood Neighborhood Council since 2021. Though she has no formal legislative experience, Burgos is experienced as an advocate for tenant’s rights and participated in citywide efforts to support renters facing eviction and landlord harassment following the pandemic. 

Nazarian, meanwhile, served as Krekorian’s chief of staff before winning an Assembly seat in 2012. He left the State Legislature in 2022 to focus on his campaign for City Council.

Much like his old boss, Nazarian is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat with relatively safe positions on most issues. He supports homeless outreach efforts and shelter construction and has spoken against criminalization—though without many specific policy commitments. He advocates for community-based policing, but also wants to hire more cops. As a member of the State Assembly, Nazarian supported important affordable housing and safe streets measures. However, he hasn’t offered many details on how he would approach these issues as a member of the city council, beyond continuing efforts already underway.

Burgos, on the other hand, has demonstrated a strong understanding of the policy issues facing the city, and a commitment to bold progressive solutions. Her platform includes a push to repeal 41.18, the city ordinance prohibiting sitting and sleeping in public areas; support for tenants’ right to counsel; expansion of fare-equity programs for transit riders; and a proposal to use some of the funds currently allocated to LAPD to pay for more first responders and mental health services. Some of these proposals might face steep opposition from more conservative councilmembers, but that’s precisely why the council needs more audacious thinkers like Burgos.

She has endorsements from California Working Families Party, California Nurses Association, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), California Women’s List, Streets for All, Sunrise Movement, Initiate Justice Action, Dolores Huerta, Kenneth Mejia, and many more progressive groups and individuals.

LA City Council District 10: Heather Hutt

Residents of the 10th District have endured a lot of turmoil and turnover at City Hall, and they deserve a steady, dedicated leader who is laser-focused on their needs. They have that in Heather Hutt, and voters would be wise to choose her as their elected representative over challenger Grace Yoo.

The City Council appointed Hutt to fill the seat when it became vacant after Mark-Ridley Thomas was indicted, and later convicted, on federal corruption charges. Prior to her appointment, she served as chief of staff to Councilmember Herb Wesson and as state director to then-U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, among other roles. During her time on the council, she has earned a reputation with her constituents as a listener and a hard worker. She has won the respect of and built a good rapport with her elected colleagues. On most issues, Hutt votes with the body’s progressive bloc.

Hutt took office mere weeks before the secretly recorded, anti-Black Fed Tapes threw City Hall into chaos. She was a voice of reason and calm in a difficult time, objecting to the militarization of council chambers in the face of protest, and holding events in her district to promote racial healing. Since then, she has thrown herself into the details of policy and focused on delivering services and projects for her district, one of the city’s most diverse, including the neighborhoods of South Robertson, Mid-City, Baldwin Hills, Crenshaw, Leimert Park, Arlington Heights, Little Bangladesh and Koreatown.She is building two new parks in Koreatown, and funded major improvements to Shatto Park, Lafayette Park, Seoul International Park, Reynier Park, and Jackie Robinson stadium.

On policy, while Hutt is not part of the council’s most left contingent, she is generally a reliable supporter. She is a co-sponsor of Tourism Workers Rising Policy, which aims to increase hotel and airport wages to $30/hr. She has been a strong supporter of tenant rights, co-sponsoring the Right to Counsel, Tenant Anti-Harassment and Just Cause eviction ordinances.  She voted in favor of an ordinance in Jan. 2023 to prohibit new oil and gas extraction in the City of Los Angeles and make existing extraction activities a nonconforming use in all zones. She voted against robot dogs and additional LAPD helicopters, and is helping steer a new policy of Unarmed Traffic Response.  She supports expanding City Council to 25 members

Her leadership will be tested most heavily on the biggest issues facing Los Angeles, homelessness and housing.  Since becoming the councilmember, she has opened more than 3,000 affordable housing units and provided shelter or housing to 1,900 unhoused individuals. Her district has seen 12 percent reduction in homelessness in the last year, and a 37 percent increase in sheltered individuals. While she has faced criticism from progressives and homeless advocates for implementing no-camping zones in her district and supporting them elsewhere, she has also added dedicated staff to help people move off the streets, and is using her discretionary funds to hire mental health clinicians, street medicine teams, and unhoused service providers, and to provide funding for domestic violence shelter operations to supplement city and county efforts.

Yoo is a well-respected civic leader and attorney, and a very successful community organizer. She has fought for decades for more effective representation for Koreatown, and frequently clashed with Wesson. She is a former city commissioner and executive director of the Korean American Coalition. A strong critic of corruption, she ran for council in 2020, and earned a spot in the runoff against Ridley-Thomas. But she has taken troubling stands in the past, supporting the anti-development Measure S, which would have worsened our housing crisis, and organizing Koreatown to stop Wesson’s efforts to place a homeless shelter.

Hutt is the better and more progressive choice. She has won the endorsements of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, Stonewall Democratic Club, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, ACCE Action, Streets for All, Planned Parenthood, and Sierra Club, as well as Mayor Karen Bass, former Councilmember Mike Bonin, and the progressive wing of Council including Nithya Raman, Hugo Soto-Martinez, and Eunisses Hernandez.

LA City Council District 14: Ysabel Jurado

Does anyone really need a recommendation for this race? Do we need to say more than “vote for Ysabel Jurado?”

Ysabel Jurado is a tenants attorney, affordable housing activist, grassroots organizer and  lifelong resident of Highland Park. The child of undocumented Filipino immigrants, she worked her way through college and law school at UCLA as a single Mom, and decided to focus on helping people who faced the same struggles of her family, working hard to get ahead but struggling with the tremendous cost of housing. She speaks movingly of how her family has faced the obstacles so common to residents of the 14th District.  “Your story is my story,” she says. “Your hurt is my hurt. Your dreams are my dreams.”

Jurado has more than a dream; she has a mission. She is running not just to win the council seat, but to restore faith in government to residents of a district who have been exploited and betrayed by city officials now notorious for their corruption and scandals. She is running to offer more to Angelenos who feel City Hall is broken, captured by special interests, and uninterested in making the systemic change needed to make city government a real advocate and servant of the people.

A staunch progressive, Jurado has a bold and detailed agenda, especially on housing and homelessness. Her perspective is shaped by her experience at Bet Tzedek Legal Services, where she fought to protect Angelenos from evictions and wage theft, and helped community organizations and small businesses that were at risk of losing their leases. She wants to expand rent control, strengthen tenant protections, build social housing, promote community land trusts, create a vacancy tax and speculation fee, and extend affordable housing covenants. She opposes criminalization of homelessness, and champions the housing first model. She wants to create a Flexible Housing Subsidy Program, which the County of Los Angeles has used successfully to provide locally funded housing vouchers with wraparound services. Her plans call for an enhanced focus on prevention, on public health, and on elevating the voices of people who have been homeless.

At a time when so many Democrats are pivoting to a “tough on crime” mantra and rush backward to the mass incarceration policies of the 1990s, Jurado has been refreshingly staunch in her advocacy of a better way. She wants to address the root causes of crime, like poverty, and promote community-driven solutions. She wants deep investments in public transit, education, youth employment, parks, and libraries. She has called for an end to the “qualified immunity” doctrine which makes it incredibly difficult to punish police officers guilty of violence or misconduct. She supports efforts to create systems of unarmed traffic enforcement, and wants to push for the demilitarization of the LAPD.

You can tell a lot about a prospective public official by looking at the campaign they build. Jurado shocked the political establishment in the March primary, placing first and besting three better-known elected officials. She did so with little money, and almost no campaign mail. She and her team organized a massive grassroots canvassing operation that knocked on 80,000 doors and spoke to voters about their needs and wants. Her campaign feels like she does: positive, optimistic, creative, fun, and inspiring – and also determined, focused and hard-working. And fearless. While her opponent shows his face to only crowds of supporters, Jurado has shown she will show up anywhere, and will listen and engage. As she enthusiastically said at a recent campaign debate, “let’s dance.”

If Yurado is victorious, she will be the newest addition to a new wave of progressive candidates who have upended Los Angeles politics, expelled establishment incumbents,  and demanded more aggressive government action to support working families, struggling Angelenos, and neglected communities.  These candidates – Nithya Raman, Hugo Soto-Martinez, Eunisses Hernandez, Kenneth Mejia – are grassroots outsiders, steeped in activism and community organizing. Their winning coalitions have been youthful, imaginative, multiracial, and impatient for big change. 

Jurado won’t just be another part of the progressive movement. She will also represent its evolution. She is the first of these outsider candidates to win the endorsements of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. She is pulling together the labor-tenant coalition that other candidates have dreamt of and feel is the foundation of a lasting progressive political movement in Los Angeles. Her victory would be transformative in other ways as well. She would be the city’s Filipina elected official, and the only member of the LGBTQ+ community in elective city office.  She would be the 8th woman on the council, giving the body a female majority for the first time. 

It is tempting to focus on her opponent, the notorious Kevin de León, infamous for his ugly comments on the racist Fed Tapes, and for his stubborn, selfish refusal to step down and let Los Angeles heal. But there is little need. His scandals are well-known, and he claims to be the victim of them, and not the agent of them. It is time to move forward, leave De Leon in the past, and build a better Los Angeles. We can do that by thinking big, thinking positive, and voting to elect Ysabel Jurado to represent the 14th District on the Los Angeles City Council.

The 14th District includes downtown Los Angeles, Boyle Heights, Eagle Rock, Highland Park and Lincoln Heights. Jurado is endorsed by the Los Angeles Times, the LA County Democratic Party, the LA County Federation of Labor, the California Working Families Party, LA Forward, CHIRLA Action Fund, LGBT Victory Fund, Community Coalition Action Fund, LUCHA Action, Supervisor Hilda Solis, Mejia, Hernandez, Raman, Soto-Martinez, Mike Bonin, Dolores Huerta, LAUSD Board Member Rocio Rivas, Speaker Emeritus Anthony Rendon and many others.  

De Leon is endorsed by former Councilmember Paul Koretz, LiUNA Laborers 300, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and the United Firefighters of Los Angeles.

LA City Measure DD - Independent Redistricting for City Council: Yes

LA Forward wholeheartedly supports a Measure DD, which would bring truly independent redistricting to LA City.  It’s easy to see how LA’s current redistricting process could lead to corruption. The councilmembers appoint representatives to a redistricting commission. The commission draws lines that require the ultimate approval of the councilmembers. The councilmembers gather in a conference room at the LA Federation of Labor scheming in racist and bigoted language about how to manipulate those lines to best consolidate their power. This is what actually happened while maps were being drawn in 2021, as captured on the infamous leaked audio of the Fed Tapes. Backroom deals have long shaped districts, but the fallout from the tapes — including the resignation of former council president Nury Martinez — advanced common-sense reforms that good governance advocates have demanded for years, including this measure being dispatched to the ballot by a scandal-rocked city council.

This charter amendment would change the way LA does redistricting in three key ways. First, it would end the practice of councilmembers appointing redistricting commissioners. Second, it would create a fully independent 16-member redistricting commission, with the first eight members selected at random from a pool of applicants, then the next eight members selected from that same pool of applicants by the first eight members. Third, the council would not vote to approve the map; the decision of the commission would be final. Although recent events might compel LA to redraw its current maps anyway — California Attorney General Rob Bonta is reportedly considering forcing LA to redo its redistricting process before the 2026 elections — that would not affect this process, which would not take place until 2031. And it seems like a sure thing: savvy messaging by Angelenos for Fair Maps has bundled DD with LL, the parallel measure for LAUSD, which seem both poised to pass with no opposition. 

It should be noted that this was not the preferred outcome by LA’s likely voters, who, according to multiple polls, overwhelmingly supported council expansion in addition to the independent redistricting process. And council expansion is the only way LA can truly achieve fairer and more representative districts. A cowardly council only advanced the most politically palatable reforms, leaving the rest of the changes up to a to-be-formed charter commission. LA has a long way to go. But we’ll take these first small steps toward true governance reform.

Return to the Top

LA City Measure ER - Expanding City Ethics Commission Power: Yes

Well, it’s better than nothing. But it sure could have been a helluva lot better.

That’s the general consensus about Charter Amendment ER, a small package of ethics reform for the infamously ethically-impaired Los Angeles City Hall. After federal corruption probes sentenced councilmembers and city officials to prison, after the L.A. County D.A. indicted another councilmember, and after the ugly Fed Tapes scandal, there were very few people who did not feel that the government of the City of Angels needed some serious reform. Even members of the City Council agreed – for a short time. Then most of them reverted to form, defending a status quo that protects them.

Councilmembers Nithya Raman and Paul Krekorian, at the urging of community groups and academics, wanted a broad package of reforms. They aimed to discourage corruption, increase transparency, and make government work better.  With the appetite for reform on the council dwindling, they settled for a handful of measures that would slightly strengthen the power and independence of the LA City Ethics Commission. The Commission has a mission to investigate and punish violations from elected officials, commissioners,  lobbyists, and political appointees. While the body is not entirely toothless, it lacks a very sharp bite.

Measure ER would guarantee the commission a minimum $6.5 million annual budget, require that the City Council consider within 180 days any reform recommendations the commission makes, and increase fines for certain violations. The annual budget guarantee is meant to free the commission from dependence on the largesse of the elected officials they monitor. But it is a paltry sum and the council can freeze hiring at the commission. Requiring council consideration of commission proposals is meant to prevent elected officials from completely ignoring the commission's recommendations, but the council can still vote the proposals down. Raising a fine for an ethics violation from $5,000 to $15,000 is a nice step, but it is still low enough not to inhibit bad behavior. 

Bolder reforms died at City Hall. Elected officials balked at the idea of giving the Ethics Commission the authority to put reforms on the ballot, going directly to the voters. They also dismissed a proposal to allow the commissioners to appoint at least a few of its members, instead of having all members named by elected officials.  Even bigger reforms – like expanding the size of the City Council – were shunted to a new Charter Reform Commission.

There is nothing in Measure ER that is bad or worth opposing. Indeed, if this measure were to fail, elected officials might feel emboldened, assuming the electorate is not hungry for cleaner government. So go ahead and vote for this. Just don’t get your hopes up that it will make a significant difference.

LA City Measure FF - Allow More City Employees Into the Police/Fire Pension System: No

LA City has several different retirement programs – one for most civilian positions, another for police officers and firefighters, and another one for LADWP employees. Currently, some sworn peace officers in various departments (e.g. Police, Airport, Harbor, Rec & Parks) are part of the civilian retirement plan. This charter amendment lets them switch to the Fire and Police pensions program. The argument in favor is that all sworn peace officers, regardless of which agency they work for, meet the same training and certification standards, and should receive the same retirement benefits. (Why there are multiple systems, some more generous than others, is a topic for another time….)

The cost of the program would be significant – a one-time cost of $109,500,000, with an estimated annual cost of $6.3 million – but that the bulk of that cost is covered by revenue generated from the port and the airport, and not the city’s general fund. The actual hit to LA taxpayers is a roughly $23 million one-time payment and approximately $1 million annually. That money would come from funds that could otherwise be used for other city services and programs, such as homelessness, unarmed crisis response, meals for seniors and more.  Especially during a time of fiscal crisis, when the city has been cutting most services and increasing spending on police, this makes little sense.

The proposal is backed by Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Paul Krekorian, and the union representing airport police officers. There is no formal opposition. But we still recommend you vote No.

LA City Measure HH - Minor Governance Reform Charter Amendment: Yes

 The City of Los Angeles Charter is a huge document that goes into excruciating detail about the specifics of city government. (It is 8 times the length of the U.S. Constitution and all its amendments!) That means even nuances of how the government is structured must go to voters, and that is what is happening in Measure HH and Measure II.

This charter amendment makes a series of relatively minor changes. It streamlines and updates the rules for ballot initiatives and referendums and clarifies some City Council rules. Some of the bigger impacts require city commissioner nominees to file ethics forms before they can be approved by the city council, and mandating that two of the mayor’s appointments to the Harbor Commission be residents of neighborhoods near the port. The amendment also expands subpoena power for the City Attorney. The state already grants the City Attorney the authority to issue subpoenas for matters of state law. This extends that authority to give the City Attorney the ability to issue subpoenas in matters of city law – and authority already granted to the City Council. There’s no organized opposition to this charter amendment – vote yes.

LA City Measure II - City Admin & Operations Charter Amendment: Yes

This charter amendment makes a series of changes to really micro details of Los Angeles governance. Should the general managers of the Port, Airport and LADWP be allowed to be called by different titles? Should they be allowed to use electronic signatures for revenue bonds? Should the “Director of the Office of Administrative and Research Services” and the “Office of Administrative and Research Services” be changed to the “City Administrative Officer?” That’s the kind of stuff we’re talking about here.

Two items of note in this amendment: 1) It allows the Department of Recreation & Parks to lease sites to LAUSD for construction of public buildings consistent with public park purposes, and 2) it adds gender identity and gender expression as categories protected from discrimination.

There’s no organized opposition. Vote yes.

