The Knock LA Progressive Voter Guide for the November 2026 General Election
You never know when it will be your last chance to vote… Better make your voice heard now!
Los Angeles, California, and the country at large are in danger. Major budget cuts to social safety nets at the federal level are impacting care in our state and city. Billionaires, tech elites, landlord lobbyists, and more are colluding in the dark to buy candidates that will make our systems continue to work for them rather than for working people. More people fall into homelessness everyday, and are eventually jailed or killed for the crime of having nothing.
We’ll be honest, the state of everything can be overwhelmingly bleak. And it’s not really helped by the career politicians and “business as normal” candidates who don’t advocate for our communities. We need a lot more than just electoralism, but consider this a starting place. Vote today with our voter guide to find progressive candidates and “harm reduction” options. Tomorrow, find a local organization and give your time and talent to make LA a better place to live. Talk to your neighbors. Hand out water on a hot day. Make a poster, attend a protest. There’s a lot to do!
As always, we hope this voter guide makes your life a little easier in the hustle and bustle of daily tasks and to-dos. It is a labor of love for a better Los Angeles and reflects dozens of conversations with organizers, government staffers, lawyers, and everyday Angelenos. We pour in countless hours of research, writing, fact-checking, and editing to bring you these recommendations. It’s only possible with the powerful team at Knock LA — big props to our volunteers!
If you find this guide useful, we would be so grateful for any donation you can give, especially if you can become a monthly donor. These funds pay our bills and enable us to pay writers and editors for their stories on the BDS movement, LAPD’s surveillance network, and allegations of mistreatment in Project Homekey, among many others.
Knock LA is a journalistic project of Ground Game LA.
November 2026 General Election Races
Click on a section below to jump to those races.
- City of Los Angeles
- Los Angeles County
- Judge of the Superior Court
- Neighboring LA Cities
- Ballot Measures
- California State Legislature
- US Congress
City of Los Angeles
Mayor: Nithya Raman
When the history books are written, what will they say about Karen Bass? How did someone who came into political life as a radical, traveling to Cuba with the Venceremos Brigade and protesting police brutality, find herself here, writing billion dollar checks to LAPD and smiling with Trump as ICE terrorizes her city? How does someone who co-founds Community Coalition go on to lead police crackdowns on the homeless and end needle exchange programs? How does an anti-apartheid activist live to become a genocide denier?
If we knew how, could we innoculate against it in our leaders and ourselves? All we know is that the world of people Bass fought for, and her willingness to stand up to power, shrank further and further. And that brings us here, to the end of her career — a champion for wealthy NIMBYs and the landlord lobby, trading favors with Airbnb, hoping LAPD’s fearmongering bullshit will let her hold on to a mayorship she doesn’t seem to want of a city that she has long since ceased to understand.
We refused to give her our recommendation in 2022. At first the announcement of her campaign was met with relief by Democrats hoping for an alternative to conservative mall-magnate Rick Caruso. It quickly became apparent, however, that she was completely uninformed about the struggles that had come to define LA politics: the rights of the unhoused, the role of LAPD, development and land use. She campaigned on feeding more and more of our budget into punishment and policing while regurgitating right-wing propaganda about an imaginary crime wave. And she prioritized NIMBYism over desperately needed affordable housing.
As mayor, she found new and unexpected ways to be disappointing. Her signature homelessness program, “Inside Safe,” has spent hundreds of millions of dollars while only a small fraction of its participants ever see permanent housing. Mostly, it serves as an excuse for encampment sweeps. Bass’ entire homelessness program has been focused on reducing visible homelessness rather than actually keeping people housed in the long term. The result has been an enormously expensive and inefficient program that only serves to make Angelenos cynical about the search for solutions.
Under Trump 2.0 Bass has attempted to cast herself as some sort of resistance figure. This is laughable. Days after Trump defeated Kamala Harris in 2024 Bass appointed Jim McDonnell as chief of police — the very same Jim McDonnell whose coziness with ICE led to him becoming the first Los Angeles sheriff to lose reelection in 100 years. This utter lack of concern for immigrant Angelenos is an example of how rudderless her office is.
Meanwhile Bass sat on her hands as LAPD began cracking the heads of anti-ICE and anti-Trump protesters. She took no action to protect her own constituents, who she claimed to support, from shocking violence at the hands of her police. Instead, she fought tooth and nail to give LAPD raises and new positions at the expense of city services — literally, the police defunding the rest of us.
We haven’t even mentioned her failures surrounding the Palisades Fire, such as choosing to leave town in the face of what was already predicted to be an unprecedented and damaging windstorm. Time and time again she has frozen in the face of emergency — the Palisades fire, the ICE invasion, the Lineage warehouse fire — leaving a void where there should have been leadership. Afterwards there are always platitudes to mouth and scapegoats to find, and a city to pick up the pieces for itself.
