Lia Burton (LA Voter Guide) 2026 voter guide

"Fiona Ma es nuestra actual tesorera estatal. De la misma manera que Xavier Becerra es claramente la opción correcta frente a Steve Hilton, Fiona Ma también es claramente la opción correcta frente a la republicana Gloria Romero, que odia a las personas trans. ¿Estamos emocionados por Fiona Ma? No. Voté por Oliver Ma en la primaria y ganó la "Ma" equivocada :( Pero aquí hay algunas cosas buenas sobre ella para que recordemos que es una persona destacada y que elegirla no es lo peor: Fiona Ma creció con sus dos hermanos menores y fue criada por sus padres inmigrantes chinos en la ciudad de Nueva York. Obtuvo su maestría en San Francisco y entró por primera vez a la política en la Junta de Supervisores de San Francisco. Fue elegida para la Asamblea Estatal y se convirtió en la primera mujer asiático-estadounidense en ser presidenta provisional. Más tarde fue elegida para la Junta de Ecualización, donde fue seleccionada como presidenta y ocupó el cargo durante dos años. En 2018, fue elegida tesorera, convirtiéndose en la primera mujer de color en ese cargo. Refinanció la deuda de bonos de California, reduciendo los intereses que debía el estado. Uno de sus mayores objetivos como tesorera ha sido incorporar "bonos verdes" para alejarse de la dependencia de los combustibles fósiles. También inició programas para ayudar a las pequeñas empresas y construir viviendas asequibles. El trabajo principal del vicegobernador es asumir el cargo si algo le sucede al gobernador. Al igual que Becerra, Fiona Ma es una demócrata bastante convencional del aparato político. No es muy emocionante, pero es infinitamente mejor que la alternativa."

Cohen is running for her second term as state controller. I voted for her in 2022 and I think she's done a good job. Like me, she's also the oldest child in a family of all girls and my name is the last half of hers. Neither are valid reasons to vote for anyone but they're extra icing on the cake just for me lol. Cohen's opponent is Herb W. Morgan, a Republican who wants to use the office to investigate "fraud" which sounds like code for doing this administration's dirty work. The choice is easy!

Eleni Kounalakis es nuestra actual vicegobernadora y ha estado en la política de California durante años. Inicialmente anunció su campaña para postularse a gobernadora, pero luego se retiró de la concurrida contienda primaria y decidió postularse a tesorera estatal. Políticamente, está alineada con gran parte del liderazgo del Partido Demócrata, como la mayoría del resto de los candidatos a nivel estatal. No es una heroína progresista, pero cuenta con el respaldo de varios sindicatos, entre ellos la CA Labor Federation y los Teamsters.

Rob Bonta ha sido nuestro fiscal general desde 2021, cuando el gobernador Newsom lo nombró para reemplazar a Xavier Becerra cuando este se convirtió en secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos bajo el presidente Biden. Bonta ganó fácilmente su elección al cargo en 2022 y ahora busca un segundo mandato, que creo que definitivamente debería obtener. Bonta nació en Filipinas y llegó a California siendo bebé, cuando su familia huyó del régimen de ley marcial de Ferdinand Marcos. Se convirtió en abogado y luego sirvió varios años en la Asamblea Estatal de California antes de ser nombrado fiscal general. Ha presentado más de cincuenta demandas contra la administración Cheeto y también ha presentado demandas contra grandes corporaciones como Amazon y Google. Es sorprendentemente progresista para ser fiscal general, ¡y tenemos suerte de que luche por nosotros!

¡¡¡AMAMOS A Jane Kim!!! La persona titular del cargo de Comisionado de Seguros de California regula la industria de los seguros y otorga licencias a las compañías aseguradoras. El Departamento de Seguros se ocupa principalmente de los seguros de propiedad y de automóvil, así como de los seguros de vida y de compensación laboral (los seguros de salud son regulados mayormente por otro departamento). Esta contienda está recibiendo más atención de lo habitual debido a los incendios de Los Ángeles del año pasado, que destruyeron muchas viviendas y han llevado a muchas compañías de seguros para propietarios de vivienda a negar cobertura o a abandonar el estado por completo. Kim tiene una plataforma extraordinaria que incluye su propuesta de una póliza de seguro contra desastres sin fines de lucro y de pagador único para todas las personas en California. Todas las personas aportarían al sistema (tal como ya le pagan a sus compañías de seguros) y contarían automáticamente con cobertura para desastres naturales. Actualmente, las compañías de seguros con fines de lucro ofrecen pólizas basadas en el riesgo calculado. Cuando una compañía calcula que un riesgo es demasiado alto (asegurar una casa en una zona propensa a incendios forestales, por ejemplo), puede aumentar las primas a niveles exorbitantes o decidir negar la cobertura por completo, dejando a los propietarios de vivienda sin nada tras un desastre. Un sistema sin fines de lucro administrado por el estado no solo mantendría a todas las personas con cobertura, sino que también incentivaría al estado a trabajar para prevenir los daños causados por desastres naturales desde el principio. Esta "cobertura contra desastres para todos" será crucial a medida que seguimos viendo los efectos cada vez más devastadores del cambio climático, y Kim es la única candidata en esta contienda con una visión para lograrlo. También quiere crear una opción pública para los seguros de automóvil y poner fin a la discriminación de precios. Hará que los infractores rindan cuentas y se asegurará de que todas las personas en California puedan pagar sus seguros y que se paguen sus reclamaciones. Cuenta con el respaldo de Bernie Sanders, el Partido de las Familias Trabajadoras y la AFL-CIO de California. La industria aseguradora le tiene terror, ¡lo cual es exactamente la razón por la que todas las personas deberíamos votar por ella!