Return to the Top

LAUSD Ballot Measures

LA Unified School District Measure LL  – Independent Redistricting for the LAUSD Board: Yes

Prompted by the Fed Tapes scandal two years ago, LA city councilmembers sent a handful of governance reforms to the ballot, including the independent redistricting Measure DD, where representatives and lines would no longer be approved by elected officials. Since the city also manages LAUSD elections, it made sense to change the redistricting process for the second-largest school district in the country at the same time. LAUSD only has seven board members and when the lines were last drawn in 2021 they resulted in some wild-looking districts — worse than even the most blatant LA city gerrymandering.

If LL passes, a new independent commission will consist of 14 members, including at least four members who are parents or guardians of LAUSD students. The first seven members would be selected at random, one from each district from a pool of applicants, then the next seven members would be selected from the total pool of applicants and voted in by the first seven members. The charter amendment also allows the possibility of including members who are 16 and older. Like DD, there will be safeguards in place to avoid conflicts of interest.

A campaign by Angelenos for Fair Maps (which LA Forward is part of) has bundled LL with DD to unite supporters. It’s yet another positive, if incremental, move towards a more representative government.

LA Unified School District Measure US – Funding for LAUSD School Repair and Modernization: Yes

LA Forward recommends a Yes vote on Measure US. School facilities bonds like Measure US will be found on many California ballots this cycle due to Proposition 2, which, if passed, will allow school districts to potentially double their local bond money with state matching funds.The $9 billion bond would address decades of deferred repairs and LAUSD also wants to use the money to embark upon big modernization efforts like more efficient buildings and electric school buses. With the chance for the state to match, it makes sense why this is LAUSD’s biggest ask ever. But, like the state bond, it’s still not nearly enough. The district’s own report claims that the district has “$80 billion of unfunded school facility and technology needs.” An estimated 60% of school buildings are more than 50 years old.

While classroom upgrades are important, the biggest facility-related crisis LAUSD currently faces is its shadeless asphalt schoolyards — a climate catastrophe that’s barely addressed in the bond measure language. Currently, 560 LAUSD campuses do not achieve the district’s goal of 30% green space and 230 campuses, mostly elementary schools, have less than 10% green space. Investing in schoolyards has been proven to increase academic success, boost attendance, and improve physical and mental well-being, with cooling and greening effects that would benefit the broader community. The LA Living Schoolyards Coalition called for $3 billion of the $9 billion to go to greening schoolyards, citing a $3 billion figure in LAUSD’s own plan needed to achieve the 30% target. But only $1.25 billion of the bond’s dollars are going to schoolyards, and not all of it to greening. Some of the money will go to outdoor classrooms and shade structures — projects that are currently costing millions of dollars per school that could be spent on simpler solutions like removing pavement and planting trees. The exorbitant spending on these projects doesn’t create a lot of faith that LAUSD’s facilities department can build its way to a greener future.

It also doesn’t help that Measure US was hastily thrown together and voted upon by the LAUSD board so quickly it did not even receive input from the district’s own bond oversight committee. Superintendent Alberto Carvalho claimed the bond was hustled through because leaders were waiting on final language from the state school bond to see what LAUSD might get from Proposition 2. (The answer is: about $700 million in matching funds.) LAUSD also is facing possible legal action for misusing funding from the last state school bond, Proposition 28, passed in 2022 with a goal to expand arts education by $1 billion statewide each year. After a coalition of teachers unions alleged that LAUSD was violating state law by allocating the money improperly, the board quietly added $30 million back to the arts budget. 

LAUSD school bonds rarely fail, although another rushed-through parcel tax proposal failed spectacularly during a 2019 off-cycle election. Opposing Measure US is the ghost of Howard Jarvis (who spearheaded Prop 13 in 1978)  the main reason LA’s schools have found themselves bankrupt in the first place. Some charter school groups are also upset that only 3% of the money is carved out for their schools despite educating one-fifth of LAUSD’s students. But charter schools also have access to more types of funding than public schools. Like the state, LAUSD would be wise to explore another funding mechanism for its school facilities that doesn’t require coming back to voters every few years. But there also needs to be a revolution within the facilities department to implement nimble solutions immediately — not in 20 years. Vote yes (it needs 55% to pass!), but raise your voice alongside the many groups keeping pressure on the district to deliver on its promise for greener schools.

LAUSD Candidates

LAUSD District 1: Sherlett Hendy Newbill

LAUSD District 3: Scott Schmerelson

LAUSD District 5: Karla Griego

Return to the Top

Long Beach City Council District 4: Herlinda Chico

Long Beach’s Fourth District, which encompasses much of the eastern side of the city and includes the CSU Long Beach campus, is the only council district with a race being decided in November. Incumbent Daryl Supernaw, who is seeking a third and final term on the City Council, wound up just shy of the 50% voter share he needed in March to avoid a run-off. He’s now facing off against Herlinda Chico, who has the endorsement of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party.

Progressive voters in Long Beach should be ready to move on from Supernaw, who has not had a particularly inspiring first two terms in office. His primary accomplishments (by his own estimation) include drafting an ordinance targeting spectators at street racing events and reopening a closed fire station. Supernaw has the support of the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Business Federation. A former marketing consultant, he’s regularly shown a willingness to prioritize business interests over the welfare of ordinary residents—as in 2018 and 2019, when he spoke out against rent control proposals and attempted unsuccessfully to limit the scope of the tenant relocation policy that the city council eventually passed.

Chico could shake things up a bit, should she prevail in November. An elected trustee for the Long Beach Community College Board of Trustees, Chico is also a former field deputy for County Supervisor Janice Hahn. She’s an experienced public servant who’s served on Long Beach’s Parks and Recreation Commission and as a member of a mental health advisory group formed by the city’s Health Department in 2022.

Chico advocates for “compassionate” and “practical” solutions to homelessness in Long Beach, where law enforcement recently began stepping up enforcement of anti-camping laws. Part of this plan includes dedicating additional funding to outreach workers and housing vouchers. Chico told the Long Beach Post that ensuring homeless residents can access services around the clock should be top priority. She also supports community-based policing and a range of environmental initiatives, from reducing the city’s dependence on oil drilling revenue to funding implementation of a sustainability plan for the Long Beach Airport. 

Chico has been a bit vague on some of the specific policies she’d pursue as a member of the City Council, and some of those that she has mentioned (like the shift away from oil revenue) are already in progress. Fourth District residents should vote for a change this year, then be prepared to hold Chico accountable to her promises.

Long Beach Measure LB - Close Tax Loopholes for Power Plants: Yes

Measure LB should be a win-win for Long Beach residents. It would end questionable tax exemptions for a pair of gas-powered power plants that have been contributing to the city’s notoriously poor air quality for decades, while also generating an estimated $15 million annually for crucial city programs.

The additional tax revenue would alleviate a projected $61.5 million budget shortfall that the city faces over the next five years due to declining revenue from local oil drilling operations. Proponents of Measure LB say these funds would ensure that budgets for first responders, libraries, parks, homeless outreach services, and other crucial programs aren’t slashed in the coming years as a result of these budget issues.

Still, Long Beach residents might fairly ask whether the utility companies operating the two power plants impacted by this proposal would simply pass along their new tax obligations to customers—effectively making this a new tax on local electricity users. The answer to that question is somewhat murky.

The two power facilities, the Haynes Plant and the Alamitos Energy Center, are both located alongside the San Gabriel River on the east side of the city. The first is owned and operated by LADWP, while the second is owned by Applied Energy Services Corporation, which has an agreement to sell power generated at the plant to Southern California Edison.

Since LADWP does not serve Long Beach, there is little chance that taxes on the Haynes Plant could be passed on to local ratepayers. Meanwhile, according to a report from City Manager Tom Modica, the purchasing agreement between AES and Southern California Edison dictates that costs from the Alamitos Energy Center be distributed across the utility company’s entire service area—not just the city of Long Beach. Under those terms, the average rate increase for local residents would amount to just $0.50 annually. 

Southern California Edison, however, has promised to seek approval from the California Public Utilities Commission to pass the entire tax bill on to Long Beach customers, which would result in a roughly $4-per-month increase in average electricity bills. It’s hard to determine the likelihood of this outcome, but it’s a worst-case scenario that most residents could probably live with, and Modica notes in his report that the city would “strongly oppose” this effort at the CPUC. 

It is unfortunate that this proposal is only emerging as Long Beach struggles to balance its budget—and that the language of the ballot initiative places no specific guarantees on how the new tax revenue would be spent. Still, the revenue for the city programs listed does need to come from somewhere, and it’s more than reasonable that utility companies polluting the city’s air should pay the same tax as local ratepayers.

Long Beach City Measure JB - Personnel System Reform: No

Long Beach’s staffing system needs reform badly, and Measure JB is an ambitious proposal to completely overhaul the city’s system for hiring and managing city employees. The proposal is before voters because it would require changes to the city’s charter.

Right now, staffing duties are divided between two departments: the Civil Service Department and the Human Resources Department. Measure JB proposes eliminating the Civil Service Department and merging it with Human Resources, bringing all hiring and employee management responsibilities under the domain of a single department. It would also replace the Civil Service Commission, which also oversees aspects of the staffing process and handles employee disciplinary appeals, with a new commission with more limited powers. Mayor Rex Richardson, who has championed this initiative, says this will accelerate hiring and reduce an alarming number of unfilled municipal positions.

By the city’s own estimates, nearly one quarter of jobs across all departments are currently vacant. Meanwhile, between 2021 and 2022, it took an average of seven months to fill open positions. These hiring issues put a strain on all departments, as employees (including first responders and other critical staff) are forced to manage for extended periods of time without key personnel. 

Richardson says the new system proposed by this ballot initiative would shorten the city’s hiring timeline to 90 days or less. It would also include new local hiring preferences that would favor Long Beach residents, students, and those who are already employed by the city. These would be positive changes, and they warrant serious consideration. However, opponents of the measure point out that the Civil Service Department plays a key role in ensuring the city’s hiring practices are fair and equitable—or at least it should. 

The Civil Service Commission (made up of 5 Long Beach residents) appoints an Executive Director over Civil Services, who in turn hires and manages the department’s staffers. Human Resources employees, meanwhile, are hired by the City Manager, who answers to the City Council. This system is confusing, but it theoretically ensures that hiring decisions for most non-political positions (e.g. firefighters or sanitation workers) are selected through a process insulated from political influence.

This separation of powers hasn’t necessarily translated to equitable hiring and management in Long Beach. A class action lawsuit in 2021 alleged that the department systematically failed to protect employees from racial discrimination, and a separate suit, settled out of court the same year, alleged that the former head of the Civil Service Department herself told a Black employee to “focus on being more white” in order to advance her career. 

Given these failings, it’s easy to see why the system needs reform. Unfortunately, city leaders haven’t made it clear that putting the City Manager in charge of all staffing would address these issues—or even why this is necessary to speed up hiring. It’s true that the proposal could consolidate multiple hiring pools and eliminate redundancies. However, many current and former employees of the Civil Service Department and members of the Civil Service Commission insist these issues are only one small part of the slow hiring process, which is also impacted by extensive application requirements, low wages, and other obstacles that Measure JB does not explicitly address.

Moreover, the full language of the proposal includes some key changes to the city charter that aren’t even mentioned in the description voters will see on election day. For instance, the proposed Civil Service and Employee Rights and Appeals Commission would hear appeals from most—but not all—employees facing disciplinary action. 

Members of the Firefighters, Police Officers, and Lifeguard associations would have the option to appeal directly to a “hearing officer,” rather than go before the commission of local residents. This is a significant change that makes the disciplinary process against police officers more opaque and removes an important layer of public accountability within that process. Why is it being snuck into the fine print of an already complicated ballot measure? Long Beach clearly needs to update its hiring practices, but this measure raises too many concerns to endorse.

We recommend that you vote No.

Long Beach Measure HC - Harbor Department Governance Reform: Yes

Like Measure JB, Measure HC would make changes to the city’s charter requiring voter approval. What would be the result of those changes? Here’s a quick breakdown.

First, it would change the term lengths and term limits of members of Long Beach’s Harbor Commission and Utilities Commission. Both commissions consist of five residents nominated by the mayor and appointed by the city council. Oddly, terms for utilities commissioners last five years, while terms for harbor commissioners are six years. Members of both commissions are limited to two terms. If approved, Measure HC would allow members of both commissions to serve up to three terms of four years each, bringing term lengths in line with other city commissions.

Second, the measure would shift Harbor Department hiring responsibilities to the chief executive officer. Right now, the Harbor Commission is tasked with hiring all officers and employees of the department. The proposed charter amendment would maintain the commission’s responsibility to appoint a CEO and a chief operating officer, but give the CEO power to hire all other positions, with the exception of Harbor Commission staffers.

Finally, the proposal would double the maximum fines to $1,000 for violations of commission-approved ordinances and would change the timeline for the commission’s approval of the annual Harbor Department budget in order to align with the city’s fiscal year.

This ballot measure hasn’t sparked much controversy (or enthusiasm) in Long Beach, and it’s pretty clear why. It’s a very technical proposal with ambiguous implications for anyone not employed by or connected to the Harbor Department. Like Measure JB, it would diminish public accountability over hiring practices by stripping staffing responsibilities away from a commission that makes decisions at open meetings. Still, it seems reasonable to allow the person tasked with running the Harbor Department to hire their own staff. And if the CEO should abuse that power, the Harbor Commission will still have the ability to remove them.

We recommend a Yes vote.

Return to the Top

Alhambra City Council District 4 - Coming soon

Baldwin Park City Council

Eight candidates are vying for three at-large seats on the Baldwin Park City Council, and two of them are particularly worthy of your vote: Mayor Emmanuel J. Estrada and Daniel Damian. 

Estrada was elected as the city’s youngest mayor at age 26 in 2020. He has pushed to create more affordable housing, improve community health, and invest in education and job training programs. He has taken principled stands on behalf of interim homeless housing in his city, and passed a local rent control ordinance. 

Daniel Damian is part of the the same coalition that’s been supported by community organizing group, LA Voice Action

A potential third candidate worth supporting is Christopher Saenz. The rest of the candidates are generally tied to the old guard that has been resisting the progressive agenda.

Bellflower - Measure B: No

There are two types of cities in California: charter cities, and general law cities. The main difference between charter and general law cities and counties is the degree of authority they have over municipal affairs: Charter cities have the authority to adopt laws that can be inconsistent with state laws for municipal affairs. General law cities must follow state laws, including laws regarding the number and duties of elected officials. The distinction also impacts land use authority. With the California legislature passing legislation demanding or encouraging cities to produce more housing, unfortunately many general law cities are seeking to become charter cities to evade some of those housing obligations. Bellflower’s Measure B speaks directly to that, stating that it would “give the City more local control in determining land use; reduce the influence of outside agencies, including the State of California.”  There’s an ugly history of cities in LA County forming mostly of the purpose of pursuing exclusionary zoning and land use policies and what Bellflower’s proposing falls squarely within that tradition. Vote no.

Bell Gardens City Council

Two progressive candidates worth supporting for regular city council are Jorgel Chavez and Gabriella Gomez. In the special election to fill a vacant seat, Miguel De La Rosa is the best choice.

Beverly Hills Unified School District

Incumbent Amanda Stern and newcomber Dela Peykar Ronen are the candidates to vote for to prevent the election of far-right candidates like gun store owner Russell Stuart who’s spewing nonsense conspiracies. The fourth candidate is also aligned with Stuart. Check out KNOCK’s voter guide for more detailed coverage of this race.

Burbank City Council

For the two at-large council seats, LA Forward endorsed Eddy Polon to the open seat and re-electing Konstantine Anthony. More soon

Burbank Unified School District

• Trustee Area 1: Laurette Cano

• Trustee Area 2: Emily Weisberg (only candidate running)

• Trustee Area 5: Armond Aghakhanian

  Explanation coming soon!

Claremont City Council

In District 1, Rachel Forester is the LA Forward endorsed candidate who is challenging conservative Republican incumbent Corey Calaycay in District 1. She's a lifelong Claremont resident, hair stylist,  renter, and community volunteer who's running to address the gaping lack of representation for low income tenant families on the Claremont city council. She’s going to bring the change we need to Claremont’s City Council and help make LA County a fair, flourishing place for everyone by working to protect tenants, create affordable housing, expand unarmed crisis response options and much more. If she wins, it'll change the entire dynamic of the city council. She’s endorsed by the Claremont Democratic Club and Claremont Streets for People, plus dozens of community members and leaders. This is going to be a close race and she needs your support to win it, especially as a grassroots candidate. Head to RachelForClaremont.com and sign up to volunteer and make a donation!

Cudahy City Council

One of the most progressive elected bodies in Los Angeles County is the Cudahy City Council. A bloc of homegrown, bold-thinking, youthful Latinas have held a majority on the council for the past few years, pushing forward aggressive renter protections and much more. This election is an opportunity to solidify and grow that bloc. There are three candidates for two at-large seats.

Councilmember Daisy Lomeli, who is facing reelection, has earned a second term. She has led on tenant protections, and has worked on developing an education compact with the Los Angeles Unified School District. She has the support of CA Working Families Party. 

Amanda Gomez is the right choice for the second seat. She has been active in the community organizing around street vending and tenant protections. She is endorsed by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the County Federation of Labor, and Vice Mayor Elizabeth Alcantar, an emerging regional leader in progressive politics.