Karen Bass has failed as mayor. It is time for her, and Los Angeles, to move on.
We urge you to vote for Councilmember Nithya Raman, whose run offers the possibility of a better Los Angeles. In many ways she was the prototype for all of the left’s electoral victories since 2020, winning a dramatic upset over incumbent David Ryu and putting the torch to the old assumptions of LA politics. She was the first to come into office seeking answers to the housing crisis, and she showed that there was a huge constituency for compassionate solutions to homelessness rather than cops and cages.
Nithya also has helped achieve major victories during her time in office, such as passing and then, with an expanding progressive bloc, strengthening the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance. Her team has also been excellent on treating the unhoused with dignity and working to get people into housing and care rather than relying on violent sweeps, and she has been a consistent advocate for the right to counsel in eviction cases. Without her we certainly wouldn’t have the strongest package of renter protections this city has seen in 40 years. Her team set the model for staffing progressive offices and her housing and homelessness staff have kept her ruthlessly prepared and are lockstep with her in her strategy on building power as a minority progressive voice on council.
As the election has played itself out she seems to have found a voice that many (us!) had been worried she had lost, calling for the expansion of unarmed crisis response and the firing of LAPD Chief McDonnell. She has been quick to call out waste and abuse in the police budget, voting against Bass’ blank checks for LAPD. She is also partnering fruitfully with Controller Kenneth Mejia, promising him the resources and freedom to audit many of the city’s most important projects — authority denied by Mayor Bass.
Nithya has also clashed with the left in the past, most recently over the implementation of the mansion tax Measure ULA, and understanding those clashes tells us a lot about the frustrations and pitfalls we might see in a Raman administration. During the campaign she has often been compared to Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York, particularly as her social media game has developed. Beyond the DSA endorsements and Indian heritage, however, the two are arriving at the work from very different places. Zohran comes from an organizing background, often citing the taxi drivers’ hunger strike as a pivotal moment in his political consciousness. He understands the inevitability of failing and falling short as he moved to the mayorship, and the role of the movement in keeping the pressure on him to fulfill his promises. That conflict, between the movement and the institution, is part of how he sees his work as developing.
Nithya comes from a policy and academic background, not from organizing. She was brought into politics not just from compassion for the unhoused, but from running the numbers, doing the analysis, and coming to an intellectual understanding of how the city was failing. She’s in many ways a technocrat, looking to subject experts to figure out what needs to be done. In that framework the continued demands of the movement aren’t seen as creating room for her to work. Instead they seem like an annoyance — Why are these people yelling? Don’t they know what the experts say? Don’t they know we’re doing as much as we can? This is a self-destructive approach to conflict, and one which pushes away allies and creates blind spots. Reports and academics, after all, are not the sole sources of knowledge, particularly when it comes to implementation.
What will a Raman administration look like? Will she be able to navigate the crises facing Los Angeles in the next four years: El Niño and climate disaster, another ICE gestapo invasion, the looming chaos of the Olympics, Hollywood consolidating under right-wing oligarchs? Time will tell. But we know our best chance to build a better Los Angeles, here in 2026, is with Raman in the mayor’s office.
Council District 3: Barri Worth Girvan
As we wrote in the Primary Voter Guide, the candidates running in CD 3 offer the same flavor of nothing to residents of the San Fernando Valley — just more cops and policing and a crackdown on homelessness. However, with Celona knocked out of the race, we’ll take a closer look at Barri Worth Girvan and Tim Gaspar.
Tim Gaspar is working hard to position himself as the “public safety candidate,” and with endorsements from just about every police union in LA County, it does seem he’ll win that distinction. His public safety plan is straightforward: more money for more cops and more surveillance technology. He does talk about “stopping crime before it starts,” but don’t be fooled: he’s not talking about affordable housing and higher wages, things that actually stop crime. Nope, he’s talking about programs like the LAPD Cadets — brainwash them young!
Barri Worth Girvan’s public safety platform is vague, but has the same underlying current of more money for cops. She wants to “modernize” the city charter to press for accountability, which sounds promising — but without details, it isn’t something we can put our support behind.
On homelessness, Girvan has more to say, mostly about cutting red tape and pushing for more accountability for homeless service providers. But, again, she doesn’t talk about how she plans to do that. Gaspar, on the other hand, clearly wants to throw every homeless person in jail with a “zero tolerance” policy on encampments, saying “If help is refused, we’ll use every legal tool to clear the encampment.”
Neither Girvan nor Gaspar are candidates that the Valley truly deserves, but they are, unfortunately, the current available options. We recommend a vote for Girvan, as Gaspar’s absolute adoration of LAPD is something we need much less of in City Council.