I'm so excited to tell you about our friend Sam Sukaton! Sam has a magical combination of both passion for social change, and passion for getting into the weeds of tax policy. You couldn't design a more perfect candidate for this position! The California Board of Equalization oversees the state's property tax system, alcoholic beverage taxes, and taxes on insurers. It is the only publicly elected state tax commission in the US, so as California voters, we have the unique privilege of having a say in who sits on our tax commission. Sam Sukaton is a labor organizer and also has experience working on other state commissions including the California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, and Air Resources Board. His campaign emphasizes fairness for all taxpayers and increased oversight of the BOE. He desperately wants to close loopholes in Prop 13, which has haunted California since 1978 and allows giant corporations to pay shockingly low property taxes on their land. Sukaton is a true progressive with a genuine passion for the nerdy work and wants to use his power to improve the system for all of us! His opponent is Mike Gipson, a well-funded former assemblyman with a passion for fossil fuels. Sukaton is endorsed by the Working Families Party and La Defensa, and is recommended by DSA, Knock LA, and Courage California. Vote for Sam!

We love Sarah Rascón!!! She supports everything that we love and rejects corporate money! She wants healthcare for all, affordable housing, a clean environment, living wages, protection for immigrants, and a free Palestine! She is a first-generation Mexican American raised in El Sereno. She has been active in local government for years, fighting for our community's most vulnerable. She has specific plans to put her values into action. She supports CalCares, the single-payer healthcare system (Medicare for All!) policy for the state of California. She supports taxing extreme wealth to fund social services and wants to hold wealthy corporations accountable. She also wants to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which prevents California cities from applying rent control to single family homes or "new" apartments (in Los Angeles, "new" is defined as anything constructed after October 1978, now 48 years ago). Costa-Hawkins also prevents cities from enacting any laws that would restrain how much a landlord can raise the rent of a unit after someone moves out. This law is the reason your rent keeps going up every year, and why after your neighbor moved out of their apartment, it was immediately listed for double the rent. Sarah Rascón cares about renters and understands that protecting us is a key component of solving the ongoing housing crisis. Her opponent, who is unfortunately/confusingly named Sara, talks like a progressive but is supported by all kinds of anti-progressive super PACs including "Grow California" (funded by crypto billionaires Chris Larsen and Tim Draper), "California Leads" (funded by Google and Meta), and "Housing Providers for Responsible Solutions" (an anti-renter PAC funded by the California Association of Realtors, the California Apartment Association, and the California Building Industry Association).

Jessica Caloza busca ser reelegida para este cargo frente a una contrincante republicana que adora a ICE y odia a las personas sin hogar y trans, así que elegir a Caloza es una decisión obvia. Además, ¡Jessica tiene una historia de vida impresionante! Su familia emigró de Filipinas cuando ella era niña. Es la primera de su familia en graduarse de la universidad y tiene un título de UC San Diego. Trabajó en el Departamento de Educación durante la presidencia de Obama y después trabajó para el alcalde de Los Ángeles Garcetti, así como para el fiscal general Rob Bonta. ¡Tiene esta elección asegurada!

The state superintendent oversees the CA Department of Education, but the role is still considered rather limited because most education decisions are made by individual local school districts. Still, it's an important job that affects the education of 6 million public school children. Barrera is currently the president of the San Diego Unified School District. He supports raising teacher salaries, investing in students' mental health, and protecting immigrant and LGBTQIA students. He is supported by the California Teachers Union. His opponent, Sonja Shaw, hates trans students more than anything and is supported by Moms for Liberty, among other horrible hateful groups. Keep her far away from California students; vote for Barrera!