Cudahy Measure AA - Extend Term Limits: Yes

This proposition would extend the term limits of city councilmembers to three 4-year terms, an increase from the current limit of two terms. This measure makes sense because in such a small city, there’s not exactly a surplus of talented, dedicated progressive leaders. We’re fortunate to have a few already on the council and allowing them and future representatives to serve longer would be helpful. Three terms of four-years each is a practice completely in line with in other cities and we recommend a Yes vote.

Culver City Council

LA Forward endorsed three Culver City Council candidates – Mayor Yasmine-Imani McMorrin (who is running for re-election), Bryan “Bubba” Fish, and Nancy Barba — for three at-large positions .

Culver City has made tremendous strides forward in recent years — passing a rent control ordinance in 2020, voting to close down the Inglewood Oil Field, building bus and bike lanes to offer safer, more sustainable transportation options. Most of this happened under a progressive majority that was in place for two years. Unfortunately the 2022 elections left progressives with only two seats and we’ve seen rollbacks of progressive advances. This election year offers an opportunity to return a progressive majority to the dais.

McMorrin in her four years on the Council has championed expanding affordable housing, funding for homeless services, and renter protections, causes supported by both Fish and Barba. McMorrin also pushed back against her current colleagues when they voted to remove bus and bike lanes along a major thoroughfare in the city that connects the downtown to the Expo station. We appreciate the transportation experience Fish brings to the ticket and Barba’s work on climate and the environment and the fact that both of them have served on city commissions recently.

All three candidates have earned the support of the Culver City Democratic Club, California Working Families Party, Sierra Club, LA League of Conservation Voters, SEIU-UHW, Stonewall Democratic Club and many more organizations and community leaders.

Culver City is poised to be a leader in progressive municipal policy for the region, having impacts far beyond its borders, like with the closing of the Inglewood Oil Field. But how far they can go will depend on whether the city has bold, forward-looking leadership.

Culver City Unified School District Board

For the two at-large seats, we recommend Sameen Ahmadnia and Andrew Lachmann, the candidates by the progressive group, Our Culver (read their voter guide here).

From Our Culver:

“Our Culver is delighted to endorse two candidates for Culver City School Board: Sameen Ahmadnia and Andrew Lachman. Together they’ll bring a diversity of perspectives and experience to the school board. We don’t expect to always agree with either candidate, and we don’t expect them to always agree with each other. Many of us are CCUSD parents ourselves, and we’ve seen that there is a current of disagreement and division among parents in the district right now. But throughout this campaign, we’ve seen that both Sameen and Andrew understand how to listen with humility and how to work respectfully with those they disagree with. Our kids, their teachers, and all the CCUSD staff deserve a school board that can actually collaborate to build a district that works.

Sameen Ahmadnia is an immigration attorney and a CCUSD mom. An Iranian-American, born and raised in California, her household speaks three languages. In her professional life, Sameen often helps low income clients handle immigration matters on a pro bono basis, and in the district she’s been an advocate for a more equitable and inclusive CCUSD. We’re inspired by Sameen’s candidacy because she speaks up in the face of injustice, whether she’s fighting to save the job of a Spanish-speaking senior administrator at La Ballona or pushing to fix long standing ADA issues on campus. She’s a champion for students with disabilities, English learners, mental health resources, and the environment, and she’s also pragmatic and highly motivated to access grants, tapping into state and federal grant money to sustainably move our district into the future. Sameen has been endorsed by all five seated school board members, and is the only candidate endorsed by the Culver City Democratic Club.

Andrew Lachman is the lead attorney at a technology company, a CCUSD dad, chair of the Culver City Finance Advisory Committee, and a member of the CCUSD Equity Advisory Board. Andrew is also a leader of the LA chapter of Jewish Democratic Council of America and a member of the Democratic National Committee, among other volunteer positions. We want to see Andrew on the school board because he has the potential to be a bridge-builder – a unifying voice who echoes valid criticisms of the district, while still recognizing that the most vulnerable students suffer when the district only focuses on the most well off. Andrew wants to increase classroom spending and employee morale, expand district-wide grant funding and oversee responsible bond spending. He is sensitive to the needs of students who are English-language learners, and he’s an advocate for students who have lived in foster care or experienced homelessness. He was also part of the push to get funding for more crossing guards – even before getting elected he’s making safer routes to school.”

El Segundo City Council

El Segundo has three at-large council seats up for election. The only notable progressive candidate is John Pickhaver, who’s picked up the endorsement of the LA County Democratic Party. We recommend voting for him.

Glendora Unified School District Board of Trustees

There’s an effort by right-wingers to take over the Glendora school board and it has a real chance of succeeding this election. Check out the description of the situation from our friends at Glendora Forward (not affiliated with LA Forward):

We are in a critical moments for GUSD. Two of the five board members are up for re-election. Incumbents Elizabeth Reuter and Robin Merkley are campaigning to be re-elected. They are running against Dan Cayem (mental health professional) and Michael Munoz (personal injury attorney) respectively. 

Here are the facts:

Save Glendora Schools (SGS) is endorsing both Munoz and Cayem. If they are elected, our GUSD Board of Education will be majority SGS candidates. 

Candidate Michael Munoz claims to be a "parental rights" attorney. He is a personal injury attorney at his firm, Munoz and Munoz in Azusa. A simple internet search can illuminate this misleading designation. In addition, he has no children in the district, and attended private school throughout his life.

Why does this matter? SGS advocates for anti-LGBTQ and illegal legislation in our public schools, including the Parental Rights Notification which Glendora Forward strongly opposes, and has been ruled illegal by the State of California. SGS is part of a national movement led by Moms for Liberty that has been pushing a far-right agenda. You can learn more about Moms for Liberty here.

Candidate Michael Munoz lacks the knowledge and experience of how public schools work; private schools are much different. In addition, his false designation of parents rights seems to be a dog whistle for the SGS agenda. 

Reuter and Merkley are the most seasoned board members on the ballot. They each have had children in the district and have a personal stake in GUSD's students. As current board members, they have worked tirelessly over the last several years to modernize GUSD by starting Glendora's first dual language education program, founding a state of the art aviation training program, and making significant improvements in classroom technology. By remaining on the board, they will continue to implement and grow these important programs.

Lomita City Council

Wade Kyle is running for Lomita City Council in District 2 with the backing of Los Angeles County Democratic Party (LACDP), Los Angeles County Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO), and United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) where he’s been an activist. He’s also a graduate of LA Forward’s Progressive Campaign Leadership Academy.

Lynwood City Council

Five candidates are running for two seats on the Lynwood City Council, and one of them is a progressive: Lorraine Avila Moore, a former city planning commissioner, who is backed by Councilmember Juan Munoz-Guevara, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, and the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. No

Lynwood Unified School District Board 

Five candidates are running for three seats on the Lynwood Unified School Board, and it is important that voters re-elect incumbent Gary Hardie, Jr. An alum of the school district and the parent of a student there, Hardie is a progressive who has been the charge for equity for Black students. He brings a powerful perspective to the board. He was once a special needs student who experienced homelessness, domestic violence, poverty, and chronic illness. He credits the local school system with turning his life around, and he graduated with honors. 

One of the other candidates in the race, Jorge Casanova, is a conservative who has spread anti-trans propaganda – a reflection of a growing and dangerous political trend in smaller, Los Angeles County school districts. He must be defeated.

Lynwood Unified School District Proposition U- School Funding: Yes

Proposition U is an $80 million bond measure that would  upgrade school facilities. School officials say it will provide money to make structural repairs, remove hazardous materials, upgrade safety codes and security systems, and reduce reliance on portable classrooms, allowing the District to better support student achievement and college and career readiness in science, technology, engineering and math fields and skilled trades. 

We recommend you vote yes.

Malibu City Council

There are three at-large council seats up for election and all three incumbent are running again — Bruce Silverstein, Steve Uhring, Paul Grisanti — plus two challengers, Haylynn Conrad and Channing Frykman.

Conrad is endorsed by the LA League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club. Silverstein is an attorney endorsed by the LA County Democratic Party and Uhring is endorsed by the Sierra Club. Frykman is a pedestrian. Grisanti is a long-standing elected official and a realtor. We won’t pretend to be the experts in Malibu politics — we recommend doing your own research, but Conrad seems like she’d bring an important and fresh perspective.

Montebello City Council

Montebello is another city that has seen the emergency of a new generation of progressive Latina elected officials, and Mayor Scarlet Peralta is among them. She had led on providing hero pay, increasing the minimum wage, and creating project labor agreements. She is the right choice for Council District 2. She’s endorsed by the LA County Federation of Labor and LA County Democratic Party.  Her colleague, David Huerta, is another progressive voice and deserves re-election to the Council District 4 seat. He has the backing of the County Federation of Labor as well.

Montebello Measure RR - Councilmember Recall: No

Measure R is an effort to recall Councilmemer Angie Jimenez. Recall proponents cite a list of issues, including Jimenez’s vote against a hike in the police budget. The recall is funded by a number of corporations, and Jimenez is supported by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, and Latino heavyweights like former State Senator Richard Polanco.   We urge a No vote.

Monterey Park Council

For Council District 4, we recommend the incumbent, Henry Lo.

Monterey Park Measure LG - Transient Occupancy Tax Increase: Yes

Commonly known as the “bed tax,” the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is charged to transient guests in hotels, motels, and short-term rentals (30 days or less) such as Airbnb in Monterey Park. Monterey Park’s rate is currently 12%. Measure LG would increase the City of Monterey Park’s transient occupancy tax to 13%, yielding approximately $500,000 per year. 

These funds would go into the general fund and help support park maintenance, youth and senior programs, street improvements, and public safety. Given the recent vacation rental boom, which has led to heated discussions about rising rental prices that push locals out of their hometowns, why not invite new hotels and short-term rental services to be a part of ameliorating the housing issues that they have often exacerbated? 

We recommend a Yes vote.

Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Division 1 - Measure H: Yes

Amidst a summer of triple-digit high temperatures and raging wildfires, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, well known for its work in the Santa Monica Mountains and for revivifying the Los Angeles River with its recreation zones, is seeking more funding. For 15 years, Measure H will seek $65 annually from taxpayers to provide the local conservation authority with the necessary resources to continue local fire prevention and wildfire protection services. Much of these funds will go towards improving services such as high fire alert patrols, dry brush cleaning, and protecting local water quality in springs and creeks. 

Funds from Measure H also include the protection of Los Angeles’ wildlife––mountain lions, bobcats, deer, migrating birds––by expanding wildlife corridors, safeguarding local open space and parkland, and acquiring open space to prevent development, more traffic, and loss of scenic views. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) is the only public agency responsible for acquiring, maintaining, and protecting local open spaces and wildlife corridors within the Eastern Santa Monica Mountains. The MRCA has historically relied on temporary, local funding measures to continue its operations, as it does not receive permanent, ongoing funding from local or state taxes. In recent years, the public agency has relied on community fundraisers to acquire new open spaces. 

Measure H specifically would use the comprehensive annual $1.86 million to serve the Santa Monica Mountains and Hollywood Hills east of 405 freeway. Park areas that will benefit from this initiative include Griffith Park, Runyon Park, Franklin Canyon Park, Getty View Park, and Beverly Glen Park. These are popular destinations with high traffic that are also important crossing points for our wildcats, coyotes, and deer. 

Just one flag: the MCRA also wants to use these funds to support park ranger security patrols in preventing crime and vandalism. We know that the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority is already known to be zealous with their citations, doling out roughly 24,000 every year in the form of traffic or parking violations, which seems to be mostly for the purposes or raising revenue. Our hope is that with this direct injection of funds from taxpayers the agency would be less likely to depend on citations. Measure H also affirms that annual audits and a citizens’ override committee will ensure accountability, though the effectiveness of such transparency remains to be seen.

Overall this measure is a positive initiative to provide the government agency what it needs to protect parklands and wildlife on a more local and impactful level than what the loftier Proposition 4 would do.  We recommend a Yes vote to help this measure reach the 66.66% vote threshold needed to pass.

Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Division 2 - Measure GG: Yes

Similar to Measure H, Measure GG would be a significant victory for Los Angeles’ local habitat and wildlife. GG is supported by groups like Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW) and the Hillside Federation that have worked to preserve the natural topography and open space around the city’s mountain range. Measure GG ensures nearly the same preservation tactics to protect and enhance wildlife corridors; improve fire prevention series in the hills and canyons along Mulholland Drive; support high fire alert patrols and improve dry brush clearing (including removal of drought-stricken trees); increase park ranger patrol along the “Dirt” Mulholland access trail; and acquire open space to prevent development, more traffic, and loss of scenic views. With a $38 annual tax for 15 years, the annual total of $614,000 would specifically go towards protecting the hillside communities of Woodland Hills, Encino, and Tarzana. 

Measure GG would make further progress in protecting the Mulholland Corridor after a judicial decision that was reached on August 12, 2022, for LA City to rescind LA City Director of Planning’s Memorandum limiting the Mulholland Design Review Board’s jurisdiction over development projects that are not visible from the Mulholland Drive right of way. Advocacy groups such as CLAW, the Hillside Federation, and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy raised concerns that Bertoni’s memorandum would reduce public oversight of such projects with potentially significant adverse environmental impacts to parkland, scenic overlooks, wildlife corridors, riparian areas, and the urban forest. After this 2022 win, there would be significant momentum gained by using our taxes to protect this stretch of habitat that spans Woodland Hills, Encino and Tarzana from future development creep. 

We recommend a Yes vote to help this measure reach the 66.66% vote threshold needed to pass.

Pasadena Measure PA - Special Elections: Yes

Measure PA is one of a collection of proposed charter amendments recommended by a citizen task force established last year to review and propose updates to Pasadena’s city charter. Sadly the City Council and Mayor, who convened the task force in the first place, rejected its reasonable recommendation to limit campaign contributions to candidates for city offices. Still, Pasadena voters will be able to weigh in on most of the other task force proposals.

This one would mandate that the city hold a special election to replace members of the city council should they leave office with more than two years remaining on their current term. If fewer than two years remain, the city council would have to appoint a replacement within 75 days or hold a special election.

Pasadena residents may recognize this proposal as a direct response to the situation the city found itself in two years ago, when Councilmember John J. Kennedy died suddenly a month after winning re-election. Many voters in Kennedy’s district opposed the city council’s decision to appoint—and then re-appoint—civil engineer Justin Jones to serve in place of Kennedy until the 2024 election. 

This charter amendment would clarify the process for replacing councilmembers in the future, preventing frustrating situations like this one. As an added bonus, it would also ensure that any future limits on campaign financing can’t be immediately repealed in the next election cycle. We recommend a Yes vote.

Pasadena Measure PB - City Council Leadership: Yes

This is measure another change to Pasadena’s charter recommended by the citizen task force convened last year to review the charter. It’s not very exciting, but makes some legislative processes more straightforward and is worth supporting.

The city council would be required to meet once every year (as opposed to every two years) to select which of its members will serve as vice mayor—the person who fills in at council meetings when the mayor is absent. A new “acting mayor” position would also be created, in the event that the mayor leaves office mid-term. If a member of the city council should be named acting mayor, the vote threshold for council decisions would also be lowered from 5 to 4 to reflect the decrease in the number of voting members.

We recommend a Yes vote.

Pasadena Measure PC - Term Limits : Yes

Pasadena does not have any term limits for its mayor or members of the city council, and some elected officials have taken full advantage of this fact over the years. Former mayor Bill Bogaard served four terms starting in 1999—not including the two years he held the position a decade earlier. Current City Councilmember Steve Madison was first elected 25 years ago.

At the request of the citizen task force that reviewed the city’s charter last year, the city council (somewhat reluctantly) added this measure to the ballot. It would limit councilmembers to a total of five terms, though no more than three could be served consecutively. So if a councilmember served three terms in a row, they would need to take a four year break from City Hall before seeking re-election.

These are fairly lenient requirements, as far as term limits go. Moreover, only terms served after 2025 would count toward a candidate’s term limits, giving current councilmembers even more time in office. Still, this is a step in the right direction, and should ensure that the next generation of Pasadena elected officials won’t see a seat on the city council as a lifetime appointment.

We recommend a Yes vote.

Pasadena Measure PF - Pension Fund Representation: Yes

This measure is confusingly worded but fairly straightforward. Pasadena has an old retirement system for police officers and firefighters that the city began phasing out almost 50 years ago. It’s overseen by a board of trustees that, according to the city charter, must include at least one active or retired firefighter and one active or retired police officer enrolled in the retirement program. However, since the retirement system is only available to those hired before 1977, the number of former police officers and firefighters available to serve as trustees is dwindling.

Measure PF would simply allow the retirement board to develop new criteria for selecting future trustees. Since the measure proposes changes to the city’s charter, it  must be approved by voters.  The proposal seems reasonable; the firefighter trustee seat on the retirement board has been unfilled for the past year, and the average age of those covered by the retirement system is 81. 

We recommend a Yes vote.

Pasadena Measure PL - Central Library Retrofit : Yes

Pasadena has a beautiful central library, built in 1927 as one of the centerpieces of the city’s stately civic center. Unfortunately, the historic building has been closed to the public since 2021, when a structural assessment revealed the library to be at risk of collapse in the event of an earthquake.  