Council District 9: Estuardo Mazariegos
Curren Price is lucky to be terming out of office, considering he’s currently on trial for 12 felony counts of corruption. While Price has been councilmember since 2013, CD 9 has been the victim of disinvestment for decades. The district contains the second-largest unhoused population in LA and is home to many Black Angelenos and recent immigrants, and needs a working-class champion to bring resources back into these neighborhoods.
Estuardo Mazariegos is the candidate for the job. An immigrant from Guatemala who grew up in South Central, Estuardo has devoted his life to his community. Over two decades of organizing, he has risen to co-director of Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), one of the most effective working-class groups in the state and a key part of the coalition behind victories such as the creation of the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance. Mazariegos has spent his career fighting for the often-neglected constituencies of low-income renters to have a voice at City Hall and in Sacramento.
Mazariegos’ messaging has focused on the wage and rent exploitation by the billionaire class that extracts wealth from CD 9. His decades of both organizing experience and community-led policy advocacy means that his platform is deeply informed by conversations with tenants, workers, and marginalized people in the district. His primary goals are to ensure safe, accessible streets; build affordable housing and protect renters; and create green space and climate improvements in CD 9.
Jose Ugarte, on the other hand, is cut from the same cloth as predecessor Curren Price, whose office he is currently employed by. Ugarte failed to disclose years of income from the lobbying and political consulting firm that he ran at the same time he worked for Price, leading to a $25,000 fine from the Ethics Commission. Ugarte’s limited policy platform includes more homelessness sweeps and 41.18 zones, more bans on sleeping in vehicles, and more LAPD patrols — in short, more criminalization of poverty. He also wants to hire more women and people of color as police officers so the people brutalizing you look like your neighbors.
The choice cannot be clearer: vote for Estuardo Mazariegos.
City Attorney: Marissa Roy
Marissa Roy, deputy attorney general, is the clear and necessary choice. Previously a lawyer with the city attorney and now with the state attorney general, she has extensive litigation experience and the vision to transform the office into a leading force for progressive change. Roy aspires to be a city attorney for the people, using the power of the office to target polluters, slumlords, wage theft, and the Trump administration — which she does not hesitate to call fascist.
City attorney is one of the most important but least understood elected positions in Los Angeles. On the one hand, the office acts as the prosecutor for misdemeanors and has a direct policy impact on the criminalization of poverty and homelessness. On the other, the office is the counsel for the city as both defendant and plaintiff in civil lawsuits. The city attorney also advises City Council on the law and puts proposed ordinances into legal language. It does not take much imagination to see how much potential the office holds… or how badly it could go off the rails.
The incumbent city attorney, Hydee Feldstein Soto, is one of the most unqualified and incompetent officials in the entire state of California. Her term in office has been marked by abuses of power, humiliating scandals, and ballooning liability payouts that bleed the city budget. This led to her utter defeat in June, knocked out of the general election with less than 20% of the vote.
Now Roy is in a runoff with District Attorney John McKinney, a latecomer who previously made a failed run for district attorney in 2024 and who was there to absorb the police union’s money when a data breach led to LAPD abandoning the incumbent. McKinney boasts three decades of experience at the DA’s office, which he falsely claims makes him the more qualified candidate. On the contrary, his tough-on-crime posturing — absurd in an office that can only prosecute misdemeanor offenses — reflects a man who had given no thought to what the office entailed before he filed to run.
In May, he offered the Los Angeles Times this inanity: “McKinney, 58, said he wants more aggressive prosecutions for misdemeanor gun crimes, and believes the city attorney has the power to ‘leverage’ homeless people into mental health or addiction treatment after they’ve been arrested.”
McKinney is, in fact, unqualified for the office — not only has he clearly never considered the specific role of the city attorney, he has not one single day of civil law experience, in an office that is the primary civil litigation firm for the second largest city in America.
His attempts to patch together a platform read like a game of charades — piecing together “police liability settlement” and “environmental lawsuit” from a consultant’s frantically waving hands. Let’s not fool ourselves. We’ve seen the upshot of an unqualified city attorney — under Feldstein Soto, liability payouts have increased 35% every year, to a crushing $287 million.
What this vitally important office needs is someone who understands the issues and the stakes. Only Marissa Roy has a clear plan to reduce our liabilities but also change the way the office operates. As a former city attorney and someone who has been frankly obsessed with the office for the past six years, Roy understands the power of the office to shape policy, to protect the budget, to advocate for the resident, and to find the windfalls in corporate law enforcement. She has the ability to speak convincingly to any audience without hedging her principles, and knows the value of education and politics that are needed to make progressive policy last.