"Laura Friedman actualmente ocupa este escaño desde que reemplazó a Adam Schiff cuando él se convirtió en uno de nuestros senadores. Trabajó durante décadas en la industria del entretenimiento, en el área de desarrollo de estudios como Paramount y HBO. Más tarde incursionó en la política local y fue elegida para el Concejo Municipal de Glendale. Tiene una trayectoria impresionante en lo que respecta a temas progresistas. Apoya un sistema estatal de salud de pagador único, ¡que es un sueño tan increíble! También le importan el medio ambiente, el acceso al aborto, la crisis de vivienda, el control de armas y los derechos de los inmigrantes. ¡Es una líder progresista intrépida! Increíble, ¿verdad?!? Pueeees.......... Mientras he visto un genocidio en curso transmitido en vivo desde Gaza durante los últimos años, viendo a niños literalmente despedazados en ataques dirigidos con armas fabricadas en Estados Unidos y disparadas por nuestro "aliado más cercano", me ha conmocionado y horrorizado repetidamente el férreo control que este aliado tiene sobre todos los niveles del gobierno de Estados Unidos, incluida la representante Friedman. El apoyo al genocidio literal en nombre de la "defensa" es un tema poco común que cuenta con apoyo bipartidista tanto de demócratas como de republicanos. En serio, ¿qué demonios? Abraham Marquez escribió el año pasado un artículo increíble para LA Taco titulado "Estos son los políticos de L.A. que se benefician económicamente del genocidio en Gaza" que todas las personas en LA deberían leer. Señala a Laura Friedman junto con varios otros representantes del área de LA, incluida la alcaldesa Karen Bass. Por desgracia, Friedman no es la única y encaja perfectamente con la mayor parte del Partido Demócrata en lo que respecta a la situación de los civiles y niños palestinos. Simplemente les importa más conservar su propio poder que salvar vidas. Necesitamos presionar a todos nuestros representantes para que adopten una postura sobre un tema que, aunque es geopolíticamente complicado y difícil de resolver, es moralmente taaaaan increíblemente claro. Matar a niños está mal. Financiar un genocidio está mal. Ayudar e instigar crímenes de guerra está mal."

¡Nos encanta Nithya Raman! Ha sido una firme defensora progresista en el concejo municipal desde que fue elegida por primera vez para representar al Distrito 4 en 2020. Era una favorita de DSA que hizo campaña con una plataforma sumamente progresista. Su ideología progresista no surgió de la nada. En 2017, cofundó la SELAH Neighborhood Homeless Coalition, una organización increíble en la que me encanta ser voluntario, que atiende a la comunidad sin vivienda del noreste de Los Ángeles. Su auténtica preocupación por las personas más vulnerables de la comunidad fue lo que la llevó originalmente a la política local. Ha logrado mucho durante su tiempo en el concejo municipal, incluido aumentar las protecciones para inquilinos y ayudar a muchas personas sin vivienda a conseguir vivienda. Tengo muchísimo respeto por Karen Bass y voté por ella muchas veces cuando era mi representante en el Congreso y yo vivía en Mid City. Tiene una historia de vida increíble y logró mucho durante su tiempo en el Congreso. Estoy muy agradecido de que sea nuestra alcaldesa actual y no el multimillonario Rick Caruso. Pero aun así, su primer mandato como alcaldesa ha dejado mucho que desear, particularmente por su falta de éxito al resolver la crisis de falta de vivienda y su relación cada vez más amistosa con LAPD, cuyo enorme presupuesto sigue aumentando cada año. Aprecio las cosas buenas que ha hecho por nuestra ciudad, pero creo que, lamentablemente, ha perdido parte de su espíritu progresista en los últimos años. Raman nos beneficiaría más. Me decepcionó especialmente ver a la alcaldesa Bass decir que describir el evidente genocidio en Gaza con la palabra "genocidio" es "inapropiado" en un foro reciente sobre la alcaldía, mientras Nithya señaló que todos los expertos internacionales han determinado de manera concluyente que se trata de un genocidio. Al igual que Ed Sheeran y Kamala Harris, creo que la alcaldesa Bass está a punto de aprender que tratar de apaciguar a benefactores adinerados al minimizar una evidente catástrofe humanitaria no solo es una enorme falla moral, sino también una maniobra de relaciones públicas/política tonta.

¡Nos encanta Estuardo Mazariegos! Es un organizador de inquilinos que espera reemplazar al desacreditado concejal saliente Curren Price, quien actualmente está siendo juzgado por diez cargos de "gran robo mediante malversación, falso testimonio y conflicto de intereses". Uno de los ex subjefes de personal de Curren Price, Jose Ugarte, también se postula para este cargo. Ugarte fue multado el año pasado por la comisión de ética por no revelar $400,000(!) en ingresos de su negocio de consultoría. Sería quedarse corto decir que Mazariegos sería una mejora transformadora para la gente del sureste de LA. El distrito 9 es el distrito más pobre de la ciudad y alberga a algunos de los residentes más vulnerables de la ciudad. El distrito también incluye muchos recintos que se usarán para los Juegos Olímpicos de 2028. Es fundamental que este distrito tenga un representante en el concejo municipal que defienda a sus residentes y se asegure de que no sean olvidados en la planificación de estos eventos masivos. Mazariegos ha pasado décadas organizando y luchando por los inquilinos de bajos ingresos y es el codirector actual de Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. Hará un excelente trabajo al continuar luchando por los residentes de este distrito. Mazariegos cuenta con el respaldo de Working Families Part, DSA, muchos sindicatos y Bernie Sanders.