It’s possible to retrofit the building to bring it up to contemporary safety standards, but the cost of these renovations would be quite significant. A report from the Department of Public Works last year estimated the cost of the recommended renovations to be between $133 million and $153 million—not including another $42 million in other needed building repairs. 

Thus far, the city has obtained $9 million in grant money from the State of California, and has applied for another $10 million to carry out repairs on the library. That’s still far from the total project cost, which is why the city council is asking voters to approve a $195 million general obligation bond to fund the seismic retrofit and other upgrades to the nearly century-old building. The bond would be funded through a property tax amounting to an average of $19.80 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. In other words, the owner of a $1 million home might expect to pay another $198 annually.

Saving a beloved and historic library seems like it should be a popular cause for voters to support, but with two other property tax proposals on the ballot and a possible two-thirds majority needed for passage, this measure faces real challenges. Opponents have expressed concern that owners of rental properties might pass these costs off to tenants, and that the city faces a slew of costly infrastructure projects (including the proposed school repairs also appearing on this year’s ballot) that will also need to be funded through similar means. 

It’s true that the restoration of a single building probably shouldn’t be the city’s top priority, but the library is an important part of Pasadena’s history and a place of significance for many residents. It deserves to be preserved, and the cost of repairs will only increase with further delays. We recommend a Yes vote.

Pasadena Measure PR - Technical Fixes to Rent Control Laws: Yes

Voters might look at this measure, see the words “rent control,” and assume it’s a more significant proposal than it really is. A yes vote would simply make a few minor adjustments to rent control laws already in effect.

These changes have to do with Measure H, a rent control policy passed by city voters in 2022 and quickly challenged in court by the California Apartment Association. Last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge upheld the measure’s most significant provisions, but struck down several procedural aspects. Measure PR fixes these issues, and since Measure H was passed as an amendment to the city’s charter, even slight changes require voter approval.

The most noteworthy change to existing policy would exempt subsidized low-income housing from the rent control requirements, since rental payments for these units are based on income level and not on a base rent established when the tenant moves in. The measure would also ensure that landlords moving into a property they had rented out must give tenants at least 120 days notice beforehand.

Most of these changes are very technical and would have little impact on most residents. It’s worth supporting this measure though, simply to avoid any issues with the implementation and enforcement of the rent control laws that voters approved two years ago. We recommend you vote Yes.

Pasadena USD Measure EE  Special Parcel Tax: Yes

Pasadena Unified is seeking voter approval for two measures that could generate over $60 million annually for the district. The first of these is a simple property tax of $90 per parcel, which would produce around $5 million per year and remain in effect for eight years. These funds would be used to hire new support staff, increase teacher wages, and expand or enhance programs focused on science, technology, engineering, math, and the arts. 

Because Measure EE proposes a special tax, it requires two-thirds approval from voters to pass. That could be a tricky threshold to hit. The Pasadena Chamber of Commerce is opposing the measure, and an advocacy group claiming to represent school district voters is leading a campaign against both PUSD initiatives. Opponents argue that Pasadena schools already spend too much money without demonstrating positive results. They point out that PUSD spends almost 50 percent more on a per-student basis than Burbank Unified, which serves a similar number of students. Burbank, meanwhile, boasts higher test scores.

This argument is disingenuous. Pasadena Unified has 23 schools that qualify for federal Title I funding, awarded to schools at which more than 40 percent of students are from low-income families. Burbank Unified does not have any schools that qualify for Title I funding. Schools receiving additional funding through Title I programs are expected to use it, which helps to explain why these schools consistently spend more per-student than schools in more affluent communities. 

Pasadena voters may wonder why these ballot initiatives are necessary if local schools have access to funding sources that wealthier districts do not. For one thing, Title I funding comes with strict rules about what it can and cannot be used for. Money generated through property taxes can fill in these gaps.  Moreover, school districts across the country are facing budget challenges now that funding has dried up from federal programs established during the COVID-19 pandemic. Those funds paid for additional staff and support programs to help students get up to speed after the end of distance learning. Between 2019 and 2023, PUSD per-pupil spending increased by more than 50 percent. Do local students now deserve less, just because the priorities of Congress have shifted?  We recommend a Yes vote.

Pasadena USD Measure R Bond Funding for School Facilities: Yes

Measure R requires only 55% approval to pass, and it would generate an estimated $57 million per year for Pasadena schools. And if California voters approve Proposition 2, the state could match some of those funds. 

The bond would add an average of $59 per $100,000 of assessed valuation to the tax bills of property owners living within the school district. For some, that could add up. However, voters should remember that California’s Proposition 13, passed in 1979, has kept state property tax assessments relatively low for decades (while subjecting school districts to periodic funding crises). The slight bump in annual payments proposed by Measure R is more than reasonable in that context.

Funds raised would largely go toward infrastructure projects, including building repairs, classroom renovations, accessibility improvements, shade structures, and possibly ”below-market housing” for school employees.

This last item is most likely to raise the eyebrows of voters. School districts across California have experimented with plans to attract teachers to areas with high living costs by developing affordable housing on district-owned properties. It’s fair to say the results have been mixed. When Los Angeles Unified tried this, it found that teachers didn’t meet the income limits for the housing it developed. Jonathan Gardner, president of United Teachers of Pasadena, said most Pasadena teachers make enough to afford local rents, but that district-provided affordable housing could benefit new hires and lower paid school staff. “This could really help people starting off their careers with the district,” Gardner said.

We recommend a Yes vote.

Pomona City Council

LA Forward endorsed two people for Pomona City Council – Councilmember John Nolte for District 1 and Miranda Sheffield for District 6. Both candidates have earned the support of the LA County Democratic Party, housing justice organizations, multiple unions, environmental groups, and many more organizations and community leaders. In District 4, we recommend Guillermo Gonzalez who’s challenging incumbent councilmember Elizabeth Ontiveros Cole.

• District 1: John Nolte. Nolte first served from 2012 to 2016. In this term, he stood up against polluters, and worked to secure approval for two low-income housing complexes that offer dedicated units and wrap-around support for people recovering from mental illness. Elected again in 2020, he pushed for rent stabilization, supported affordable housing, and expanded youth programming, supported policies to fortify the City’s reserves and fiscal position, brought large grants for violence prevention and environmental justice, and created a jobs program. In tandem with community organizing groups, he pushed Pomona to become the most housing-friendly City in the region – passing an inclusionary housing ordinance and emergency rent stabilization ordinance, building two low-income housing projects, and greenlighting many other housing projects.

• District 4: Guillermo Gonzalez. Gonzalez has the backing of the LA County Federation of Labor, the LA League of Conservation Voters, and Abundant Housing.

• District 6: Miranda Sheffield. Sheffield is a lifelong resident of Pomona and a current professor at Cal State LA. She’s an active board member of Pomona United for Stabilize Housing (PUSH) where she fights to lower the cost of housing for tenants in Pomona. Her career and campaign is about her dedication to fighting for working families. As a rank and file member of the California Faculty Association, she was involved in organizing fellow faculty and students during the most recent strike at Cal State LA. She’s the only progressive candidate in her race and she’s running to give voice and power to her community. Pomona can be a leader in fighting for progressive policies that benefit the people, but we need progressive leaders in positions of power to bring this change.

Pomona Measure Y - Dedicated Funding for Youth Programs: Yes

Pomona’s Measure Y is a smart, positive investment in youth and social services – and the establishment is fighting to kill it.

Measure Y – dubbed the Pomona Kids First Initiative – would amend the City Charter to require that the city spend a minimum of 10% of its general revenues on children and youth programs and create a city Department of Youth & Children to administer the funds. Proponents say it will create or expand youth services, such as child care, housing and rental assistance for families with young children, after-school programs; sports, arts, and educational programs at public venues such as parks, our public library, and community centers. 

The organization leading the opposition, “Save Our Pomona Public Library,” warns Measure I will reduce police services, close fire stations, decrease library hours, and reduce park services. The opposition has been misleading voters about details of the measure, and have  been decrying the major funders of Prop Y – the California Community Foundation and the Children’s Funding Accelerator (a national organization) – as “Bay Area special interest groups pushing their political agenda at (Pomona’s) expense.” The opposition campaign is backed by Mayor Tim Sandoval and City Council members Victor Preciado, Steve Lustro and Nora Garcia. 

Ballot box budgeting is often dicey, but this measure is similar in spirit to Measure J, which county approved overwhelmingly in 2020, mandating a certain percentage of county funds be spent on health, jobs, and other investments in the community. Government can be so slow and so resistant to making the deep investments in the services residents want, voters have no choice but to take matters into their own hands and assert their will at the ballot box.

We recommend a Yes vote.

Santa Clarita City Council

In District 1, we recommend Bryce Jepsen, who has endorsements from the LA County Democratic Party and the LA League of Conservation Voters as he runs against two Republicans.

Santa Monica City Council

LA Forward endorsed four candidates Barry Snell, Dan Hall, Ellis Raskin, and Natalya Zernitskaya, who are running together as the United Democrats slate for four at-large council seats.

Santa Monica’s municipal governance has been plagued by dysfunction the past four years, in large part due to the current conservative majority. That majority has aligned itself with a vocal “law and order” contingent within the city. The result has been incoherent and contentious, and sometimes outright cruel.

The United Democrats slate offers a real opportunity to elect leaders to the Santa Monica City Council again who believe in humane approaches to tackling homelessness, building affordable, transit-accessible housing in high-opportunity areas, protecting renters, listening to and supporting workers, and who present a forward-looking vision for a more diverse, inclusive Santa Monica.

Santa Monica has an outsized influence on the region for a city its size and has an impact on policy trends, especially when it comes to housing, homelessness, sustainability, and transportation. Santa Monica will soon face some major decisions that also have regional implications, like what to do with the Santa Monica Airport land once the airport closes and how to meet its State-mandated affordable housing requirements. The current Council majority is not up to the task.

They’ve also earned the endorsements of Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, Santa Monica Democratic Club, Santa Monica Forward (no affiliation with LA Forward), Sierra Club, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, the LA County Democratic Party, UNITE HERE Local 11, and many other organizations.

Santa Monica Rent Control Board

We recommend Kay Ambriz and Phillis Dudick. There are no other candidates this year.

Santa Monica School Board

We recommend Jon Kean, Maria Leon-Vazquez, and Jennifer Smith. There are no other candidates this year. The fourth candidate withdrew from contention.

Santa Monica College Board

We recommend Anastasia Foster, Margaret Quinones-Perez, and Rob Rader. There are no other candidates this year.

Santa Monica Measure F - Business License Modernization: Yes

Measure F would fund essential city services such as 911 emergency response, public safety, and addressing homelessness by modernizing the City of Santa Monica’s 1990 business license tax ordinance. This measure would improve tax equity and fairness by exempting small businesses from the tax, decreasing tax rates for most retailers and restaurants, raising the corporate headquarters rate to 0.25%, removing auto dealer tax exemptions, and restoring a business license processing fee. It would generate approximately $3 million annually, until ended by voters. We recommend a Yes vote.

Santa Monica Measure K: Yes

Measure K would enhance public safety, create safe routes to school to protect children, lower the risk of fatal traffic accidents, and maintain other essential city services, by increasing the City of Santa Monica Parking Facility Tax by 8% and generate approximately $6,700,000 annually until ended by voters. We recommend a Yes vote.

Santa Monica Measure PSK: No

Measure PSX is an advisory vote to recommend that half of the additional revenue raised be used to protect public safety in Santa Monica, including attracting and retaining well- trained police officers and firefighters, improving crime and homelessness prevention services, and increasing police patrols and enhancing emergency medical response in neighborhoods and public areas. We recommend a No vote.

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Measure QS - Bond to Fund Public Schools : Yes

Measure QS would issue bonds worth $495 million to invest in Santa Monica public school facilities and repair/replace leaky school roofs, outdated wiring/ plumbing; remove hazardous materials; upgrade classrooms, labs, instructional technology supporting science, math, engineering; improve education for struggling students; and increase student/school safety.

South Pasadena City Council

District 1: Omari Ferguson

After witnessing Evelyn Zneimer’s disappointing term in her CD1 seat and as mayor, progressive groups have their eyes on challenger Omari Ferguson to bring South Pasadena out of its sleepy political leanings and into an honest movement around tenant protections, rent control, and fiscal transparency. Currently serving South Pasadena as Public Works Commission Chair, Ferguson has also partnered with South Pasadena’s Care First to raise awareness and drive action towards the coalition’s mutual aid programs, summer school funding, homelessness outreach, and the passage of a local ordinance for hazard pay for local grocery workers. Passionate about a “South Pasadena for all,” he is largely concerned about the use of funds that could go towards issues raised by Care First, such as housing and public safety. He’s been on record about his hesitations around the city’s decision to adopt an all-electric fleet for its police department; he seeks more transparency and is interested in monitoring the million-dollar program’s implementation over the coming years. 

The growing tenant alliances in South Pasadena hope that Ferguson will seriously address housing protections in a way that they did not see with Zneimer. A key contention between groups like South Pasadena Tenants Union and their current elected has been the city’s Housing Element. Earlier this year, the State of California Housing and Community Development Department issued notice to the city that the Housing Element that they adopted in 2023 was noncompliant. The city thus had to submit another draft to address the corrections, which underwent several rounds of revisions and public comment. South Pasadena Tenants Union used this window of time to submit comments about the city’s lack of movement to present a plan around rent control, increased relocation fees, and a rental registry, which are supposed to go into action by December 2024. The confidence that it will, however, is simply not there. 

District 2: Sheila Rossi

Sheila Rossi currently serves as Vice Chair of the South Pasadena Finance Commission and the Finance Ad Hoc Committee; gaining insights from this experience, she is making fiscal responsibility her priority alongside using such accountability to ensure community centered services. In the recent candidate forum, Rossi points out the disregard for timely and inaccurate reporting, citing that the city has gone seven years without monthly or quarterly financial statements. Her preparedness in standing by her priority, alongside her vocal support of tenant unions and resolve to address the boom in short-term rentals such as Airbnb, instills confidence in a more progressive South Pasadena. 

It is important to note how CD2’s candidates have responded to South Pasadena’s Measure SP, which would introduce higher-density housing and adjust height restrictions, nulling the 1983 voter initiative of a 45-foot height limit, under the guise of more affordable housing for working-class families. Tenant unions have expressed their concern that taller mixed-use development on South Pasadena’s historic thoroughfares will worsen traffic and cause mass evictions and displacement of a large portion of the city’s renter population. Rossi has come out against Measure SP, while her opponent Charley Lu has come out in support.

South Pasadena City Measure SP - Land Use Policy Changes: No

South Pasadena voters might want to read up on LA City’s failed Measure S campaign before casting a vote one way or the other. The short description of the measure appearing on ballots is confusing, and potentially misleading about why voters are being asked to approve it. 

The first thing to know is that in 1983, South Pasadena residents approved a 45-foot height limit for all buildings constructed in the city. This requirement remains in place today, and it’s making it difficult for the city to comply with California’s Housing Element Law. 

This state law mandates that cities regularly update land use plans to allow for development of a certain target number of housing units (South Pasadena’s current target is 2,067). Cities don’t have to actually build this housing; they just have to make sure private developers will be able to.

South Pasadena has repeatedly failed to fulfill this requirement in creating its latest housing plan, which is already years late. California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has rejected multiple versions, and in 2022, an advocacy group funded by the California Association of Realtors sued the city over the questionable methodology it was using to locate potential sites for new housing (the plan, for instance, proposed that hundreds of dwellings could replace existing commercial buildings without any explanation of why these sites were likely to be redeveloped in the near future). 

South Pasadena settled the lawsuit and agreed to ask voters to modify the 45-foot height limit, allowing taller structures along a few commercial corridors and in certain business districts—but not in areas with high concentrations of single-family homes. 

Tenant advocates in South Pasadena have rightly pointed out that this compromise protects the property values of affluent homeowners by more-or-less ensuring that any new development simply replaces older, more affordable apartments with new luxury housing. By law, some of those units would have to be made available to low-income tenants, but that would be of little use to those displaced to make way for them. Meanwhile, many residents of the single-family zones preserved by the measure have spoken out against it due to fears that allowing taller structures would destroy the city’s character.

It’s not completely clear what will happen if South Pasadena doesn’t approve Measure SP. The city is quickly approaching a final deadline to bring its housing plan into compliance with state law. If city planners can’t figure things out within 9 months of the election, South Pasadena could face fines and lose out on state funding. Housing officials could also force the city to accept the dreaded “developer’s remedy,” under which developers are given leeway to construct housing at any scale, so long as they comply with state affordability requirements.

South Pasadena tenants are right to be skeptical of this conservative plan to accommodate new housing. However, they’ll need to be prepared for an immediate battle if this measure fails—or the city may end up with a plan that won’t make anyone happy.

We recommend you vote No.

West Covina City Council

• District 1: Brian Calderon Tabatabai, who’s currently a Councilmember is the LA Forward endorsed candidate. Tabatabai is active in progressive causes and with the CA Working Families Party, he led the successful fight with organized labor to keep an Amazon warehouse out of his community. He has been a strong and humane voice on homelessness, renter protections, racial and economic justice, and alternatives to incarceration. He has taught special education, English, and Social Sciences, and has coached youth basketball and football.