What we do not need is another “tough prosecutor” who, like Hydee, thinks that glaring angrily at shoplifters can substitute for the management of the legal needs of the entire city of Los Angeles. That sort of leadership has blown a hole in our city budget and left us defenseless against the illegality of the Trump administration.
Marissa Roy is the only candidate in this race who understands the office, who treats it with the seriousness it deserves, and who has a clear vision of how to manage it to the benefit of the city. In many ways, her campaign is one for basic fairness and justice under the law. What if the theft of money from a worker were treated as seriously as the theft of money from a corporation? What if laws around pollution, or predatory lending, or tenant harassment were treated as seriously and pursued as aggressively as sleeping on the street? The choice to treat laws that punish the poor as sacrosanct and laws that restrict the rich as optional is a political one.
We get to make a different choice. Vote for Marissa Roy.
Los Angeles Community College District, Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 2:
[COMING SOON]
Los Angeles Community College District, Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 4:
[COMING SOON]
Los Angeles Community College District, Member of the Board of Trustees, Seat 6:
[COMING SOON]
LA County
Sheriff: Robert Luna
Sheriff Luna has maintained a subdued status quo over his first term, keeping himself out of the headlines and focusing on rebuilding the many bridges burned by his predecessor, neckless fascist Alex Villanueva. This quiet approach has paid off as a management strategy, but it hasn’t addressed the department’s deep-seated problems; in many ways it seems that the goal of his tenure has been to cut down on scandalous headlines rather than fix underlying issues. Deaths at the county jail, which his department operates, have reached the shocking level of almost one per week, leading to a lawsuit by the state attorney general. No effective steps have been taken against the deputy gangs that thrive in the underbelly of the department. And, during last summer’s protests against the Trump regime’s mass deportation policy, LASD dealt out horrific violence to peaceful demonstrators, gassing and beating without restraint, and Sheriff Luna explicitly lied to the media to justify it.
Lucky for Luna, his opponent in this runoff is neckless fascist Alex Villanueva. The former sheriff’s disgraceful record hardly bears repeating: baselessly investigating political opponents, defying subpoenas, protecting deputy gangs, hiring and promoting abusers, building an unpermitted helipad at his house, and on and on and on. LA’s dollar-store Trump spent the last four years fuming fruitlessly in front of his webcam to an audience of dozens, and has crawled out of his man cave for a campaign that amounts to nothing more than a resentment tour.
From our perspective Luna has failed in many respects, but Villanueva is a man who should never be allowed a scintilla of authority ever again, so we’re going to vote against him. And, let’s be honest, handing Villanueva another thrashing at the ballot box is going to feel fantastic.
Judge of the Superior Court
In Los Angeles, judges are elected to six-year terms in countywide races, which in a county of 10 million people ensures that no candidate can reach more than the tiniest fraction of the electorate. This means that incumbents are impossible to beat unless they’re up to their necks in scandal, and even then a judicial PAC protects even the most loathsome among them. Judicial hopefuls go to war over the open seats — futures are often decided by a game of musical chairs at the County Registrar, leaving a lucky few running unopposed. This is obviously a great system and a credit to democracy.
Finding meaningful information about the candidates also poses an enormous challenge. Your average campaign website has a list of endorsements, some vague language about fairness and the law, and a smiling photo of a person in a suit. That’s why we’re here. Our recommendations are based on dozens of conversations with progressive lawyers and organizers.
Part of the purpose of this guide is to push back against the biases built into what little information is available. The Bar Association, for example, rates candidates on their “qualifications” in a manner that privileges prosecutorial experience over defense or civil work. In the race for Seat 64, for example, they rated Public Defender Haymon as only “qualified” with 26 years of experience, and District Attorney Ghobadi as “well qualified” with 17.
Many other publications also fall for the fiction that “nonpartisan” judicial races are politically neutral. The police unions certainly don’t believe that: they endorse the judges they think will be most friendly to an agenda of criminalization and imprisonment. We also see the intervention of groups like the Crime Survivors PAC, a Trumpist Republican group that prospective judges list proudly on their websites. Even without those extremes, there is a meaningful difference between a judiciary made up of white male ex-DAs and one with a diversity of cultural, class, and professional backgrounds.
Seat 64: DPD Rhonda Haymon
Rhonda Haymon is an experienced trial attorney who boasts more than 25 years as a public defender. In our research we heard both pros and cons: praise for her grit and determination as an advocate, criticism of her ability to work collaboratively. She has the endorsements of Judges Holly Hancock, George Turner, and Ericka Wiley, who won election as part of a movement to expand the diversity of background and experience in the judiciary; she also is endorsed by La Defensa, who helped power slates of progressive judicial candidates in previous cycles. She is highly skeptical of automated “risk assessment” tools, and emphasizes the need to uphold and protect constitutional rights even when they go against the preferences of an individual judge. We recommend her for this seat.