"¡Nos encanta Marissa Roy! Es una abogada de derechos civiles que se ha ganado reconocimiento luchando por las personas más vulnerables de California, incluidos inmigrantes, inquilinos y trabajadores explotados. Planea seguir haciéndolo desde este cargo al procesar judicialmente a agentes de ICE, defender a los inquilinos y perseguir a empleadores explotadores. Actualmente se desempeña como fiscal general adjunta del estado bajo el fiscal general Rob Bonta. El fiscal de la ciudad está a cargo de todos los asuntos legales que afectan a la ciudad, incluida la redacción e interpretación de las leyes de la ciudad, representar a la ciudad en demandas y procesar delitos menores (los delitos graves los procesa el fiscal de distrito del condado). Hydee Feldstein Soto es la actual fiscal de la Ciudad de Los Ángeles y, Dios mío, ¡su mandato ha estado repleto de escándalos! Algunos de los mayores éxitos de su oficina incluyen: - retirar casos de aumento abusivo de alquileres contra propietarios depredadores (que intentaban aprovecharse de las víctimas de incendios forestales) para proteger a sus donantes - señalar a thirty-one manifestantes propalestinos en lo que un juez llamó "procesamiento sesgado" - no proteger con contraseña una enorme base de datos para compartir archivos, lo que resultó en la filtración de 340,000 documentos confidenciales, incluidos registros disciplinarios del LAPD (algo legendario desde la perspectiva de la transparencia, la verdad) Se postuló para la reelección en las primarias, pero no llegó a esta segunda vuelta de las elecciones generales (¡qué vergüenza para una titular!). En cambio, el oponente de Marissa Roy es John McKinney, un abogado de la oficina del fiscal de distrito de Los Ángeles. Se postula con una plataforma de "mano dura contra el crimen", lo cual es una elección extraña dado que el fiscal de la ciudad solo puede procesar delitos menores y, por lo demás, se ocupa principalmente de litigios civiles. ¡Como mínimo, el fiscal de la ciudad debería entender su propio trabajo! Marissa Roy no solo entiende el trabajo, sino que es una candidata altamente calificada con una visión para usar las facultades de la oficina para servir a la gente. Cuenta con el respaldo del Partido de las Familias Trabajadoras, DSA, el fiscal general de California Rob Bonta y los demócratas del condado de Los Ángeles."

"Las fuerzas del orden estadounidenses son fundamentalmente problemáticas, pues se enfocan más en la aplicación violenta de la ley y el castigo que en la seguridad comunitaria proactiva. El sistema no solo necesita pequeños ajustes de reforma, sino una reconstrucción completa. Ningún candidato a sheriff siquiera va a intentar hacer eso, pero entre nuestras dos opciones en esta elección, el actual sheriff Robert Luna es la opción claramente mejor. El Departamento del Sheriff del Condado de Los Ángeles es el departamento del sheriff más grande del país y tiene un presupuesto anual de $4 mil millones. Durante mucho tiempo ha estado envuelto en escándalos por pandillas de agentes y muertes de personas encarceladas. El sheriff en funciones Robert Luna fue elegido en 2022 después de prometer arreglar el enorme desastre dejado por el desacreditado exsheriff Alex Villanueva, quien de alguna manera pasó las primarias y vuelve a aparecer en nuestras boletas, amenazando con aterrorizar al Condado de Los Ángeles una vez más. ¡Uf, esto es tan agotador! Desde que Luna asumió el cargo, las estadísticas de delitos violentos sí bajaron significativamente, y también creó la oficina de vigilancia policial constitucional para tratar de eliminar las pandillas de agentes. Sin embargo, las condiciones en las cárceles siguen siendo horribles y, en promedio, una persona encarcelada muere cada semana. Me decepciona que Luna no haya podido hacer más para limpiar el departamento, pero es lo que La Defensa llama el candidato de "reducción de daños" frente a Villanueva. ¡Voten por Luna! ¡Por favor!"

Darryn Harris enseña en Santa Monica College y anteriormente trabajó en el gobierno local de LA. Entiende la importancia de atender las necesidades básicas de estudiantes y quiere construir viviendas asequibles en terrenos del distrito. También quiere mejorar el éxito estudiantil después de su tiempo en LACC proporcionando más apoyo para transferencias y creando más alianzas con empleadores. Cuenta con el respaldo del Working Families Party. Entre los competidores de Harris está Nancy Pearlman, quien creo que se ha postulado en todas las elecciones en las que he votado jaja. Ha estado usando la misma foto de perfil durante muchos años. También vuelve a aparecer en nuestras boletas Jason Aula, quien (¡por segunda elección consecutiva!) envió al LA Times teorías conspirativas imposibles de publicar y sus opiniones sobre el canibalismo.

Randall Winston es arquitecto y abogado(!), así que ha pasado muchísimo tiempo en la escuela. Actualmente también imparte una clase en West Los Angeles College. Su campaña prioriza atender las necesidades básicas de los estudiantes y crear alianzas con los sindicatos para ayudar a los graduados a conseguir buenos empleos. Cuenta con el respaldo de importantes sindicatos, incluidos UTLA y SEIU 721. También se postula el titular Gabriel Buelna. Voté por él en 2022 y escribí: "Buelna es otro 'titular mediocre', pero su oponente es republicano y parece estar extremadamente poco calificado, a juzgar por su sitio web mal diseñado y lleno de ideas inconexas :(" jaja. ¡Me alegra que tenga un rival más interesante este año! ¡Vota por Winston!

