Lia Burton (LA Voter Guide) 2026 voter guide

Fiona Ma is our current state treasurer. In the same way that Xavier Becerra is the clear right choice against Steve Hilton, so too is Fiona Ma the clear choice against trans-hating Republican Gloria Romero. Are we excited about Fiona Ma? No. I voted for Oliver Ma in the primary and the wrong "Ma" won :( But here are some nice things about her so that we remember that she is an accomplished human and electing her is not the worst: Fiona Ma grew up with her two younger siblings and was raised by her Chinese immigrant parents in New York City. She got her master's degree in San Francisco and first got into politics on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. She was elected to the State Assembly and became the first Asian American woman Speaker pro Tempore. She was later elected to the Board of Equalization, where she was selected as chair and served for two years. In 2018, she was elected as Treasurer where she became the first woman of color in the role. She refinanced California's bond debt, reducing the interest owed by the state. One of her biggest goals as treasurer has been incorporating "green bonds" to move away from reliance on fossil fuels. She also started programs to help small businesses and build affordable housing. The main job of the Lieutenant Governor is to take over if anything happens to the Governor. Like Becerra, Fiona Ma is a pretty standard establishment Democrat. Not super exciting, but infinitely better than the alternative.

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 is our current lieutenant governor and has been in California politics for years. She initially announced her campaign to run for governor but later dropped out of the crowded primary race and switched to running for treasurer instead. Politically, she's aligned with most of the Democratic Party establishment like most of the rest of the state-level candidates. She's not a progressive hero but she is endorsed by several unions including the CA Labor Federation and the Teamsters.

Rob Bonta has been our attorney general since 2021, when he was appointed by Governor Newsom to take over for Xavier Becerra when he became secretary of Health and Human Services under President Biden. Bonta easily won his election to the seat in 2022, and is now running for a second term, which I think he should definitely get. Bonta was born in the Philippines and came to California as an infant when his family fled Ferdinand Marcos' martial law rule. He became an attorney and then served several years in the California state assembly before his appointment to attorney general. He has filed over fifty lawsuits against the Cheeto administration and has also filed lawsuits against large corporations like Amazon and Google. He is surprisingly progressive for an attorney general, and we are lucky to have him fighting for us!

WE LOVE JANE KIM!!! The California Insurance Commissioner regulates the insurance industry and licenses insurance companies. The Department of Insurance deals primarily with property insurance and auto insurance, as well as life insurance and workers comp (health insurance is mostly regulated by another department). This race is getting more attention than usual because of the LA fires last year that destroyed many homes and has led to many homeowners' insurance companies denying coverage or fleeing the state altogether. Kim has an amazing platform which includes her proposal for a nonprofit single-payer disaster insurance policy for everyone in California. Everyone would pay into the system (just as people already pay their insurance companies) and be automatically covered for natural disasters. Currently, for-profit insurance companies offer policies based on calculated risk. When a company calculates that a risk is too high (insuring a house in an area susceptible to wildfires, for example), they can raise premiums to exorbitant levels or choose to refuse coverage altogether, leaving homeowners with nothing in the wake of a disaster. A nonprofit state-run system would not only keep everyone covered but also incentivize the state to work towards preventing damage from natural disasters in the first place. This "disaster coverage for all" will be crucial as we continue to see the increasingly devastating effects of climate change and Kim is the only candidate in this race with a vision to make that happen. She also wants to create a public option for auto insurance and end price discrimination. She will hold bad actors accountable and make sure that all Californians can afford their insurance and get their claims paid. She is endorsed by Bernie Sanders, Working Families Party, and the California AFL-CIO. The insurance industry is terrified of her, which is exactly why we should all vote for her!

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).