• District 3: Cecilia Munoz. Munozis challenging incumbent Councilmember Rosario Diaz and is recommended as someone most likely to align with Brian on Council, where he currently has few allies.

West Hollywood City Council

West Hollywood elections are never dull affairs, and this year is no exception. Ten candidates are running in a hotly contested race for two seats on the City Council.  The clear choice is to re-elect Mayor John Erickson and to elect Danny Hang.

Erickson has been a stellar and progressive elected official, passing the nation’s highest minimum wage, capping rent increases, creating unarmed mobile behavioral health teams, promoting alternative transportation, and investing in social services for the LGBTQ communty. During this year’s campaign, Hang has distinguished himself as the only other progressive in a field of more moderate candidates to want to rollback much of the city’s progress.

A particularly hot issue has been the city’s minimum wage ordinance – which sets the highest minimum wage in the nation at $19.08. Mayor John Erickson was a driving force behind that wage, and has been a champion of defending it against repeal efforts from the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. The only other candidate in the field to vigorously defend it is first-time candidate Danny Hang, a social worker who has served on the city’s disability commission and business licensing board.  Erickson and Hang are also the only two candidates willing to support protected bike lanes on Fountain Avenue. 

A particularly disappointing development in the race has been the transformation of candidate Zekiak Wright. A lawyer and longtime LGBTQ advocate, Wright ran for council two years as a progressive, losing by just 13 votes. As a nonbinary, queer African-American, their victory would have been historic for West Hollywood, and many people hoped they would make a comeback in this election cycle. But this year, entering the race very late and with Unite Here Local 11 and others supporting Erickson and Hang, Wright courted the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and has run on a strikingly more moderate platform.

Return to the Top

Proposition 2 - Funding for Schools Across California: Yes

LA Forward recommends a Yes vote on Proposition 2. Prop 2 authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools, community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades

California’s schools aren’t in great shape. Our per-pupil education spending ranks 19th in the country, slightly above the national average but the state’s schools themselves are falling apart. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 1 out of 4 California’s public school students attend schools with damaged floors, walls, or ceilings; 1 in 5 attend schools that need major structural work, utility upgrades, or earthquake retrofits. As schools play increasingly important roles in neighborhoods, they are forced to combat a growing list of climate-related crises like extreme heat, pandemics, air pollution, and flooding, armed with broken AC units, poor classroom ventilation, leaky roofs, and blistering schoolyards. Studies have also shown that modernizing facilities correlates with academic achievement and improved attendance. Rebuilding California’s public schools to become climate-proof community centers should a top priority.

In 1978 — the same year Proposition 13 began siphoning money from public institutions — California shifted its school funding system from local to state. But school facility funding still comes almost exclusively from local tax revenues; 3 of every 4 dollars are raised through property taxes within local attendance areas. Which means districts that serve neighborhoods with higher property values can reliably generate money through their own bonds, creating a widening chasm between the state’s poorest and richest schools. But even when the funds come from the state, the money still isn’t distributed equitably; since 1998, less-wealthy districts have received nearly 60% less state facility funding than more-wealthy districts. One solution would be to change the state’s funding mechanism so schools don’t have to pay for capital improvements by lobbing endless bond measures at voters. It’s something that California needs to think seriously about, especially because the previous $15 million bond, put to voters in March 2020 — and unfortunately named Proposition 13 — failed with 47% of the vote, the first state school bond to fail since 1994. If this one doesn’t pass it will leave some districts in a dire financial state. As a 2023 report by UC Berkeley Center for Cities + Schools puts it: “Equitable funding to modernize school facilities is the great unfinished work of the state’s school finance revolution.”

While Prop 2 tries to address these funding challenges, in some ways, it could also make those disparities worse. The $10 billion in general obligation bonds would be made available to pay for repairs, upgrades, and new construction, including dedicated money to retrofit classrooms to serve 4-year-olds in transitional kindergarten, which all elementary schools are required to offer starting in 2025. There’s also $1.5 billion carved out for community colleges. This isn’t anywhere near enough; some estimates suggest California needs to spend $3 to $4 billion annually across state and local levels just to maintain school facilities. Which is why the bond is structured in a unique way: to access the money, school districts are required to raise their own bonds and apply for matching funds. There’s a 10% carve out dedicated to small school districts, but wealthy schools will still get more money. CalMatters compared two similarly sized districts in LA County: Lynwood Unified is putting up a $80 million bond, Pasadena Unified is putting up a $900 million bond. Pasadena’s students will receive not only more local money, but much more state money as well. Public Advocates has threatened to sue if the measure passes, and proposed a different sliding scale: “The poorest districts would get as much as a 95 percent state funding match while paying 5 percent, and the wealthiest districts would receive 5 percent from the state while paying 95 percent.” 

Aside from those concerns, Prop 2 is opposed by the typical Howard Jarvis acolytes, who have raised no money to defeat it, and endorsed by major public school organizations and administrators, including State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who have raised over $1.4 million through Yes on Prop 2 to ensure it passes. Prop 2 doesn’t fix a flawed system, but it’s necessary to keep the system afloat while pushing for school facility funding reform — and birddogging local school districts to ensure this money is spent giving California’s students the safe, green, resilient facilities they deserve.

Proposition 3 - Protect Gay Marriage: Yes

Vote yes on Proposition 3 to officially enshrine a right to gay marriage in the California Constitution.

Prop 3 would amend the California Constitution to enshrine a right to same sex marriage, officially repealing 2008’s voter-approved Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  California has had a dramatic, back-and-forth history with the right to gay marriage. In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom unilaterally declared gay marriages were legal in his city, and began officiating them. The state Supreme Court ruled the action was unconstitutional and put a halt to it. That ruling was challenged by civil rights lawsuits, and in May 2008, the state Supreme Court allowed gay marriages again. Just a few months later, California voters approved, with a 52% vote, Prop 8, the Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act. A tense and stormy five years of legal battles ensued, and in June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due to a technical issue of legal standing, gay marriage was once again legal in California. Two years later, in the famous Obergefell v Hodges decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was a fundamental right nationally.

Although gay marriage is legal here in California, our state constitution still says otherwise. That became a big concern in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, indicating both an activist rightward turn and a stunning disregard for precedent. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he wanted the court to revisit Obergefell. Approving Prop 3 would guarantee that gay marriage is secure in California no matter what.

Opponents of Prop 3 are relying on tired tropes from the 1990s, claiming it would allow “child marriages, incest and polygamy,” and arguing (yawn) that gay marriage threatens families. Prop 3 is supported by Equality California, the California Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation, the ACLU, Governor Gavin Newsom, Mayor Karen Bass, and, well, pretty much every Democratic or progressive official and organization. It is opposed by the California Family Council and the American Council of Evangelicals.

Proposition 4 -  Funding for Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Fighting Climate Change: Yes

LA Forward recommends voting Yes on Proposition 4 to fund important environmental and climate project. Our latest spate of wildfires delivers a stark reminder of the dire need for relief in vulnerable communities and natural lands. In its most recent climate change assessment, the state’s Natural Resources Agency estimates that the cost of climate change to the state will exceed $200 billion by 2050 unless California course-corrects. Furthermore, the Federal Emergency Management Agency reports that every $1 spent to improve resiliency today saves $6 on disaster relief tomorrow.

Proposition 4 authorizes the state to issue bonds worth $10 billion to spend on environmental and climate projects. A sizable chunk, $1.9 billion, would go towards drinking water improvements. This particular piece of the bond prioritizes lower-income populations by allocating 40% of its funding to disadvantaged communities that are most vulnerable to climate change. This would greatly affect areas like California’s Central Valley, where most of the people have been denied what California declared as a fundamental right. 

Approximately $3.8 billion would be spent on various other water projects, such as flood and drought protection as well as the restoration of rivers and lakes. The remainder of the $10 billion would be spent on wildfire and extreme heat projects ($1.95 billion); natural lands, parks and wildlife projects ($1.9 billion); coastal lands, bays and ocean protection ($1.2 billion); clean energy projects ($850 million); and agricultural projects ($300 million). 

Environmental groups and renewable energy advocates have been pushing for increased spending on climate change and the environment in recent years. Proposition 4 arrives with vocal support from groups like Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation, California Professional Firefighters, and California Labor Federation after a massive budget cut to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “California Climate Commitment,” scaling back a $54.3 billion annual spending package to $44.6 billion. Though our year has been plagued with such cutbacks, currently about 1 million Californians live without a safe and clean water supply, and about a million more are served by at-risk water systems. The changing climate will not wait for California to figure out its fiscal woes. 

Proposition 5 - Make It Easier Fund Affordable Housing: Yes

LA Forward strongly urges a YES vote on Proposition 5, which would ease the path towards billions more dollars to create badly-needed affordable housing to address the state’s housing crisis.

California’s 1970s anti-tax revolt, which culminated in the passage of Prop 13 in 1978, continues to reverberate across many sectors, including housing–the state has a shortage of about 1.3 million homes affordable to lower-income households, due in large part to a meager history of investment in subsidized housing. 

The results of this shortfall are visible statewide, including the astonishing 181,000 Californians who sleep on streets, in shelters, or in cars and RVs every night. Despite California’s housing crisis continuing to rank as a top issue for voters, the State does not provide ongoing appropriations of affordable housing or homelessness funding, allocating funding in boom and bust cycles that are dependent on the health of the state budget. While in some years, such as when the state was flush with federal pandemic relief funds, large surpluses lead to windfalls for affordable housing, in most years, the state allocates less than 1% of its ongoing budget to affordable housing and homelessness.

Instead, affordable housing advocates rely on a system of one-time bond measures to raise funds for affordable housing capital. Since Prop 13 was advanced by a movement of wealthy, conservative, largely white homeowners in the late 1970s, the hurdles to approving this type of spending have been very high—bond measures must reach a two-thirds voter threshold to be approved, including at the local level. 

While many Californians support robust investment in affordable housing, the 67% voter threshold has proven to be a high bar, especially in a polarized political moment. Proposition 5 would address this by setting the voter threshold to pass housing bonds at 55%--a strong but attainable majority of voters. This would unlock billions in funding around the state for badly-needed housing.

The tangible impacts of this high threshold are clear—this past August, housing leaders in the Bay Area withdrew a $20 affordable housing bond from the ballot, concerned that it would not clear the 2/3 threshold, meaning Bay Area voters will have to wait until 2026 or 2028 before they can vote on more funds to address one of the existential challenges for their region.  Too often, small but loud minorities have blocked progress on housing, whether in their neighborhood meetings or at the ballot box. It’s time for California jurisdictions to be able to deliver what the majority of their voters want: more affordable housing.

Proposition 6 - Ban Forced Labor in Prisons: Yes

LA Forward supports a Yes vote on Prop 6. It would outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude in the state of California. Prop 6 would amend the California Constitution to end forced labor in state prisons, wiping out an ugly legacy of slavery that dates to the 19th century.  

The California Constitution’s current language on slavery and involuntary servitude mirrors that of the U.S. Constitution. Despite popular belief, the 13th Amendment did not fully abolish slavery. It abolished it “except as a punishment for crime.” That massive loophole led to the virtual reinstatement of slavery in the South in the 1860s and permits the existence of a dangerous, harmful and exploitative system of prison labor in California and many other states today. Immediately following passage of the 13th Amendment, Southern states passed racially discriminatory laws against crimes like vagrancy, and proceeded to arrest and convict Blacks, leasing them out to work on plantations in harsh and deadly conditions. Convict leasing eventually led to notorious chain gangs, with convicts chained together as they were forced to build roads and dig ditches. Chain gangs were used in many places, including California, and did not cease here until the 1940s. In 1990, Californians voted to restore convict leasing, allowing prisons to lease inmates to work for private companies.

Today, some 65% of California inmates are assigned forced labor - as custodians, laundry workers, firefighters, textile workers, road crews, and more. Prison jobs often come with substantial risks to workers’ health and safety. According to the ACLU, “prison labor is inherently coercive and exploitative. Incarcerated workers are not protected by standard labor laws, like minimum wages, overtime protection, the right to unionize, and workplace safety guarantees. Many workers are forced into hazardous jobs without standard training or protective gear, often under threat of punishment — such as solitary confinement, loss of family visitation, and denial of sentence reduction — if they do not comply with orders. Lives and livelihoods are completely at the mercy of the public and private entities exploiting a cheap and captive labor force.”

Involuntary servitude saves the state and private companies millions of dollars, but inmates are paid sometimes as little as 9 cents per hour. They can’t choose work that would develop transferable skills for post-prison life; work assignments are based on formulaic numbers with no consideration of individual skills or career paths. Incarcerated workers work on the frontlines of California’s deadly wildfires, yet when they are released from prison, they are forbidden by state law from working as firefighters.

Prop 6 would change the California constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary  servitude in any form. It would prohibit the prison system from disciplining any incarcerated person for declining a work assignment, and prisons from disciplining inmates for choosing rehabilitative activities over a work assignment. This measure would make prison work optional by instituting a voluntary work program. Proponents argue Proposition 6 would give incarcerated people more flexibility to engage in rehabilitative programs like education, emotional intelligence courses, mental health and substance use treatment, which can reduce recidivism and support successful reentry. 

With African-Americans accounting for 28% of the prison population and less than 6% of California’s overall population, putting an end to involuntary servitude on the ballot has been a priority for the California Black Legislative Caucus. Concerns about potential cost, voiced by Governor Gavin Newsom and some moderate legislators, kept it off the ballot in 2022. This year, the effort faced little opposition in Sacramento. It is backed by ACLU California Action, the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, California Labor Federation, and the League of Women Voters of California. It is opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Proposition 32 - Raise the Minimum Wage: Yes

LA Forward urges a Yes vote on Prop 32, which would raise the state minimum wage from $16.50 to $18 an hour, providing over 2 million workers statewide with at least $3,000 more per year. Workers in larger businesses would reach $18 an hour by January 2025, and workers in smaller businesses would obtain an increase from $16.50 to $17 for workers by January 2025, and then to $18 an hour by January 2026. Between 11% and 17% of California’s 18 million workers would see their pay rise under Proposition 32.

California’s seen plenty of sector-specific minimum wage increases (fast-food workers just won $20 an hour and health care workers won $25), the statewide minimum wage for all other workers remains $16.50. That’s a problem because it leaves millions of full-time workers without a living wage, even in California’s least expensive counties.

The MIT Living Wage calculator estimates that the statewide average wage needed for one person with no children in California is at least $27.32 per hour to cover the basic costs of living, and that one person with one child would need at least $44.11 per hour for the same. 

Even in the cheapest county in California, Modoc County, the MIT Living Wage calculator estimates that one person with no children needs at least $20 an hour to cover the basic cost of living, and that one person with one child needs at least $40 an hour for the same.

California is the most expensive state in the country, but other states have surpassed us in terms of passing universal minimum wage increases. The California legislature has not taken any action to raise the minimum wage in nearly a decade. Meanwhile, three counties in Washington State have passed minimum wage ordinances raising the wage to $20 an hour for ALL workers, Hawai’i passed $18 for ALL workers 2 years ago, and Massachusetts and Minnesota have campaigns to pass bills and ballot measures for $20 an hour by 2025.  

Given the fact that $16.50 is too low, many small businesses in California have already raised their wages to $18 and higher. Many of these businesses are supporting a statewide policy for $18 an hour in order to create a level playing field so that they are not at a competitive disadvantage.

While some of California’s coastal urban areas have passed higher minimum wages, California’s most impacted communities in the Central Valley, Northern and Eastern California remain at $16.50 an hour. But the cost of living in these counties is not substantially cheaper - in Fresno County, for example, the MIT Living Wage Calculator finds that the minimum a person with no children would need to survive is over $22 per hour, and that one person with one child would need $35.98. 

While $18 an hour is not enough, it is an important modest step forward toward a minimum wage that would actually meet the cost of living in California, allowing workers to stay working in restaurants and retail stores, have homes, be able to raise a family, and stay in the state of California. 

Despite what simplistic Econ 101 diagrams might say, independent studies based on the actual results of minimum wage increases have found that they don’t significantly slow job growth and can actually boost local economies by giving low-wager workers more money to spend locally.

This measure is opposed by the usual anti-worker suspects: California Chamber of Commerce, and California Restaurant Association and California Grocers Association. It’s supported by One Fair Wage, the California Federation of Labor, and dozens of other progressive and worker organizations. 

Proposition 33 - Eliminate Restrictions on Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control: Yes

LA Forward recommends voting Yes to give cities and counties the ability to expand rent control laws.

The housing crisis isn’t new but it’s been accelerating over the last decade and is afflicting more and more people. Rents are increasingly unaffordable for most families. Tenants are struggling and falling into homelessness. Corporate landlords are buying up neighborhoods, hiking rents, and displacing long-time residents. Voting yes on Prop 33 will give your local government an additional tool to combat this long-simmering and multi-faceted problem.