Ross is a deputy public defender who has advocated for alternative sentencing. He is especially sympathetic to the challenges faced by marginalized people in the legal system. He is recommended by La Defensa.

Hey, look who's back! We last saw Haymon in 2024 when she was a candidate in the most fascinating judges race I've ever seen lol. At the time, she had recently been held in contempt of court for interrupting judge Lynn Olson while defending her client. Haymon then challenged Olson for her seat. The CA State Bar ultimately decided not to pursue her contempt charge (which honestly seemed like such a boring nothing burger when I looked into it), but it made for a dramatic race. In 2006, Olson was running a bagel shop and not practicing law, but then decided to reactivate her bar membership and challenge a reputable judge who just happened to have a "foreign sounding" name. Voter xenophobia, along with an eleventh-hour surge of allegedly deceptive mailers, are credited with winning her the seat. All of this is irrelevant because Olson is not on the ballot this time lol but I will always remember that race. Anyway, Haymon is back and better than ever! She has continued serving as a deputy public defender for LA County. She is especially passionate about racial equity in the courtroom. She also proposes forming a committee to study which practices most successfully reduce recidivism so that judges can learn what works best. She is endorsed by La Defensa.

This is the one time that I am deviating from La Defensa's official endorsement because I love Anna and have voted for her before when she ran on the "Defenders of Justice" slate in 2022. Her opponent, and La Defensa's pick is Justin Allen Clayton, an amazing deputy public defender. Reitano is a former public defender who worked with many mentally ill clients. She is now Deputy County Counsel for LA County. She prioritizes alternatives to incarceration and equity for all in the courtroom. This whole race is tragic because neither of them deserve to lose and LA County would benefit from having both of them as superior court judges. We can take comfort in knowing that no matter what happens, this seat will be filled by a great judge, and that whoever loses is going to continue serving the city and will probably be back on the ballot soon.

Bayne is a deputy public defender for LA County, and his campaign has emphasized the importance of due process and fairness for all. He is recommended by La Defensa.

Measure A would change how the county deals with labor disputes with unions representing employees who are not allowed to strike. This includes law enforcement officers, firefighters, and lifeguards. The bill was put on the ballot specifically to address negotiations between LA County and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), which have been ongoing since last year. The measure would put the final decisions in the hands of a three-member arbitration panel. Each side would appoint one member, and both sides would have to agree on a neutral third member. The decisions made by the panel would be final and binding. Neither the Board of Supervisors nor voters could change the outcome. I'm sure it's frustrating for both sides to be deadlocked for over a year, but binding arbitration that would take place behind closed doors scares me when it involves public funds and law enforcement. I think that the county and the sheriff's union just need to continue bargaining out in the open until they reach an agreement. I was so delighted to see that my old friend Ali Rubinfeld, who now works for the ACLU, summed it up beautifully and was quoted in the LAist: "Allowing police unions such as ALADS to utilize binding arbitration procedures frustrates transparency and allows law enforcement to siphon off more resources without it going through the regular public channels. While arbitrators are theoretically neutral third parties, their actions have no real democratic accountability." La Defensa, who I trust the most with anything law enforcement-related, also recommends voting No.

Back in 2020, we voted to pass Measure J, which required the County to spend at least 10% of its General Fund on alternatives to incarceration and community development. The County is not allowed to send any of those funds to law enforcement, prison, or jails. It was a huge tangible victory after a summer of protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Great job, everyone! Unfortunately, someone forgot to put Measure J in the County Charter(???) and no one noticed until recently(?!?). In 2024, we passed Measure G, which made major changes to the structure of the County government, including expanding the Board of Supervisors and allowing voters to elect the future County CEO. Somehow Measure G repealed Measure J without anyone realizing it until now(!?!). Idk wtf happened but it sounds like a bunch of people just really fumbled the admin. You can read this LA Times article and see if this comedy of errors makes any sense to you lol. Anyway, Measure E would reinstate Measure J, which we already approved six years ago and should absolutely be in our County Charter. Measure E would also establish an independent ethics commission for LA County and ensure that it has stable funding so that the elected officials who are beholden to the commission cannot change its funding. The commission would uphold ethics standards for everyone who does business with the county, including elected officials, lobbyists, and contractors. This measure is endorsed by La Defensa, Courage California, and the SoCal ACLU. It's an easy Yes from me!