Seat 65: Anna Reitano or Justin Clayton
This is a rarity: a race with no bad choices.
In the four-way primary we recommended a vote for Reitano, who as part of the original Defenders of Justice slate had the campaign experience to break through and ensure a good candidate in the runoff. The electorate did all of us a favor — no matter what happens, we’ll get a decent result in Seat 65.
Anna Reitano is an attorney with Los Angeles County Counsel and a former public defender. She emphasizes the breadth of her experience in law as preparing her for an office that might take her to civil trials, family court, or any other branch of the legal arena. During her time as a public defender she emphasized the importance of mental health diversion and treatment.
Justin Clayton is a career public defender and deputy in charge at the Inglewood office. He touts his leadership and management history that will help him control a courtroom, and highlights the need to protect the rights of litigants across language and cultural barriers, vital in a city of over a hundred spoken languages.
Both Reitano and Clayton boast more than a decade of heavy courtroom and trial experience with the public defender’s office. Both have a wide range of endorsements. It’s a shame that two qualified candidates are stuck in competition for a single office.
Seat 87: DPD Anthony Bayne
Anthony Bayne boasts a quarter century of experience at the public defender’s office, including 19 years at the Compton courthouse in roles ranging from defending the most severe felony offenses to the supervision of new misdemeanor attorneys. His broad experience with the courts at every level puts him head and shoulders above his competition for the seat.
Seat 131: DAPD David Ross
For those who don’t know, the county has two public defender offices. The alternate public defender, where Ross has worked for more than 25 years, handles cases where there are multiple defendants or conflicts of interest between them that would disqualify the public defender — the same work, but under a different banner. Before becoming an attorney, he spent a decade as a journalist. He has an excellent resume and a commitment to the people left behind by our system. In interviews he impressed with his thoughtfulness and temperament. He’s both the progressive choice and the most qualified candidate.
Public Defender Donna Tryfman is also in the runoff. She faced allegations of verbal abuse and misconduct during her previous campaign for Beverly Hills School Board, where she ran on a platform of forcing teachers back into the classroom against COVID-19 guidelines. She has also been accused of harassing coworkers who expressed opposition to the genocide in Gaza. We do not believe that she has the character or impartiality to serve on the bench.
Neighboring LA Cities
Burbank
Burbank has a solid progressive bloc of electeds to maintain in 2026, to the benefit of everyone in LA County who can look to these leaders as a blueprint. As a center of the entertainment industry – and home to Warner Brothers, recently bought up by Skydance – Burbank is sure to be a center of political action in the next cycle. Three progressive candidates are running for the three seats available on Burbank City Council.
Mike Van Gorder
We are back again with another recommendation for Mike Van Gorder, who ran in the previous election in a slate with Konstantine Anthony. His platform is refreshingly straightforward on the policies he will be advancing to protect tenants (makes sense since he is a founder of the Glendale Tenants Union and formerly a housing policy analyst for SEIU Local 1000), immigrants, bike and street safety, and small businesses and jobs. Van Gorder’s 2026 campaign has kept his slate of progressive endorsers from his first campaign and added institutional supporters. He has been a strong advocate for entertainment workers and unions – given the major anti-labor changes the film and TV industry has been entertaining, Burbank would do well to bring a good advocate into office and elect Mike Van Gorder.
Nicole Jane Perez
Former Burbank Mayor and councilmember Nicole “Nikki” Perez was Burbank’s first Indigenous and openly LGBTQIA+ councilmember. As a Burbank native with a social work background, her tenure in office has been marked by an impressive array of pro-worker/pro-tenant policies and programs aimed at keeping Burbank affordable, inclusive, and safe. She introduced a ban on Automatic License Plate Readers (including Flock) and has mobilized resources to Burbank residents impacted by ICE. Perez’s continued experienced leadership will be crucial under these federal circumstances.
Nolan Southerland
Nolan Southerland has positioned his campaign to be a promising addition to the Burbank squad. His platform commits to continuing his advocacy as a member of the Burbank Tenants Union and 15 year member of IATSE local 700 through the powers of the seat. Southerland has also garnered the endorsement of City Controller Kenneth Mejia, Burbank elected Kontantine Anthony, and notably the LA Labor Fed, a very rare get for first time candidates. Southerland will be another experienced voice in the pro-entertainment worker bloc on council and his priorities include protecting immigrants, auditing and reviewing military-grade law enforcement equipment, and bus and bike friendly infrastructure.