The battle over rent control in California has a long and complex history. In 1995, the state passed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which restricted the ability of local governments to enact or expand rent control laws. Costa Hawkins prohibits rent control on units built after 1995 (and even earlier, in some cities, like Los Angeles, where the cutoff point is 1978), forbids rent control on single-family homes and condominiums, and allows landlords to set rents as high as they’d like when a unit becomes vacant. Overturning Costa-Hawkins has been a mission of tenant advocates ever since. Landlords and real estate interests have beat back repeated legislative efforts, and defeated statewide rent control ballot propositions in 2018 and 2020.

Prop 33 would repeal Costa-Hawkins. Cities and counties could establish limits on rents on any apartment, single family home or condo, regardless of the year it was built. They could also limit how much a landlord can increase rents when they get new tenants. It is important to note Proposition 33 does not itself expand rent control anywhere. Each jurisdiction would get to decide what, if any, regulations they want to create.

Proponents of Prop 33 point out that more than half  of L.A. area renters are “rent burdened,” meaning they pay more than 30% of their income for housing. Thirty percent pay more than half their income on housing, leaving them economically vulnerable and at greater risk of homelessness. They focus on the role of predatory landlords, especially corporate landlords such as Blackstone Group, Essex Property Trust, and Equity Residential, which they blame for outrageous, unfair rents. They contend that different cities need different tools to combat the issue, and rent control is an important tool.

Rent control policies have been shown to be very effective at reducing displacement and helping tenants remain in their homes in the face of cost pressures from booming rental costs citywide as well as gentrification of previously poor and working class areas. It would be an especially valuable tool to cities that are rapidly gentrifying and have no rent control, such as Inglewood, Long Beach, and Pasadena. 

Some cities with rent control ordinances badly need to update their policies — in Los Angeles County, the cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Santa Monica have rent control on some properties, but not on properties built in the last three decades or single family homes. In the City of Los Angeles, single family properties have been a boom for corporate and Wall Street landlords, but are increasingly unaffordable for long-time residents of gentrifying parts of South LA, Boyle Heights, and Highland Park. Yet, the city cannot extend any form of rent control to these properties because of the Costa Hawkins Act. 

Opponents, including landlords, realtors and business groups, say rent control reduces property values and discourages property owners from building more housing by limiting their ability to recoup their investments. They focus on small “mom and pop” landlords, whom they say cannot afford to keep up with inflation and cover the costs of maintenance and repair without more rental income. (Landlord groups also argue Proposition 33 is unnecessary because in 2019 the state capped annual rent increases to 5% plus inflation. Advocates argue those protections are inadequate and point out they expire in 2030.)

Both sides argue over the impact the proposition will have on the housing market. Opponents of rent control policies also argue that rent control increases housing costs by raising rents and curtailing housing production. These arguments are overblown. Empirical findings on these questions are mixed. Some studies have found rent control policies that slow down housing production, but others have found little effect, as studies from USC and other universities show. There’s little doubt that a badly designed rent control ordinance can have ill effects in reducing private investment in housing construction or maintenance — but a well-designed one can hugely benefit vulnerable renters who are struggling to survive in a housing market that radically tilts the scales of power towards homeowners and landlords. Repealing Costa Hawkins would be a small but crucial step to giving renters a greater voice in local housing policy debates and allowing cities to tailor policies to their own local conditions. 

Advocates and opponents have one thing in common: both are backed by deep-pocketed, controversial donors. The initiative is bankrolled by AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a scandal-plagued landlord constantly under fire for using its funds to wage housing battles instead of providing health care. The opposition is fueled by corporate landlords, such as Essex Property Trust and Equity Residential, two of the nation’s largest corporate landlords, both facing allegations of illegal rent-price fixing, and Douglas Emmett, Inc, which last year conducted an illegal mass eviction in Los Angeles at Barrington Plaza.

Supporters of Proposition 33 include: the California Democratic Party, Senator Bernie Sanders, California Nurses Association, CHIRLA, Unite Here Local 11, SAJE, California Working Families Party, UTLA, LAANE, CLUE, and others. Opponents include: California Apartment Association, California Chamber of Commerce, LA Area Chamber of Commerce, LA County Business Federation, Abundant Housing LA, California YIMBY, the California Republican Party and others.

Proposition 34 - Corporate Landlord Attack on Funding for Renter Rights Measures: No

LA Forward recommends voting no on Proposition 34, which is a stealthy attack by corporate landlords on funding for renters rights measures, masquerading as a responsible regulation of healthcare providers. The organization that is solely targeted by Prop 34 is the  LA-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF).

AHF is a healthcare nonprofit which makes a lot of money — about $2 billion a year — through an expansive network of pharmacies and clinics. But AHF is also many other things: an affordable housing developer buying dilapidated hotels in downtown LA, a negligent landlord being sued by tenants forced to live in squalid conditions, and a political juggernaut that’s spent hundreds of millions of dollars on pro-renter and anti-development ballot measures, some of them bad (LA city’s Measure S to stop nearly all new housing development, which failed in 2017), some of them good (three separate statewide attempts to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 2018, 2020, and now 2024).

Prop 34 is a spite prop, and as tempting as it is to potentially banish AHF from housing politics forever, this isn’t the way to do it. Although supporters like California Chronic Care Coalition make it seem like this is an earnest effort from the healthcare industry, Prop 34 is sponsored by the immensely powerful California Apartment Association simply because its landlord members don’t like rent control. The content of the measure doesn’t really matter; the hyperspecific language around “certain providers” describes AHF and AHF only — so much so that AHF has tried to petition the state to get Prop 34 removed from the ballot. Passing it would set a precedent that other powerful interests might abuse, according to Consumer Watchdog, which says Prop 34 “serves as a blueprint for corporate interests wishing to punish nonprofit organizations for their speech and advocacy.” 

Despite AHF’s questionable practices, what the California Apartment Association is doing by ponying up $30 million for this disingenuous measure is far worse. Aside from the “let them fight” entertainment factor, there’s no reason to get caught up in the potentially dangerous repercussions of this electoral cattiness. 

Proposition 35  - Make permanent the tax on HMO plans to fund Medi-Cal: No

LA Forward recommends voting No on Prop 35 which is problematic despite its good intentions. All managed healthcare plans in California pay what’s called the Managed Care Organization tax. The tax revenue is currently used to help fund Medi-Cal, our statewide Medicaid program, which, over the last ten years, has greatly expanded to include undocumented Californians and add more areas of medical coverage. Prop 35 would make the tax permanent and ensure its funding streams go towards protecting the 15 million Californians who rely on Medi-Cal. A huge coalition of healthcare providers as well as the state’s Democratic and Republican parties have spent over $80 million to support Prop 35. Their argument is that having dedicated Medi-Cal funding will result in better care for low-income Californians.

What sounds like a tidy solution has one big problem: Prop 35 doesn’t necessarily guarantee Medi-Cal gets sufficiently funded. The revenue actually comes from a federal government reimbursement program, which has to approve the tax and could change the rules at any time — and has in the past. Legislative analysts say this is a risky way to fund Medicaid. And while there is always a concern that revenue intended for healthcare could be raided for other spending, the proposition is a quintessential example of California’s ballot-box budgeting, which locks in funding streams at a time where our cash-strapped state needs more flexibility than ever. There’s no organized opposition but Governor Gavin Newsom is opposed to Prop 35 because it takes away the state’s freedom to budget. This is also the main reason that a slew of social justice organizations like Children’s Partnership, California Pan-Ethnic Health Coalition, and ACCE, as well as good government groups the League of Women Voters are recommending a no vote.

Finally, many state legislators have confirmed that they plan to renew the tax (which they have the power to do) and formulate a better strategy to fund Medi-Cal in the long-term. This seems like the better way forward for something as important as healthcare.

Proposition 36 - Reverses progressive criminal justice reforms: No

Prop 36 is a scam that will take millions of dollars from drug treatment, mental health, education, and victims services and funnel it into the budget for state prisons. It is a cynical, deceptive proposal that would make Californians less safe and turn back the clock on smart justice. It will defund programs that prevent crime and keep us safe. We strongly recommend a NO vote.

Proponents claim Prop 36 is necessary because Prop 47, the 2014 voter-approved criminal justice reform, has made California a permissive haven for thieves and drug addicts. The measure would amend state law to increase penalties for smash and grab retail crimes, reclassify many misdemeanor thefts as felonies, and lengthen sentences for some theft felonies. It would also allow some misdemeanor drug possession charges to be reclassified as a special type of felony mandating treatment. It would also require courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs that kill someone. 

What Proposition 36 would really do is swell prison populations, cost the state tens of millions of dollars, and gut spending on drug treatment, mental health programs, and victims services. It will move California back to the ugly era of the 1980s and 1990s “war on drugs” that led to the mass incarceration of a generation of young men of color. 

Polls show Prop 36 has a big lead, and that is troubling, given that it is built on layers of deceit, and will do the opposite of what many voters want. How it handles drug treatment is a prime example. Advocates for Prop 36 say it will “stop the suffering on our streets” and mandate treatment for drug addicts, especially those who are homeless. But California has a tremendous shortage of residential treatment beds (22 of the state’s 58 counties don’t have any at all), and Prop 36 provides no funding for any additional beds or services. And if someone convicted of a “treatment-mandated felony” can’t get treatment because there aren’t any beds? They get a 3 year jail sentence.

In fact, Prop 36 reduces money for drug treatment. As a result of Prop 47, California’s prison population has been reduced by nearly half, and the costs of the state prison have dropped significantly. Prop 47 mandates those savings be earmarked for victims services and crime prevention. By increasing the prison population, Prop 36 will mean cuts in programs that keep

communities safe and healthy, like mental health and drug treatment, housing services, and K-12 school programs. Opponents estimate those cuts could be as much as $800 million over the next decade. That’s a dramatic step backward that will lead to more crime, not less. It will also lead to an astounding increase in prison spending – some $26 billion! – over the next decade. It is no wonder that opponents have dubbed it the “prison spending scam.”

It is important to recognize how cynical Prop 36 and its supporters are. Three of the biggest advocates and funders for the measure are Walmart, Target, and Home Depot – deep-pocketed big box stores that have all faced mass class action lawsuits over wage theft. Last year, Home Depot agreed to pay $72.5 million to end a long-running class-action lawsuit alleging it underpaid workers in California. (Employers stealing wages from their employees is much more pervasive, and far more costly, than retail theft). Other big cheerleaders for the measure include cops and district attorneys, who claim that Prop 47 has prevented them from prosecuting crime. It’s BS, of course. Robbery, residential burglary and grand theft are already felonies, punishable with long prison sentences. As for petty thieves, police can arrest them on misdemeanor charges, but many officers say it is not worth the paperwork. 

Prop 36 is part of a right-wing push against reform of the criminal legal system. It is the kind of stuff you find in Project 2025, and it pushes the narrative that progressive public officials have turned California into a dystopian hellscape. It is pitiful that Democratic mayors like London Breed, Todd Gloria, and Matt Mahan are supporting it. Instead of acquiescing to the rightwing narrative, they should be fighting it. Prop 36 is rightfully opposed by the California Democratic Party, the LA Times, criminal justice reform organizations, and a vast array of progressive organizations.

Return to the Top

State Senate

Senate District 23: Kipp Mueller

Senate District 23 covers parts of San Bernardino and Los Angeles, including Santa Clarita, where many of Los Angeles’s police officers live. It leans slightly conservative, although the district went for Biden in 2020. Fortunately, there’s a Democrat worth supporting in Kipp Mueller.

Mueller is workers’ rights attorney who supports reproductive rights, while Republican Suzette Martinez Valladares, a former state assemblymember, received an F rating from NARAL Pro-Choice California’s Reproductive Freedom Legislative Scorecard.

Mueller wants to prevent homelessness by lowering housing costs while Valladares wants to criminalize homelessness. Mueller also wants to bring down the sky-high asthma rates in his district by boosting the local economy so residents’ lengthy, emission-creating commutes can be reduced. As a state assemblymember, Valladares voted against an air-quality bill that would have regulated pollution near homes, schools, health facilities, and playgrounds in the Inland Empire.

Mueller is endorsed by California Environmental Voters, the California Federation of Teachers, numerous unions, and Planned Parenthood. Valladares is endorsed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League (the LAPD union), ALADS (the Los Angeles sheriffs’ union), the anti-tax group Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

It feels clear cut for progressives, except for the fact that  Mueller could be much better on criminal justice issues. Whether he’s telling his district what he thinks they want to hear or whether he genuinely is a “tough on crime” true-believer, he has positions in favor of Prop 36 that we find concerning. That said, we have a red-to-blue flip opportunity and Mueller would be far better to have in the seat than his Republican opponent.

This will be a close race – Mueller barely lost in 2020. Vote for Mueller, the candidate who supports abortion rights and wants to fight climate change.  

Senate District 25: Sasha Renée Pérez

When faced with a choice between a Democrat and a Republican “parental rights” cult member hoping to stop the “transgender agenda” spreading in schools, any Democrat would be a better pick. But Sasha Renée Pérez is not just any Democrat — she’s a strong progressive leader who will be a big step up in the San Gabriel Valley seat vacated by termed-out Anthony Portantino, who was a consistent obstacle on housing justice legislation. 

Born into a labor-organizer family, Pérez was sworn in as Alhambra mayor in 2020 and quickly focused her energy on passing key pandemic-response legislation: economic relief, HERO pay, and protections for workers. Under her leadership on city council, Alhambra expanded its Homeless Outreach Mental Evaluation (HOME) program, which has been used by other cities as a model for crisis response. Her experience outside of Alhambra will also serve her well in Sacramento: Pérez was appointed by LA County Supervisor Hilda Solis to serve on the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) board. (Disclosure: Pérez has done paid work for our sister 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, LA Forward Institute, on a variety of our policy priorities.)

Pérez’s platform is where California needs to be headed: increasing the number of affordable units in new developments, prioritizing funding for active and public transportation, supporting mental health programs, expanding access to education, growing a unionized workforce. She’s assembled an impressive set of endorsements, including the California Working Families Party, ACCE Action, California Environmental Voters, National Union of Healthcare Workers and many other labor unions. 

With the Democratic vote split four ways in the primary, Republican challenger Elizabeth Wong Ahlers eked out 36% of the vote compared to Pérez’s 33%. Pérez is a lock to win this deep blue district, but we endorse her wholeheartedly. 

Senate District 27: Henry Stern 

Representing the westernmost district in LA County, Henry Stern has confronted some of the region's worst climate disasters with a keen understanding of the urgency the crisis requires. As an ex-officio member of California’s Air Resources Board, Stern has passed critical emissions-reduction policies, fought for the closure of the Aliso Canyon gas facility, and remains one of the only state legislators actually attempting to stop people from building on dangerous fire-prone lands. (Stern lost his own home in the 2018 Woolsey Fire.) Although he sometimes sides with his more affluent and conservative constituency — his votes are simply not as good on criminal justice reform, policing, and rent control — in recent years, he’s shown growth, working with fellow State Senator Caroline Menjivar to create mental health alternatives to incarceration in the San Fernando Valley.  In 2023, he received an A+ score on his voting record from Courage California and the same from California Environmental Voters, Initiate Justice Action, and many other statewide progressive groups.

Stern has handily defeated his Republican opponents in the past, and in the primary took 44% of the vote against two frankly terrifying right-wing candidates. His challenger in November, mattress store owner Lucie Volotzky, took 38% in the primary with a promise to “stand strong to defeat the radical progressive agenda hijacking our state.” Vote for Stern to keep a decently progressive Democratic representative in a seat that could skew far more conservative.

Senate District 33: Lena Gonzalez

An environmental champion in a district that really needs a fighter, Lena Gonzalez has become a proven progressive leader in her first full term in office. Representing the communities around the Port of LA, Gonzales has thrown her legislative weight behind a slew of bills intended to improve the lives of her constituents in tangible ways: electrifying transportation, cleaning up toxic air, and punishing big polluters. She’s earned perfect scores from Courage California for 5 straight years and she’s getting top marks from other statewide progressive groups too.

She’ll win easily over her Republican challenger, and thankfully, get four more years to continue her worthy agenda. We’re excited to see what she’ll accomplish in the legislature and where she’ll go from there.

Senate District 35: Michelle Chambers 

This is an extremely contentious race between former Compton City Council member Michelle Chambers and former congresswoman Laura Richardson to succeed incumbent Democrat Steven Bradford, who is termed out after 12 years in the State Senate.

Neither candidate is perfect but people and organizations we trust are almost all backing Chambers. She’s earned the support of the California Working Families Party, California Environmental Voters, California Legislative Black Caucus, LA Voice Action, LA County Supervisor Holly Mitchell, and LA Black Worker Center co-founder and State Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas.

The biggest difference between the two Democrats lies in their approach to public safety. Look no further than to their position on Prop 36, which takes a “tough on crime” stance by allowing felony charges and increases in sentences for certain drug and theft crimes. Chambers, who has directly served Compton and prides herself on her record of improving street lighting and cultivating job growth before resigning midway to work in Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, does not support the measure, fearing an increase in mass incarceration and opting instead for non-punitive public safety programs. Richardson, who has gained favor with the public through housing advocacy work after vacating her seat in Congress, has come forward in support of this proposition. 