Measure EE is like a junk drawer collection of random things that didn't really have a home, so they're all thrown together. Some of the changes are good, some are bad, and some are "meh idk?" The highlights: LAPD and the Fire Department would not be allowed to block audits by the inspector general and independent assessor, respectively. I'm surprised this wasn't already a rule! Civil fines for campaign finance violations would increase up to $15,000 (it is currently $2,000). The signature requirement to put a referendum on the ballot would go up to 15% of the votes cast in the last mayoral election, matching the signature requirement for new ballot initiatives. Currently, referendums require signatures amounting to 10% of the previous mayoral election. In some ways, this change seems undemocratic since it will make it harder to put a referendum on the ballot, but it also makes sense to have the signature requirement for referendums and initiatives be the same number. It is already extremely hard for citizens to get anything on the ballot (whether it's a new initiative or a referendum) without a well-funded campaign behind them. Changes the number of required weekly City Council meetings from 3 down 1. Critics say that this will limit opportunities for public comment, but supporters say that this will free up council members to get more done during the week. I tend to think that three City Council meetings per week sounds excessive, and that most council members really would use that time to be out in their districts getting things done. Once per week required meetings with the flexibility to add additional meetings seems like a good plan. Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who represents District 1 and is my favorite city council member, endorses Measure EE, and La Defensa also recommends voting Yes. DSA LA makes no recommendation and none of my other normal sources have taken stands on this measure either lol. Listen to your heart!

I can genuinely see both sides on this one, so I'm curious to know what you all decide. Measure FD would increase local sales tax by 0.5% with proceeds going to the Fire Department. Our fire department is genuinely underfunded. Los Angeles has a lower firefighter-to-resident ratio than other big cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and Dallas. This statistic is especially concerning for a city that is perpetually on fire! The fire department not only handles fires but medical emergencies as well. I support fully funding the fire department, so I'm voting yes. However, I hate that this will make our sales tax 10.25% at a time when the cost of living is sky high and wages are stagnant. Film and TV production has been way down in LA since the 2023 WGA and SAG strikes. People in my union, IATSE (which represents us lowly "below-the-line" workers), have lost tons of jobs since then and we didn't even get to strike. So many of my friends have left the industry and the city because they simply can't afford to survive here anymore. I just said goodbye to another friend last week! Instead of making an already suffering working class pay more for essential services, I wish the funding could from trimming the bloated police budget, or by fixing Prop 13 so that corporations pay their fair share in property taxes, or collecting extra income tax from the ultrawealthy. Since none of these ideas are on the ballot, the only option for immediate funding is this regressive sales tax. What do you all think? Is this one worth it?

Measure LA is a package of reforms that would change the city's budgeting process and infrastructure planning. Notably, it would change budget cycles from annual to 2-year cycles, which would encourage more long-term planning. It would also allow the city to run commercial businesses, which could create affordable alternatives to private businesses (for example, public grocery stores like Mayor Zohran Mamdani is opening in NYC). Los Angeles had a $1 billion budget shortfall last year. The city's finances are a mess, and Measure LA would make meaningful changes to help city leaders manage the budget more wisely. City Controller Kenneth Mejia supports the measure, along with the majority of the city council that voted to put this measure on the ballot.

We love public parks! Measure PRK would increase the percent of the overall city budget that goes to the LA Recreation and Parks Department. Currently, they only get about 3% of the city budget. The amount will increase gradually over the next ten years, expected to go from the current budget of $303 million to $995 million in 2036. Public parks and other facilities run by the city (including air-conditioned recreation centers, public pools, and community gardens) are some of the only "third spaces" people can simply exist in and gather freely without paying money. They are critical to building strong communities. Keeping them well-maintained improves community safety. Measure PRK is endorsed by DSA, LA Forward, LA Parks Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, Climate Reality Los Angeles, and tons more environmental groups. The main opponent of this measure is the LA Police Protective League because they're worried that the increase in the parks budget will come out of LAPD's current $2 BILLION+ annual budget. Omg. We can only hope!

Angelenos who live near the airport (LAX or VNY) or the Port of LA - this one is for you! The Los Angeles World Airport board of commissioners oversees LAX and VNY. It consists of seven members. This measure would require that at least three of the members live near LAX, and at least two near VNY. It makes perfect sense that people who live near the airports should get a say in how the airport is run. The measure would also require the entities that operate out of the Port of LA to disclose how its operation is expected to affect employment and the regional economy, increasing transparency for the community that works in or lives near the port. A "portion" of the operating budget would also be required to go to public works projects on the waterfront, though the measure does not specify a specific amount.

Measure SC would change campaign finance rules for candidates running for board of education to match the current rules that apply to candidates for mayor. More than anything, the purpose of the bill seems to be to get rid of repetitive language in the city charter and have just one set of rules for both types of candidates.

Back in 2022, LA voters passed Measure ULA, also known as the "mansion tax." The measure imposed additional taxes on the sale of properties sold for over $5 million, with proceeds going towards affordable housing and tenant protections to try to help our ongoing housing crisis. As we all remember, in January 2025, massive fires destroyed many homes around LA, most notably in the Palisades and Altadena. Multiple friends of mine lost their homes in Altadena, homes that they saved for decades to be able to afford. They continue to deal with the aftermath more than a year later. This proposed Measure TE would give an exemption to the ULA taxes for victims of the fire who sell their homes before 2030. On its surface, it seems like a kind gesture to fire victims... until you realize that it only helps people selling mansions now worth over $5.4 million... This measure does nothing for my working-class Altadena friends and would actually take an estimated $35 million to $66 million out of the House LA Fund. This measure is another wealth transfer in the wrong direction that will take money meant to help our friends on the verge of homelessness and give it to already wealthy mansion owners. Victims of the LA fires deserve real support, but Measure TE isn't it.