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 currently holds this seat since replacing Adam Schiff when he became one of our senators. She worked in the entertainment industry for decades, working on the development side of studios like Paramount and HBO. Later she entered local politics and was elected to the Glendale City Council. She has an impressive track record when it comes to progressive issues. She supports a state single payer healthcare system, which is such an amazing dream! She also cares about the environment, abortion access, the housing crisis, gun control, and immigrant rights. She's a fearless progressive leader! Amazing, right?!? Wellllll.......... As I've watched an ongoing genocide livestreamed from Gaza over the past few years, seeing children literally being blown to pieces in targeted attacks with American-made weapons fired by our "closest ally," I've been repeatedly shocked and appalled at what a death grip this ally has on all levels of the US government, including Representative Friedman. Support for literal genocide in the name of "defense" is a rare issue that has bipartisan support from both Democrats and Republicans. Seriously, WTF? Abraham Marquez wrote an amazing article for LA Taco last year titled, "These Are L.A.'s Politicians Who Are Financially Benefiting from the Genocide in Gaza" that everyone in LA should read. He calls out Laura Friedman along with several other LA-area representatives, including Mayor Karen Bass. Friedman is unfortunately not unique and fits right in with most of the Democratic party when it comes to the plight of the Palestinian civilians and children. They simply care more about preserving their own power than saving lives. We need to pressure all of our representatives to take a stand on an issue that, while geopolitically complicated and difficult to resolve, is morally sooo incredibly clear. Killing children is wrong. Funding genocide is wrong. Aiding and abetting war crimes is wrong.

We love Nithya Raman! She has been a fierce progressive advocate on city council since first being elected to represent District 4 in 2020. She was a DSA darling who ran on an extremely progressive platform. Her progressive ideology did not come out of nowhere. Back in 2017, she co-founded the SELAH Neighborhood Homeless Coalition, an amazing organization I love to volunteer with, which serves the unhoused community of Northeast LA. Her genuine care for the most vulnerable people in the community is what got her into local politics in the first place. She has accomplished a lot in her time on city council, including increasing renter protections and helping many unhoused people get into housing. I have a ton of respect for Karen Bass and voted for her many times when she was my congressional representative when I lived in Mid City. She has an incredible life story and accomplished a lot in her time in Congress. I'm so grateful that she is our current mayor and not billionaire Rick Caruso. But still, her first term as mayor has left a lot to be desired, particularly her lack of success in fixing the homelessness crisis and her increasingly chummy relationship with LAPD, whose massive budget she keeps increasing every year. I appreciate the good things she's done for our city, but I think unfortunately, she has lost some of her progressive spirit over the last few years. We would be better served by Raman. I was especially disappointed to see Mayor Bass say that describing the obvious genocide in Gaza with the word genocide is "inappropriate" at a recent mayoral forum, while Nithya pointed out that all of the international experts have decisively determined that it is a genocide. Much like Ed Sheeran and Kamala Harris, I think that Mayor Bass is about to learn that trying to placate wealthy benefactors by minimizing an obvious humanitarian catastrophe is not only a massive moral failing, but also just a stupid PR/political move.

We love Estuardo Mazariegos! He is a tenant organizer hoping to replace outgoing disgraced city councilmember Curren Price, who is currently on trial for ten counts of "grand theft by embezzlement, perjury and conflict of interest." One of Curren Price's former deputy chief of staff, Jose Ugarte is also running for this seat. Ugarte was fined last year by the ethics commission for failing to disclose $400,000(!) in income from his consulting business. It would be an understatement to say that Mazariegos would be a transformational upgrade for the people of southeast LA. The 9th district is the poorest district in the city and is home to some of the city's most vulnerable residents. The district also includes many venues that will be used for the 2028 Olympics. It is vital for this district to have a city council representative who will stand up for its residents and make sure they are not forgotten in the planning of these massive events. Mazariegos has spent decades organizing and fighting for low-income renters and is the current co-director of the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. He will do an excellent job of continuing to fight for the residents of this district. Mazariegos is endorsed by the Working Families Part, DSA, many unions, and Bernie Sanders.