In line with her support on Prop 36, Richardson has come out in strong support of working closely with law enforcement agencies to improve public safety, citing concerns over the growing issue of homeless encampments and abandoned RVs as reasons to make it a top priority. During her time in Congress, Richardson has also advocated for the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which aimed to ensure collective bargaining rights for public safety officers, including police and firefighters, and Community Oriented Policing, which would introduce new partnerships and programs to build trust and engagement between community and police officers. Her track record and commitment to law enforcement agencies should bring pause as any progressive voter now weighs how she would bring these same priorities to a senate district that comprises Carson, San Pedro, Compton, West Compton, Gardena, Harbor City, Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lennox, West Carson, Watts, Willowbrook, and Wilmington.

Chambers has also been steadfast against fossil fuel interests and they’ve attacked her strongly as a result.

There’s an air of scandal around both candidates. Richardson was fined $10,000 in 2012 for misusing government resources to use her official staff for campaign work and personal errands while she was in Congress. Earlier in her career, one of her campaigns she an anti-LGBTQ mailer. Political opponents allege that Chambers called a Latino colleague’s son son a racial slur in 2021 during a closed session of city council, which she adamantly denies and which an investigation seems to have cleared her of. 

We recommend Chambers in what will be a close election.

Return to the Top

State Assembly

Assembly District 39: Juan Carrillo

Juan Carrillo, a Democrat, is the incumbent in this district, which covers parts of Los Angeles, including Palmdale and Lancaster, and San Bernardino, including Victorville and Adelanto.  

A former Palmdale city planner and city councilmember, Carillo notched a win over progressive-backed Democrat Andrea Rosenthal in 2022, when there was no incumbent. He doesn’t face a strong Republican challenger and he’s locked up the major endorsements in this race, from Planned Parenthood to the California Teachers Association and SEIU California. 

Unfortunately, he has also taken a tremendous amount of corporate money from the likes of Airbnb, AT&T, T-Mobile, Ford, GM, Blue Shield, UnitedHealth, and the California Apartment Association. He has also accepted campaign contributions from police associations and the fossil fuel industry. The latter is particularly troubling in a district that includes the “Aerospace Capital of America” (as Palmdale has been called) and serves as a hub for the aircraft industry, including Lockheed Martin (oh yeah, they donated to Carrillo too). That industry, plus the million-square-foot Amazon warehouse (yep, they donated) in Victorville and the several new warehouses in development, is not doing local children’s asthma rates any favors.

Carrillo did co-author Assembly Bill 98, which Governor Newsom recently signed into law, to regulate the placement of new warehouses. The bill does not apply to existing warehouses and, according to many environmental groups, did not go far enough in protecting residents from warehouse emissions, but business groups don’t like it either so it can’t be all bad.  

Having said all that, Carrillo is by no means the worst state assemblymember (that distinction, sadly, belongs to at least a few dozen other state assemblymembers) and he’s definitely the better bet in this race, but given that his Republican opponent has raised only $29,000 to Carrillo’s $1.8 million in a district that votes reliably blue, he might consider opting out of donations that are at odds with the health and well-being of his constituents.  

For the 2023 legislative session, Carrillo got a “C” grade from Courage California, a D+ from California Environmental Voters, and a B from Initial Justice Action and we’d love him to get those scores up across the board.

The Republican in this race, Paul Marsh, is running a generic and uninspiring GOP 101 campaign. Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: Crime is out of control and—even worse—gas prices are too high!

This district deserves better but even so, vote for the Democrat, Juan Carrillo, and let’s collectively build the power in the district to move him left over time or elect someone better to eventually succeed him.

Assembly District 40: Pilar Schiavo

Pilar Schiavo, a Democrat and the incumbent in this race, has represented AD40 since 2022. This district covers Santa Clarita, where many of Los Angeles’s police officers live, and parts of the San Fernando Valley. It leans Democrat at the federal level, going for Biden in 2020, but has chosen both Republicans and Democrats in its local races. According to CalMatters, about 42% of the district is registered Democrat, 30% of the district is registered Republican, and 22% is registered No Party Preference.

Schiavo, who worked in unions for years before being elected to the State Assembly, unsurprisingly has the backing of numerous union organizations, including the California Federation of Teachers and the California Federation of Laborers. She has an A+ rating on NARAL Pro-Choice California’s Reproductive Freedom Legislative Scorecard, a perfect score from Planned Parenthood, and a B+ rating from California Environmental Voters, but a D rating from Initiate Justice Action, which tracks votes on criminal justice reform. The latter explains her endorsement by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, LAPD’s union.

Unusually, the police unions are split in this race, with the LAPD’s union endorsing Schiavo and the LASD’s union endorsing her opponent, Republican retired LA County sheriff’s deputy Patrick Gipson. Gipson is following a classic GOP playbook, fear mongering about “open borders,” championing guns, and saying that homelessness doesn’t have anything to do with, well, homes.

Although we’re disappointed to see her retreat from strong progressive position on criminal justice, voting for Schiavo is the right move in this swing district that could very easily go Republican.

Assembly District 41: John Harabedian 

There was a robust primary for this San Gabriel Assembly seat and to the surprise of many, former Sierra Madre Mayor and City Councilmember John Harabedian emerged as the only Democrat to make the top-two general election slate, decisively beating out Democrats Phlunté Riddle of Pasadena and Claremont Councilmember and housing advocate Jed Leano. The other candidate in the general election is Republican neophyte Michelle Del Rosario Martinez. Harabedian is the clear choice in this deep blue seat.

He wants to build more housing, especially affordable housing, invest in mental healthcare, do as much as possible to fight climate change

We’re heartened to see that Harabedian has the backing of progressive state groups like California Environmental Voters, Smart Justice California, and a variety of teachers, nurses, and other unions. Vote Harabedian.

Assembly District 42: Jacqui Irwin

This is a race between a Democrat who is often disappointing and a Republican who is downright reprehensible. 

A former mayor of Thousand Oaks, Jacqui Irwin was first elected in 2014 to represent a district that includes portions of both Ventura and Los Angeles Counties; including all of Agoura Hills, Bel Air, Beverly Glen, Brentwood, Casa Conejo, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Lake Sherwood, Malibu, Moorpark, Oak Park, Pacific Palisades, Santa Susana, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Topanga, Westlake Village, and portions of Camarillo. She has focused on delivering funds to her district and preserving open space, which is admirable, but she isn’t winning any love from progressives for a relatively moderate voting record. She’s gotten uneven grades from Sacramento advocacy groups – a 100% from Planned Parenthood and an 89% from Cal Enviro Voters, but a 70% from the Sierra Club and 65% from the ACLU – and received a damning F grade on California Courage’s “Courage Scorecard,” which measures where an official stood on tough votes that are crucial to 100 progressive advocacy groups.  

Her opponent, Ted Nordblum, is someone voters should never let near public office. As a candidate he has accused Irwin of supporting “pedophile illegal immigrants,” repeated tired tropes about crime and Prop 47, claimed Kamala Harris opposes free speech, and more. He proudly touts the endorsement of former L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and reposts content from MAGA provocateur and conspiracy theorist Charlie Kirk.

Irwin could be a lot better, but Nordblum could hardly be worse. It’s not a competitive race, but if you fill in this one, choose Irwin.

Assembly District 43: Celeste Rodriguez

Two City of San Fernando elected officials with very different politics are facing off in a district that stretches from North Hollywood to Sylmar. AD43 is an open seat currently represented by Luz Rivas, who is almost certainly headed to Congress. San Fernando Mayor Celeste Rodriguez is a Democrat who worked in LA City’s homelessness services team and universal basic income programs before running for office. While on San Fernando’s Council she worked to hire mental health clinicians as part of the city’s emergency responder teams. She has the backing of California Environmental Voters, National Union of Health Care Workers (NUHW), SEIU California, and Stonewall Democratic Club. San Fernando Councilmember Victoria Garcia is a Republican who has made “parental rights” one of her top issues. Enough said. This is an easy choice.

Assembly District 44:  Nick Schultz 

Yet another race where it would be easy to pick the Democrat over the Republican in this reliably blue seat long represented by soon-to-be-congresswoman Laura Friedman. But Burbank Mayor Nick Schultz is a California Working Families Party-endorsed candidate who will likely advance Friedman’s progressive agenda on labor, transportation, climate, and housing and then go even further. While on Burbank’s council, Schultz has amassed an impressive track record on emissions reductions, tenant protections, mental health responders, and even succeeded in shifting $2 million from the police budget to the parks department. We’re excited to recommend you vote for Nick.

Assembly District 46: Jesse Gabriel 

This is another D vs. R race in a deep blue district, in this case featuring incumbent Jesse Gabriel, who’s operating in a similar district as Henry Stern. Jesse is far from a movement progressive but he’s been a decent vote generally speaking, picking up a “B” rating from Courage California on key votes across a range of issues in 2022 and 2023. He’s not part of the solid progressive block, but he’s also far from the corporate Dem “Mod Caucus” which too often torpedoes important legislation. Gabriel is also a vast improvement over the previous Assemblymember in this seat, Matt Dababneh. As Initiate Justice Action’s voter guide notes: “Assemblymember Gabriel is generally supportive of justice reform efforts, but has missed a few key votes…. Despite his mixed record, Gabriel has shown a willingness to work with criminal justice organizations and has generally supported reform efforts, and thus IJ Action recommends that AD 46 voters re-elect him.”

Assembly District 48: No Recommendation

Blanca Rubio is the ringleader of the corporate Democrat “Mod Squad” in the California legislature along with her sister, State Senator Susan Rubio, who mounted a failed bid for Congress in the March primary. The SGV-based Rubio sisters are a major obstacle to progressive policymaking on just about every important issue: climate, housing, policing, and criminal justice. They’ve both got to go.

Blanca Rubio has earned a F from Courage California every year since 2019. (Her sister Susan Rubio has gotten mostly F’s and C’s since then too.)

Courage writes “It's no wonder Assm. Rubio avoided twice as many votes as she took on the bills evaluated for this scorecard – her campaigns have been powered by millions of dollars from real estate, big business, health insurance, and construction. Those donors are getting the return on investment they hoped for.  Over the years, Assm. Rubio has taken nearly 10% of her overall campaign donations from the energy, oil, and gas industries. In return, she’s avoided taking a position on a variety of environmental justice bills this session, including AB1167 to require oil well owners to establish funds to plug, decommission, and restore their oil well sites, AB460 to strengthen the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board, and AB985 to update the Emission Reduction Credit System administered by San Joaquin Valley. 

Rubio had an impressive challenger from the left in the primary who unfortunately didn’t crack the top two: West Covina Mayor Brian Calderón Tabatabai. Now Rubio is facing off against a Republican in a race she’ll easily win. Leave his one blank and hope that Tabatabai mounts another challenge in 2026. And join our efforts to build progressive power in the San Gabriel Valley so we can send the Rubio sisters packing for good.

Assembly District 49: Mike Fong

Mike Fong was Mr. Everywhere before he successfully ran for election to this Assembly seat in the western SGV. If there was a political or community function within 10 miles, he was sure to be there. And his diligence and relationship building paid off. He served as a LA City government and was an elected member of the LA Community College District Board of Trustees before moving to the SGV and winning the 2022 special election to replace Ed Chau, who resigned after being nominated to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Although he’s solidly part of the local Democratic establishment, he’s quietly racked up a solid progressive voting record, earning an A+ from Courage California. His opponent is a MAGA type. Vote for Mike and keep Mr. Everywhere in Sacramento.

Assembly District 51: Rick Zbur 

Rick Zbur was the long-time Executive Director of Equality California when he ran for this seat that stretches diagonally from Santa Monica through East Hollywood in 2022. We had high hopes for Zbur despite our fondness for his Democratic opponent in that race, Louis Abramson (a physicist and SELAH homelessness outreach leader). Despite a generally positive voting record, however, we’ve been deeply disappointed in Zbur’s political maneuvering the last two years. A rumored candidate for State Attorney General in 2026, Zbur is cozying up to law enforcement unions. He’s received contributions from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA PAC), Peace Officers Research Association for California (PORAC PAC), and LA County Probation Officers Union – AFSCME, Local No. 685 PAC. To quote the Initiate Justice Action voter guide, “As a member of the Public Safety Committee, Assemblymember Zbur has voiced concerns with numerous criminalization bills, but still voted to support the overwhelming majority of them.”

Another consequence of Zbur’s tack to the center was his vocal and aggressive support for the conservative Democratic challenge to LA Councilmember Nithya Raman from Ethan Weaver in the March 2024 primary, backed by millions in spending from the police union and corporate landlords. Zbur’s a lock for this race – the only challenger is an inexperienced Republican, Stephan Hohil – but with this seat quite possibly wide open in 2026, it’s not too early to start thinking about who can give this historically progressive district the representation it deserves.

Assembly District 52: Franky Carrillo/Jessica Caloza

The race to represent this Eastside district in the State Assembly has been described as a battle of the biographies.  The two candidates, both Democrats, have the kind of compelling life stories that campaign consultants salivate over. Jessica Caloza is the tale of the American Dream: an immigrant who rose from hard-scrabble life to an influential job in Washington, D.C. Carillo’s story is more a tale of surviving an American Nightmare. He was a working class Lynwood kid wrongfully convicted of murder and eventually exonerated before turning to public service.

Jessica Caloza immigrated with her family from the Philippines to Eagle Rock when she was a young child. With her family working multiple jobs to pay for her education, she attended UC San Diego, becoming the first person in her family to graduate from college. She served in the Obama administration’s Department of Education, then as a staffer to former L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti and a member of the Los Angeles Board of Public Works. She is currently on leave from her post as California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s deputy chief of staff.  In that post she has focused on gun violence, sexual assault, and environmental protection. If elected, she says she will focus on public education, reproductive freedom, and environmental justice, and seek a seat on the Budget Committee.

Franky Carrillo was 17 years old when he was wrongfully convicted of murder, with no physical evidence and based on coerced testimony. He was sentenced to life in state prison and served 20 years before he was exonerated with the help of the Innocence Project. Upon his release, he earned a degree from Loyola Marymount University. He serves as policy advisor to the Los Angeles Innocence Project at Cal State L.A. He was also appointed to head the county’s Probation Oversight Commission. As a result of his wrongful conviction, he sued the county and won a $10 million settlement. He is strongly backed by organizers for reform of the criminal legal system. If elected, he’s said his priorities will be justice system reform and gun control, education, and workforce development. He would seek a spot on the Public Safety Committee.

Caloza and Carrillo are vying to represent a district that stretches from Glendale and Eagle Rock to Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Echo Park, East Los Angeles and City Terrace. The seat is currently held by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (no relation to Franky Carrillo), who ran unsuccessfully for LA City Council this year instead of running for re-election.

Caloza has a massive list of endorsements, including public educators, environmental organizations, women’s organizations, unions, the LA Times, the California Democratic Party, California Environmental Voters, the LA County Federation of Labor, nearly three dozen members of the California Legislature, and dozens of other elected officials. Big progressive names include LA Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Nithya Raman, and Assemblymembers Isaac Bryan and Ash Kalra.

Carrillo has the endorsements of outgoing Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, LA City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, LA Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez. LA County District Attorney George Gascon, former LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, New York City Councilmember (and a member of the Exonerated 5) Yusef Salaam, the California Latino Legislative Caucus, LA Defensa, Initiate Justice Action, and the LA Progressive online publication.

This race has been difficult for some progressives. Many feel an affinity for Carrillo’s work and worry that Sacramento will need an eloquent champion for justice reform, especially if Proposition 36 passes. Others are impressed with the broad, multi-issue progressive coalition Caloza has built and her record of fighting for language justice on the Public Works Board. In candidate forums and in interviews for organizational endorsements, Caloza has been the most impressive, expressing more thoughtful and informed responses on the wide range of issues a member of the Assembly needs to vote on. Critics of Caloza have noted the contributions that Chevron and Pacific Gas & Electric have made to support her through independent expenditure committees and the substantial support she’s received from the real estate industry. Critics of Carrillo have noted his past ownership of stocks in fossil fuel companies and highlighted issues emerging from contentious divorce proceedings

This is a tough one. While Carrillo would be a welcome voice in Sacramento, Caloza seems better prepared to do the job on day one. If criminal justice reform is your priority and you prefer an outsider who’s not part of Sacramento political networks and not behold to moneyed interests, Carrillo is your man. If you want someone who’s best positioned to hit the ground running and make meaningful contributions on housing, immigrant rights, and workers rights along with increasing women’s and API representation in the legislature, Caloza is the better choice.

Assembly District 53: No Recommendation

The only Democrat in this general election race is Michelle Rodriguez, who has never run for public office before, is the wife of termed-out Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez, the classic moderate Democrat who siphoned up corporate cash while blocking progressive legislation. He’s earned an F from Courage California every year since 2017.

Michelle is running on a “tough-on-crime” platform and has endorsements from LA Angeles Police Protective LeagueCalifornia Police Chiefs Association,California Correctional Peace Officers Association, and many more. Unfortunately, for this blue district her progressive opponents split the vote amongst themselves, and Michelle Rodriguez’s general election opponent is a conservative Republican. Rodriguez will win but she hasn’t earned your vote.