Prop 2 would raise the limit on deposits into the state's "rainy day" fund from the current 10% to 20% of the state's general fund revenue. These deposits would be excluded from the "Gann Limit," which limits the government from spending over a certain amount each year, and also limits the government from collecting over a certain amount of tax revenue. Prop 2 allows greater flexibility for the state to save money in the rainy day fund during good years when tax revenue is high, which they can then use during bad years, so they won't need to cut services to balance the budget. This bill is a financially smart move for California. Just as it's wise for us as individuals to save our money during the good times to create cushion for emergencies and bad times, it's wise for the state to do the same. Ironically, the biggest opponents to this bill are Republicans who claim to care about fiscal responsibility lolol. They're just mad that Prop 2 will make it harder to cut public services in future low-revenue years.

Prop 3 is a permanent extension of an already-existing tax on the ultrawealthy, affecting only the top 2% of earners in the state. Taxpayers making more than $370k per year are taxed an additional 1%, and those making over $740k per year are taxed an additional 3%. The extra revenue funds public education and healthcare. We love it! If the measure does not pass, the tax will end in 2031, leaving public education in a dire situation. The children are our future, and their education is more important than some extra padding in the bank accounts of the ultrawealthy!

Currently under California law, the state and local governments are prohibited from creating any kind of public financing for political campaigns. Prop 4 would change this and open the door for public campaign financing, allowing everyday candidates to better compete against corporate money-backed competitors in our current money-driven election hellscape. Importantly, this bill does not provide any money to be used in campaigns and will not cost the state anything. Prop 4 simply changes the rule so that local governments can set up public financing programs in the future. Five cities already have exceptions to the existing ban, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. The "Super Match Program" in LA matches small donations to candidates running for any citywide office at a ratio of 6:1. So for example, if you donated $20 to City Controller Kenneth Mejia's recent campaign, the city added $120 to your donation, amplifying your little contribution so that Mejia was better able to compete against the nepo baby who ran against him with millions of dollars of his mom's money. Mejia was still outspent by the nepo baby by an outrageous ratio, but the public funding helped get his winning message out to the city. And as a result, we got to keep our amazing city controller who is radically transparent with the city's finances! Hooray! LA's program has strict limits on how much a candidate can receive in any campaign cycle, requires them to participate in a public debate, and forbids them from contributing over a certain amount of their own money to their campaign. A similar program in New York City (which matches small donations 8:1) helped Zohran Mamdani compete and win against big money corporate donors. So, all of that is just to say that LA's matching program has helped our city to have fairer elections with more diverse candidates.

Prop 37 would allow the California Housing Finance Agency to loan homebuyers up to 17% of their downpayments, so that they could buy homes with as little as 3% down. The program could borrow up to $25 billion total and the loans will be repaid by the homebuyers, so there is no cost to the state. The loans would only apply to new construction homes under $1.5 million, buyers would need to have incomes below 200% of the median income for the area, and the home would need to be their primary residence. The median income for LA last year was $106,600, so if Prop 37 passes, I guess any household making under $213,200 could qualify? That seems like it would apply to just about everyone reading this? Are we all getting houses next year??? =D All of this generally sounds nice, so that's why I'm voting yes, though I'm ultimately skeptical about how many people it will actually end up helping. We don't know what the interest rates will be on these additional loans or how they will affect the monthly mortgage costs. Getting to buy a $1 million house with $30k down sounds amazing, but it's only a good deal if the buyer can actually afford the monthly mortgage. The monthly mortgage with full 20% down on a $1 million house would already be over $5k, which requires an annual income of over $200k in order to not be considered "cost burdened." Obviously, this bill will do nothing to address the systemic root issues of the housing crisis. It's not going to lower housing costs or help keep vulnerable low-income renters from losing their housing, but it's also not going to cost the state money, so it feels like a fairly low stakes experiment. I hope that it will help some new California homebuyers. Let me know if it ends up helping you buy a house!