Santa Monica
Santa Monica City Council (3 Seats): Mayor Caroline Torosis, Danny Ivanov, and Brett Morrow
Santa Monica chooses three new councilmembers for at-large seats this November. There are three solidly pro-tenant options up for election.
Mayor Caroline Torosis has been a champion for renters, establishing Right to Counsel for tenants facing eviction, supporting long-term solution building policies like tenant opportunity-to-purchase which gives tenants a first bite at the apple to buy their building when it goes on the market. She was formerly a Rent Control Board member and has defended Santa Monica’s rent stabilization.
Santa Monica’s pro-renter slate also includes Chief Communications Officer for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Brett Morrow who articulated nuanced housing and development positions which center non-displacement of existing tenants and current Rent Board chair Danny Ivanov who while strong on tenants issues could improve on wealth taxation, immigration, and policing. For their united pro-tenant agenda, and progressive endorsers, they should all have your vote.
Santa Monica Rent Stabilization Board (3 Seats): Sue Himmelrich, Heather Thomason, and Kurt Gonska
Similarly to city council, Santa Monica’s Rent Stabilization Board also has three open seats with a good selection of candidates.
Sue Himmelrich was a volunteer attorney for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, major supporter of Measure GS and GSH and is currently Special Counsel at the Western Center on Law & Poverty. Himmelrich also has a strong pro-tenant record in public office for Santa Monica. Her incredible resume fighting for tenants makes her an easy recommendation.
Heather Thomason’s campaign for Rent Stabilization board comes from the experience of being displaced multiple times as a renter. Her story and commitment to renters is well laid out in her Santa Monicans for Renters Right’s questionnaire. She is a WGA member, renter, strong advocate for rent control, and non-displacement.
Kurt Gonska is running for re-election on the Rent Stabilization Board. Also a strong candidate but not as clear on ULA style Measure GS “taxes prevent development” as we would like.
Soledad Marcial is also running and it’s worth noting that her website is in English and Spanish. She is from Pico and it is great to see Pico represented through a candidate in this race.
West Hollywood
This November, West Hollywood voters have the opportunity to elect three councilmembers from a pool of candidates. Fortunately, there are three choice candidates: Chelsea Byers, Helen Krieger, and Stephen Post.
You can find everything you need to know about your local voting options can be found on the City Clerk site here.
Chelsea Byers
Chelsea Byers has been an incredible champion for tenants in West Hollywood. As an active partner with organizations like Working Families Party, she has consistently centered renters and affordability in her city. She also pushed to strengthen West Hollywood’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance, which is now among the strongest in California. As extreme heat protections are starting to become a reality here in LA, West Hollywood under Byer’s leadership has already taken steps to protect renters by establishing a maximum indoor temp of 82 degrees for rental units. She has also moved quickly to bolster West Hollywood’s sanctuary city ordinance and vote down Flock contracts. An easy, strong recommendation for Chelsea Byers, so tell your WeHo friends.
Helen Krieger
One of the few candidates who are willing to call out car dependency directly, Helen Krieger’s platform highlights the very real dangers of traffic deaths compared to the falling rates of violent crime. Krieger does invoke active partnership with law enforcement but her approach to Flock cameras shines some light into her perspective on public safety and privacy. She proposes that WeHo might develop its own digital privacy policy but it falls short of being a stalwart opponent to the intrusion of corporate and surveillance architecture in our lives. For a city with historic queer and immigrant communities, we would prefer to see a stronger position on this.
Walkability and bikeability are major concerns for her as well as development that suits the need for more affordable housing units while tailoring the approach to the neighborhood. Her experience living in New Orleans through Hurricane Katrina and advocating for the development of affordable housing in the aftermath is part of what set Krieger on this path.
Stephen Post
With a strong backing of progressive west side and city wide organizations, Stephen Post has demonstrated that he is paying close attention to the advocates of LA and is serious about effective solutions that put people first. His housing justice approach includes models of social housing, like public housing, and expanding the affordable housing that is so deeply needed in LA. His work with cannabis decriminalization and clear positions on ICE and Flock shows real concern over the needs of targeted and marginalized communities, as opposed to criminalization-for-the-sake-of-public-safety theater. All this in addition to his considerable advocacy lobbying and experience on governmental bodies is a promising sign for people hoping to see a thriving, progressive, West Hollywood.
Ballot Measures
Statewide
State Measure 1: Yes
The approval of Proposition 1 would allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds in order to fund affordable housing programs. The majority — $10 billion — would go towards homeownership programs, farmworker housing, affordable student housing, tribal housing, and other initiatives. If voters approve it, the bond sale is expected to finance up to 40,000 multifamily rental units and assist another 40,000 households with buying a home. The remaining $1.25 billion would specifically be allocated to veteran housing.