Assembly District 54: John Yi 

Assembly District 54 stretches from Koreatown to Montebello through communities bristling with inequality. Some of the poorest residents in Los Angeles County live here in neighborhoods suffering from chronic disinvestment — overcrowded apartments, broken sidewalks, unshaded bus stops, and a severe lack of public space. Yet much of LA’s new development is clustered in these very same blocks, with brand-new condo towers, bustling coffee shops, sparkling rooftop pools, and newly planted trees.

These issues facing AD54 have been thoughtfully interrogated by candidate John Yi, who’s been out there literally pounding the pavement, outlining his plans to fund new parks, better transit, and more affordable housing through his Instagram reels, walking tours, and meetups. A former executive director of the pedestrian advocacy nonprofit Los Angeles Walks, Yi is a coalition builder with deeply progressive values who has accepted no fossil fuel money, no police money, and no developer money. His message seems to be working: as a newcomer to politics, Yi captured 35% of the primary vote, and racked up some key endorsements, including that of the California Working Families Party. It’s a formidable accomplishment seeing as his opponent, Mark Gonzalez, has most of the state’s establishment Dems wrapped around his finger.  

Gonzalez served as the chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party before stepping down this year. He also works as district director for the current AD54 representative, Miguel Santiago, who isn’t running for re-election because he thought he’d breeze into City Hall by beating former ally, Kevin de Leon — and didn’t even make the runoff. While some endorsements are trying to claim those roles provided valuable legislative experience, Gonzalez’s track record consists of top-down “leadership” that mostly involved elevating his favorites and punishing dissenters. This includes some truly astonishing moments during the 2024 primary season when the LACDP’s endorsement committee recommended endorsing former Republicans over progressive Democrats; even recommending “no recommendation” in a race between a current Republican and a progressive Democrat. (The members overwhelmingly voted to endorse the progressive candidates in the end.) This kind of out-of-touch leadership, along with the LACDP’s ongoing inability to take a stand against Oily Dems propped up by the fossil fuel industry, is simply disqualifying.

We like Yi’s vision and hustle. Send him to Sacramento.

Assembly District 55: Isaac Bryan

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, first elected in 2022, is one of the best lawmakers in Sacramento. We strongly and enthusiastically recommend him for reelection.

Bryan is one of the most unapologetically progressive elected officials in the State Legislature, and has been a consistently strong and influential voice on economic, social and racial justice. He consistently scores 100% grades from the California Environmental Justice Alliance, the California Labor Federation, Health Access CA, Planned Parenthood, Equality California, the ACLU and others. Last year, Courage California named him a Legislative All-Star for his work. He is a member of the Legislative Progressive Caucus, served as Assembly Majority Leader, and is incoming vice chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Bryan has made impressive strides in 3 years in Sacramento. His legislative accomplishments have included phasing out the Inglewood Oil Field and other oil drilling near homes and communities, strengthening online campaign finance disclosure requirements, and creating a Climate Change Education Center in the California Community College system at West LA College. He wrote a bill requiring cities and counties to better prepare for extreme heat emergencies. Despite legislative resistance, he continues to push for criminal justice reforms, including a bill to prevent law enforcement from executing searches without a warrant even if they have the consent of the property owner, and a bill to limit the use of solitary confinement for certain populations, including youth, elderly, disabled, and pregnant individuals. 

Bryan has made his real mark on one of his priority issues: foster care reform. In 2022, Governor Newsom signed a Bryan bill that inspired a national movement to stop the practice of charging parents for their children’s foster care. The move relieved low-income families in California of $400 million in such debt. Newsom recently signed Bryan’s bill preventing counties from stealing social security survivor benefits owed to foster youth. Counties had been pocketing the money to pay for their care. Now, agencies will have to hold the money in an account for the youth until they turn 18. Bryan authored the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act, requiring that parenting courses provided as part of “family preservation services” prove that those services are actually working. Those are just a handful of the smart foster care reforms he won.

Bryan’s background is as an organizer and an activist. Prior to his election to the Assembly, Bryan co-chaired (along with now Eunisses Hernandez) the campaign for Measure J, a voter-approved initiative that sought to amend L.A. County’s charter to permanently allocate at least 10% of existing locally-controlled revenues to youth development, job training, small business development, supportive housing and alternatives to incarceration. He was director of public policy at the UCLA Ralph J. Bunche Center, the founding director of the UCLA Black Policy Project, served as an advisor to Supervisor Holly Mitchell, then Senator Sydney Kamlager-Dove, and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.

Part of Bryan’s appeal is that his legislative agenda comes from his lived experience.  He is one of nine adopted children in a blended family that fostered hundreds of children over two decades. He speaks movingly of how his family experienced the harm caused by broken child welfare policy, underinvested schools, environmental hazards, and economic inequity. He has siblings who are experiencing homelessness, housing insecurity, and incarceration. As one of just five renters in the 120 member California Legislature, he co-founded the Renter’s Caucus. 

The 55th district includes Baldwin Hills, Cheviot Hills, Crenshaw, Century City, Culver City, Ladera Heights, Mar Vista, Palms, Rancho Park, Westwood and parts of South Central and Inglewood. His opponent is Keith Cascio, a software developer who lives in Mar Vista. A self-described pro-choice moderate Republican, he is Treasurer of the LA County GOP.

Assembly District 56: No Recommendation

Lisa Calderon is a Democrat who consistently blocks progressive policies related to criminal justice reform and has deep, problematic ties to the fossil fuel industry. This election cycle is no different as she continues to rake in donations from police, real estate, and oil and gas companies. She’s gotten a C or D rating from Courage California every year since she’s been in office.

On the other hand, Republican Jessica Martinez says the #1 issue facing the district is that “free exercise of religion is under attack” while she spews bigoted, anti-vaccine rhetoric. Calderon is sure to win in this deep blue district which spans from Pico Rivera to Diamond Bar so it doesn’t matter much if you leave it blank. Don’t vote for Martinez.

District 57: Sade Elhawary 

The race to represent the 57th District is a contest about the divides and the tension in the Democratic Party in Los Angeles and California. 

One one side is Sade Elhawary, a youthful progressive community organizer, a product and face of multiracial coalition politics, a voice for community-led alternatives to policing that speaks of reducing police brutality and mass incarceration. On the other side is the more moderate-conservative Efren Martinez, a Marine veteran and former chamber of commerce official, an advocate for Latino empowerment, and a champion of law enforcement and a tougher approach to crime.

Both are running to succeed Reggie Jones-Sawyer and represent a district that includes historic South Los Angeles, downtown Los Angeles, Florence-Firestone and parts of Huntington Park. The district includes world famous assets, such as USC and the Crypto arena, but also includes Skid Row and neighborhoods of extreme poverty. Once a center of Black political power, the district is now 70% Latino.

Elhewary is an educator, community organizer, and foster mother. She helped create the curriculum at the Nelson Mandela School for Social Justice in Brooklyn, N.Y., and has worked for the Community Coalition, a South Los Angeles with a mission to unite South Los Angeles to fight for “social change to dismantle systemic racism and economic inequity.” A Los Angeles native who graduated from UCLA, she has worked as a history teacher and college counselor, and focused her community organizing on training and mentoring young activists. Elhawary worked in 2022 on the mayoral campaign of Karen Bass, who founded the Community Coalition. Elhawary has been endorsed by the Los Angeles Times, Mayor Karen Bass, County Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Hilda Solis, Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, California Legislative Progressive Caucus, ACCE Action, CA Environmental Justice Alliance Action, California Environmental Voters, Equality California, La Defensa, Moms Demand Action, Planned Parenthood, the Stonewall Democratic Club, the Sierra Club and the Working Families Party.

Martinez, the son of a Mexican immigrant farmworker mother, is a parent and small business owner and has served as the executive director of the Florence-Firestone/Walnut Park Chamber of Commerce. He was raised in poverty in South Los Angeles, and worked as an auto parts delivery driver before enlisting and serving for 10 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is active with community and civic associations and has organized giveaways of grocery, Christmas toys, and school supplies.  He has run unsuccessfully for the Huntington Park City Council three times, and challenged Jones-Sawyer in 2020, making an impressive and serious showing.  Martinez has the backing of Congressmembers Adam Schiff and Robert Garcia, County Supervisor Janice Hahn, Assemblymember Mike Gibson, LAUSD Board Member Kelly Gonez, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, LAPPL – Los Angeles Police Protective League Association, Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Laborers Local 300 - LiUNA, LA Opinion newspaper, Avance Democratic Club, South Central Los Angeles Democratic Party Club and others.

Both candidates are Democrats who support Kamala Harris and promise to focus on affordable housing, job creation, education, and universal healthcare. They both have support from unions and Democratic officials. They both speak of their immigrant roots, the struggles they have endured, and their ties to the district. Nonetheless, they represent different strains of Democratic politics. While both speak of the need for more affordable housing, Efren calls for tax incentives for developers while Elhawary speaks of housing as a human right, and calls for developing non-market housing and preventing gentrification.  On the environment, Elhewary speaks of environmental justice and ending neighborhood oil drilling. Martinez accepts money from fossil fuel companies and downplays the impacts of oil drilling.

A key difference between the two candidates is their approach to public safety. Both candidates support investing in youth programs to prevent crime and promoting restorative justice programs, but Elhawary also focuses on reimagining how we provide public safety, listing specific alternative programs, and calling for putting “an end to over-policing as our public safety response.”  Elhewary opposes the punitive and regressive Proposition 36; Martinez supports it. Martinez has received the support of the Los Angeles Police Protective League and the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.

They also represent perspectives and approaches to racial politics. Elhawary, Elhawary, who is of Black, Egyptian and Guatemalan descent, is very much a product of the Community Coalition, which has worked for decades to build a multiracial coalition in South Los Angeles. Martinez has sometimes fanned the flame racial divisions, blaming his 2020 loss on the California Black Legislative Caucus, and attacking Elhawary as “shady” for using her middle name instead of her Arabic first name, Zeinab. Politico called the attack xenophobic, and “reminiscent of those who like to say Barack Hussein Obama to emphasize the former president’s full name to suggest his otherness.”

The choice in this race is clear. While both candidates have shown love of and dedication to their communities, Elhawary is clearly part of an ascendant progressive movement in Los Angeles politics that LA Forward supports. She will be a strong force for progress in Sacramento.

Assembly District 61: Tina McKinnor

While incumbent Democrat Tina McKinnor spent the first part of her political career working for more establishment Democrats, the several years she spent working as Civic Engagement Director of LA Voice (a multi-racial, cross-class community organizing network of churches, synagogues and mosques) clearly put her on a good path as a legislator. Since she won a special election to take over this seat, which stretches from Venice through Inglewood to Hawthorne, she’s generally been great, rallying support for progressive candidates and causes as a leader in the Legislative Progressive Caucus, and earning an A+ from Courage California. McKinnor is a major upgrade from Autumn Burke who left mid-session in 2022 to get a high-paid lobbying gig. 

Assembly District 62: José Luis Solache

The 62nd Assembly District stretches from Huntington Park through South Gate, Lynwood, Paramount, Bellflower, and all the way to Lakewood. Long-time Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon is termed out of this seat after 12 years in office and the next Assemblymember will almost surely be Democrat José Luis Solache, who’s been an elected official in Lywood for many years. In this deep blue seat, he’s facing a Republican, Paul Irving Jones. Solache has the backed of numerous labor unions and we’re hoping he won’t turn out to be part of the corporate Dem caucus. He lacks endorsements from environmental groups, which is concerning. If you vote this race, vote for Solache but be sure to keep your eye on what he’s doing in Sacramento.

Assembly District 64: No Recommendation

Democratic Assemblymber Blanca Pacheco won election to this seat in 2022, prevailing over Working Families Party-endorsed Democrat Liz Alcantar and many other Democratic candidates in this deep blue district centered on Downey, Norwalk, and Cudahy. Since then, she’s voted far worse than we were hoping, earning an F in 2023 from Courage California. She’s up against a Republican, Raul Ortiz Jr, who you definitely shouldn’t vote for, but we can’t tell you to vote for her in good faith. Just check out a few of the lowlights from Courage California:

“Shameful Vote: Pacheco authored AB1707 to keep California healthcare providers and medical facilities out of reach of another state’s hostile licensing laws related to their provision of abortion and gender-affirming. However, when it was time to vote on AB793, which established digital data protections for the out-of-state patients seeking that care, Pacheco failed to record a vote. With big dollar donations from California Medical Association PAC and California Hospital Association PAC, it seems she’s more interested in protecting the healthcare industry and its bloated bottom line than the disenfranchised patients who need treatment.”

“What were they thinking?: Pacheco received the endorsement of more than 14 major labor unions during her 2022 campaign for Assembly, from industries that included carpentry, steamfitting, healthcare, farm work, and law enforcement. However, during her first session in the Assembly, she avoided votes on SB497 to protect workers from retaliation after they report labor violations and unequal pay, and SB553 to require employers to create workplace safety plans and keep documentation about threats or incidents. Unfortunately, workers are still waiting for a return on investment for their generous campaign support”

Assembly District 65: No Recommendation

In 2020 and 2022, District 65 incumbent Mike Gipson faced off against a legitimate progressive challenger—Fatima Iqbal Zubair—who earned almost 40% of the total votes. This time around, the race looks very different. Gipson’s challenger to represent Willowbrook, Compton, and the harbor neighborhoods of San Pedro and Wilmington is Lydia Gutierrez, whose 152 write-in votes in the March primary were enough to land her on the ballot. 

Gutierrez, a teacher and frequent candidate for a wide range of offices, has done little if any campaigning so far. For that reason, it’s hard to say exactly how she might vote on key issues affecting the state. However, during her bid for a seat on the LAUSD School Board in 2022, she campaigned on promises to bring police back to local schools and to oppose teachers who “indoctrinate” students with LGBT ideology.

Gipson, a former police officer with a history of accepting big checks from oil companies, is far from a champion of progressive causes. He frequently receives C’s and D’s from Courage California. Unfortunately, Gutierrez is not the challenger that his district deserves. Vote Gipson or leave this one blank.

Assembly District 66: No Recommendation

In District 66, which covers Torrance, Lomita, and the Beach Cities, voters will decide on a rematch from the 2022 election. Democrat Al Murastsuchi, the incumbent, faces Republican George Barks, who nearly 40 years ago was mayor of Hermosa Beach.

Murastsuchi has a fairly moderate record in the State Assembly. He has a 100% grade from the Sierra Club, but a 64% from the ACLU. Immigrant advocates will remember that his no vote on the VISION Act in 2022 helped to kill the bill, which would have ended California’s policy of handing undocumented prisoners eligible for release directly to immigration authorities for deportation. He’s earned F’s most years from Courage Caifornia but in 2023, notched a B. Meanwhile, Barks is a true conservative. His major proposals include a pause on new taxes and increasing police funding.

Murastsuchi received a little over 61% of the vote in 2022, and primary results from March indicate the result is likely to be similar this time around. It’s probably safe to leave this one blank if you’re withholding your vote for a true progressive, but Muratsuchi is the clear choice otherwise. He’s termed out in 2028 and we need to figure out how to elect a strong progressive — when that time comes in a few short years.

Assembly District 67: Sharon Quirk-Silva

Sharon Quirk-Silva is the Democratic incumbent representing a small sliver of Southeast LA County, including parts of Artesia, Cerritos, and Hawaiian Gardens, along with a bigger chunk of northern Orange County near Buena Park, Anaheim, and Fullerton. She earned an “F” from Courage California for her vote record every year except 2023, when she notched a “D.” 

Her opponent is Republican Elizabeth Culver who’s a leader with “Conservative Patriots of Orange County.” Yikes. Vote for Quirk-Silva if you live in this swing district to keep MAGA out of the Legislature.

Fortunately for us, Quirk-Silva terms out in 2026 and we’ll have the opportunity to support a more progressive Democratic, if someone good throws their hat in the ring.

Assembly District 69: Josh Lowenthal

It’s a battle of the Joshuas in District 69, which encompasses most of Long Beach and Carson. Lowenthal, whose parents are former assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal and former congressman Alan Lowenthal, won the seat in 2022. His challenger, Rodriguez, is a former U.S. Marine who ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Long Beach two years ago.

Lowenthal has a solidly progressive track record in the two years he’s served in the State Legislature. In 2023, he earned a perfect 100% rating from the ACLU, a 90% grade from the Sierra Club, and A from Courage California. Concerningly, Lowenthal has received significant campaign funding this year from corporate interests and law enforcement PACs. In February, he introduced AB 2153, a proposed change to the California Public Records Act that free press and civil liberties advocates argue would limit oversight of public agencies. Lowenthal withheld the bill from its first committee hearing, and its future is now unclear.

Rodriguez is as far-right a candidate as you’re likely to see on a Los Angeles County ballot this year. In a candidate survey, he said a key message of his campaign is that “California needs more God and less government.” The first bill he’d introduce? A parental freedom proposal requiring schools to get parent approval for “any topic/program aside from core classes.”

Vote Lowenthal, but also consider contacting his office to oppose AB 2153.

Return to the Top

Paid for by LA Forward. Not authorized by or coordinated with any candidate or a committee controlled by any candidate.