We love Marissa Roy! She is a civil rights attorney who has made a name for herself fighting for California's most vulnerable, including immigrants, renters, and exploited workers. She plans to continue doing so in this seat by prosecuting ICE agents, defending renters, and going after exploitative employers. She currently serves as deputy attorney general for the state under Attorney General Rob Bonta. The city attorney is in charge of all legal matters affecting the city, including the writing and interpretation of city law, representing the city in lawsuits, and prosecuting misdemeanors (felonies are prosecuted by the county district attorney). Hydee Feldstein Soto serves as the current LA City Attorney and omg her term has been bursting with scandals! Some of her office's greatest hits include: - dropping rent price gouging cases against predatory landlords (who were trying to take advantage of wildfire victims) in order to protect her donors - singling out thirty-one pro-Palestine protestors in what a judge called "biased prosecution" - failing to password-protect a massive filesharing database, resulting in the leak of 340,000 sensitive documents including LAPD disciplinary records (kinda legendary from a transparency perspective, tbh) She ran for re-election in the primary but did not make it to this general election runoff (how embarrassing for an incumbent!). Instead, Marissa Roy's opponent is John McKinney, an attorney in the LA District Attorney's office. He is running on a "tough on crime" platform, which is a weird choice given that the City Attorney can only prosecute misdemeanors, and otherwise mostly handles civil litigation. At the very least, the City Attorney should understand their own job! Marissa Roy not only understands the job, but she is a highly qualified candidate with a vision to use the office's powers to serve the people. She is endorsed by the Working Families Party, DSA, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, and the LA County Democrats.

American law enforcement is fundamentally problematic, focusing more on violent enforcement and punishment rather than proactive community safety. The system doesn't just need some little reform tweaks, but rather a complete rebuild. No candidate for sheriff is going to even try to do that, but between our two options in this election, current sheriff Robert Luna is the obvious best choice. The LA County Sheriff's Department is the largest sheriff's department in the country and has an annual budget of $4 billion. They have long been mired in scandals over deputy gangs and inmate deaths. Incumbent Sheriff Robert Luna was elected in 2022 after promising to fix the massive mess left behind by disgraced former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who somehow made it through the primary and is back on our ballots threatening to terrorize LA County all over again. Ugh this is so exhausting! Since Luna entered office, violent crime statistics did go significantly down, and he also created the office of constitutional policing to try to eliminate deputy gangs. However, conditions in the jails remain horrific and on average, an incarcerated person dies every week. I'm disappointed that Luna has not been able to do more to clean up the department, but he is what La Defensa calls the "harm reduction" candidate against Villanueva. Vote for Luna! Please!

The Los Angeles Community College District serves 200,000 students across nine campuses and has an annual budget of $10 billion. Community college is a vital education resource, especially at a time when tuition at four-year universities can total as much as a house. A large portion of the LACC student population is unhoused, and many more struggle with food insecurity and basic survival needs. Overseeing such a massive institution with wide-ranging high-stakes needs is no easy task! Adriana Cabrera attended community college before going on to earn a bachelor's degree in political science and then a master's degree in higher education administration. She grew up in South Central and is a first-generation college graduate. She has specific plans to address student needs, including student resource hubs that can handle academic/financial/basic needs, legal workshops to help students navigate legal issues like housing rights and immigration, and a "Healthy Green Campuses" initiative. Her biggest opponent in this race is incumbent Steven Veres. It seems like he has done a decent job and will likely win election by virtue of being the incumbent. Even if Carbrera is a longshot candidate, I am excited to support her fresh ideas.

Darryn Harris teaches at Santa Monica College and previously worked in local LA government. He understands the importance of addressing students' basic needs and wants to build affordable housing on district land. He also wants to improve student success after their time at LACC by providing more transfer support and building more partnerships with employers. He is endorsed by the Working Families Party. Harris' competitors include Nancy Pearlman, who I think has run in every election I've ever voted in lol. She's been using the same headshot for many years. Also returning to our ballots is Jason Aula, who (for the second election in a row!) sent the LA Times unprintable conspiracy theories and his thoughts on cannibalism.

Randall Winston is an architect and an attorney(!) so he has spent a ton of time in school. He currently also teaches a class at West Los Angeles College. His campaign prioritizes meeting students' basic needs and forging partnerships with labor to help graduates secure good jobs. He has endorsements from major unions including UTLA and SEIU 721. Also running is incumbent Gabriel Buelna. I voted for him in 2022 and wrote: "Buelna is another 'mediocre incumbent,' but his opponent is a Republican and seems extremely unqualified from the looks of his poorly designed stream-of-consciousness filled website :(" lol. I'm glad he has a more exciting challenger this year! Vote for 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!