It is no secret that California’s housing crisis is beyond concerning. Creating financial support for affordable housing, rent-burdened households, and vulnerable populations is a step towards remedying the absolute inhumanity of more than 187,000 people being unhoused in the state of California.
State Measure 2: Yes
If approved, this proposition would amend the California State charter to move 20% of general fund tax revenue into reserves — also known as the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) — increasing the ceiling from the previous 10%. Approval would also authorize spending tax revenue to pay down the state’s federal unemployment insurance debt, totaling $20 billion, through a change in how “excess” capital gains revenues are calculated. The proposition would change the relationship between deposits into the BSA and the state spending cap, commonly called the Gann Limit. Put in place by voter-approved ballot initiative in 1979, the current spending cap law limits growth in state and local government spending funded by tax revenue and requires that the government will remit funds to taxpayers when the limit is exceeded. Under current law, deposits into state reserves are counted as dollars spent and dollars withdrawn are not counted as spending. The approval of Proposition 2 would codify the inverse: deposits into reserves would not count as spending, while withdrawals would.
More money in California’s savings account is a good thing. Period. This proposition is opposed by right-wing groups like Reform California, an ultra-conservative PAC that is chaired by conservative activist and sentient frown line Carl DeMaio. So take from that what you will.
State Measure 3: Yes
This ballot measure extends a tax on the top 2% of income earners, first enacted in 2012. The new measure, titled The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act, will make permanent a range of income taxes for high-earning individuals, beginning at 10.3% for people making $360,000 per year and capping at 12.3% for those making $721,000 or more per year. The overwhelming majority of revenue collected from this tax — which totals up to $15 billion annually — funds California’s public schools. The remaining 11% goes to community colleges and any extra is allocated to public healthcare.
Allowing this tax to expire would cause up to a 10% budget cut for California public schools. One in six public school teachers would face termination as a result. Essential programs, like free lunch initiatives, would be cut, just to fund a handout to the wealthiest Californians. Our recommendation needs no further explanation: vote yes.
State Measure 4: Yes
Prop 4 would end a ban on public financing for campaigns and allow local governments to build programs that provide political candidates with public funds. State law allows charter cities to distribute public funds for campaigns, but not state and county governments. If passed, Prop 4 would require the creation of expenditure limits and other criteria for candidates seeking public funds. Campaigns would be prohibited from using the money for legal defense fees, fines, or repaying personal loans.
This proposition doesn’t create a public financing plan, but makes it possible for us to fight for the creation of an equitable system. In a world where money still sways elections, public financing has been a powerful tool for working people to participate in politics. If you follow Los Angeles politics — which you probably do, you’re reading Knock LA — you’ve seen matching funds make it possible for progressive challengers to compete with the big money of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) or the landlord lobby. At the same time, many of our favorites in other cities or running for state legislature have been swamped by wealthy interests.
Prop 4 would help us open our elections to candidates who do not have personal fortunes or a network of rich donors. Vote yes.
State Measure 5: Yes
Under current California law, a special election to select a successor occurs at the same time as a successful recall removes someone from office. This bizarre system means that a much smaller plurality of voters can drive a recall and replace a majority-elected official. Prop 5 would require a public office to remain vacant after an official is recalled rather than the position being filled by a simultaneous election. It would also allow said recalled officials to run again for the office they were recalled from if there is a special election, and the measure would authorize the lieutenant governor to step into a gubernatorial vacancy if the governor is recalled.
Recalls are a tool that conservatives and right-wing activists love to haul out when they’re upset about the policies set by Democratic lawmakers, or even the simple fact of their existence. Unsurprisingly, the California Republican Party came out in opposition to Prop 5, because the current anti-majoritarian recall system is essentially their only chance to capture a statewide race. Anti-progressive, cave-dwelling Reform California is also among this proposition’s opponents.
This is a basic measure to make our elections more rational and more small-d democratic.
State Measure 37: Yes
Election season is not complete without at least one mysteriously worded ballot measure about homeownership. In that way, Prop 37 provides.
If passed, Prop 37 would create a second mortgage program for qualified homebuyers on qualified homes, with $25 billion in bonds to fund the program. “Qualified homes” are defined as newly constructed homes, townhomes, row houses, condominiums, and residences in nonresidential buildings — key words: “newly constructed.” Proponents of Prop 37 include, unsurprisingly, realtors and the construction trades. The mortgage under this program would cover up to 17% of the purchase cost, essentially pushing the down payment to 3%. The most likely beneficiary, then, would be a household with stable middle-income work but without the savings for a down payment.
While this can provide some real benefits for homebuyers without ready capital, it’s not a real solution for the housing crisis. Think of it as an industry subsidy, providing demand-side funding to encourage new construction; realtors like it because it increases home sales, unions like it because it increases construction work.