Prop 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. Maybe that research will discover the cures for heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer's! That would be amazing, right? Buckle up you guys, this one is SCANDALOUS!!! Incredible reporting by Cal Matters figured out that the way that the bill was written, the requirements for an institution to receive half of the bond money are sooo specific that only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy would qualify, even though it is not named in the bill. Not only would the CIII receive half of the bond money, but all of the other institutes that receive any of the other half of the money would be required to "maintain a close relationship" with the CIII, allow CIII to make decisions on which projects are funded, and allow CIII to participate in any clinical trials it runs. Basically, CIII gets to be king of the bond. Well guess what? Billionaire Gary K. Michelson and Meyer Luskin are the co-founders of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy and wait for it... the top donors to the Yes on Prop 38 campaign. Omg!!! There is something so incredibly gross about ultrarich people trying to make taxpayers fund their charitable endeavors so they get all the credit for the cause without having to foot the bill. And then on top of that, to use patients with heart disease, cancer, and Alzheimer's to pull at voters' heartstrings so they will ignore all of this sketchiness is so shameful! If Gary K. Michelson truly cared about these patients, he would not still be a billionaire because he would have already donated his excess wealth to this research. While of course I think immunology research is important, and I'm sure the individual researchers at the CIII are probably amazing and deserving of research money, I think that passing Prop 38 would set a dangerous precedent for other billionaires to try the same strategy to fund their charitable endeavors.

Prop 39 would require California voters to present government-issued ID in order to cast a ballot. It is just an attempt at blatant voter suppression! That's an absolute no from me!

Before we dive into the most important vote on our entire ballot, I have some fun facts for you all: → One million minutes is one year and 11 months. One million minutes ago, Joe Biden was president → One billion minutes is about 1,903 years. One billion minutes ago, in 123 AD, the Roman Empire was thriving Such fun facts, right? ;) Last year, the GOP passed their famous Big ButtUgly Bill which, in addition to adding a projected $3.3 trillion to the national debt (from the self-described "party of fiscal responsibility" mmmhmmm...), also cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid, the government-funded health insurance that currently covers 42 million low-income adults and 38 million children. These cuts were used to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Over one third of LA County residents are on Medicaid, and it's estimated that 1.1 million of them may lose their healthcare coverage as a result of the BBB. And that's just in LA County! The uninsured population in California is expected to double by 2030 if nothing changes. I cannot emphasize enough how diabolically evil this bill is and how directly it will impact communities across the country. Every single Republican who voted for it (and it's all but a handful of them) should be bursting with shame. Californians will literally die as a result of the BBB, that's not an exaggeration or fearmongering; it's simply a well-documented fact that when people lack access to healthcare, people die of treatable conditions. Meanwhile, even the people who would normally try to help their ailing friends and family through GoFundMe fundraisers are helpless because all of their extra income is now going to sky-high gas prices and groceries instead. It's a terrible time to be in the working class! But do you know who is having a great time right now, and in a perfect position to save lives? The billionaires!

Prop 41 is just a sneaky attempt by Sergey Brin & and his other billionaire friends to nullify Prop 40 if it passes. Make sure to tell everyone you know that they need to vote NO on Props 41 and 42!

Prop 43 would change the vote threshold on local initiatives that involve raising taxes from a simple 50% majority to a 2/3 majority. This proposition is backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is really all that you need to know, to know that it's bad. Requiring a 2/3 majority vote only tips the scales in favor of the people and corporations who hate social services and want every initiative to fail. This one is an easy no!

Prop 44 would require that all federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) spend at least 90% of their revenue on patient care, with financial penalties for any clinics that violate this rule. Obviously, patient care should always be the primary focus of any health center and if a clinic is able to spend 90% of its resources on patient care, that's excellent and I love it! However, it also makes perfect sense to me that FQHCs need a lot of flexibility to figure out how to best serve their community. FQHCs are the primary care providers in some of the most low-income communities. They accept everyone, including the uninsured. Millions of Medi-Cal patients rely on them. Any clinic that sees such a wide array of patients is going to be spending a lot of its resources on administration, translation services, security, and other services and equipment beyond just direct patient care. Opponents of the bill, which should be noted are mostly the medical providers themselves, argue that they cannot operate with a rigid 90%/10% budget requirement and that many clinics would be bankrupted by the steep penalties. With all of the recent federal cuts to healthcare, it seems like a dangerous time to add even more strain to these health centers, even if the original intent is good. They also point out that FQHCs are already heavily regulated and are not just throwing around money haphazardly. SEIU-UHW, the healthcare workers union, put this bill on the ballot. They argue that their bill aims to prevent clinics from overspending on executive pay and other unnecessary expenses. Of course I support unions and want union healthcare workers to get paid fairly, and of course I think executive pay should be restrained, but I don't really see this bill accomplishing those goals. I think that having the government micromanage how these clinics handle their budgets is only going to hurt these clinics and the people that they serve.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was signed in 1970 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The CEQA imposes environmental standards on all housing, transportation, water, health, and clean energy projects. Prop 45 would set faster deadlines for environmental reviews in order to fast track "essential" projects. We take horrible care of the earth as it is. Last year LA was on fire, and now we're preparing for El Niño to flood our city. Even just last week we were suffering through a nasty 100+ degree heatwave! Now is absolutely not the time to relax our environmental standards and "fast track" more climate destruction. Even deregulation-obsessed Reagan understood the importance of protecting the environment! Prop 45 is opposed by seemingly every environmental group in California, tons of unions, and several health advocacy organizations including the American Lung Association. Protect our environment (and Reagan's green legacy lol) by voting No!