We’re not opposed to this proposition, but it is hardly a cure for the housing crisis.
State Measure 38: No
This proposition would issue $8.4 billion in bonds to support immunology and Alzheimer’s research. We sure do like medical research, don’t we?
But there’s a catch. This proposition is designed with a number of specific conditions on who qualifies for this funding. So specific, in fact, that only one institution would qualify: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, which happens to be chaired by the chief funder and proponent of Prop 38.
This is a total corruption of the ballot process and not how we should be funding medical research. Vote no.
State Measure 39: No
It’s a big, resounding “no” on this one. Prop 39 would require all California voters to show a government-issued ID when voting in person and to provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID when registering to vote by mail. Election officials would also be mandated to maintain “accurate” voter registration lists and to ensure that all voters on said lists are US citizens. As California law stands, voters are already required to show a government-issued ID and social security number when registering to vote, but are not required to do so at polling places.
This is an anti-democratic move by conservative lawmakers who continue to project about election fraud. It is another way for them to make voting more difficult and to create barriers for young people, people with disabilities, and low-income voters. This measure is supported by the California Republican Party and billionaire-backed Reform California.
Tell them to go to hell and vote no.
State Measure 40: YES!
This measure is a billionaire tax. It would require the approximately 200 billionaires in California — who are defined as taxpayers with assets valued at $1 billion or more — to pay a one-time, 5% tax at the start of 2027. 90% of funds would be earmarked for healthcare, and the remaining 10% allocated to education and food assistance.
This is absolutely vital. Trump’s administration slashed $100 billion of Medi-Cal’s federal funding. Without Prop 40 revenue, millions of people in California will lose their healthcare. Hospitals will close. Medical workers will be laid off. People will fucking die.
There is another reason this proposition is necessary, and why the worst bootlickers in the state are trying to block it. Prop 40 asks us whether the oligarch class, who have amassed more wealth than any person could spend in a dozen lifetimes, are subjects of our democracy. Everyone subject to this tax will, in spite of it, end the year richer than before. They are not threatened by the hit to their pocketbooks, they are threatened by the possibility that they might be in any way accountable to the people.
The corrupting influence of money in politics can be seen in the ghoulish way some liberal lawmakers and organizations have come out against Prop 40. All we have to say is that those people — Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra, Katie Porter, and all the rest — have betrayed you. They have chosen to side with the absolute impunity of the billionaire class over your right to health and life. They would sooner see you and millions of Californians like you sicken and die before calling on the richest people in the history of the world to pay a fraction of their fair share.
Vote yes, and don’t forget.
State Measure 41: NO!
Off the bat, it’s a no. Prop 41 was introduced as a way to nullify and defeat Prop 40. It contains language that could make taxation more complicated, but that’s secondary to its main purpose.
Along with its companion ballot measure Prop 42, it contains language stating that if this measure receives more votes than Prop 40, then Prop 40 does not go into effect, even if Prop 40 passes. It was put on the ballot to confuse the electorate. No for this one and for the following one, too.
State Measure 42: NO!
This measure would create a ban on new taxes that target personal property, and was, similarly to Prop 41, designed to block the billionaire tax. Like its counterpart, Prop 42 would make Prop 40 null and void if the former receives more votes than the latter. Also like 41, this measure was put on the ballot by the billionaires who think they can put one over on the voters.
No on both 41 and 42.
State Measure 43: No
Prop 43 is about limiting the ability for new taxes to be proposed and enacted. It would raise the threshold for new, local ballot measures that propose, increase, or extend special taxes initiated by individuals to pass. Currently, the California Constitution requires local tax measures proposed by local governments to be approved by a two-thirds vote and those proposed by citizens to be approved by simple majority. Prop 43, if passed, would push the latter’s threshold for enactment up to a two-thirds vote. Requiring a supermajority would make it almost impossible to pass any tax, destroying the ability of the state to fund itself.
This is more bullshit from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, one of the most destructive groups in the history of the state. The ultimate goal of this measure is to make it impossible for the state to raise revenue or fulfill the basic functions of a government.
Vote no.
State Measure 44: No
A tough one in terms of parsing the language in its text. If passed, the measure would require federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on advancing the center’s mission. “Require community health clinics spend 90% of revenue on program services” seems great. However, this would come at a steep cost. This is intended to target executive pay and overhead costs… but what qualifies under this proposition? Does training and recruitment count? What about facility maintenance, or data security, or legal advice to determine Prop 44 compliance? “The Attorney General decides” is not a great way to do business, particularly when noncompliance comes with monetary penalties.
Clinics must meet certain criteria to be classified as an FQHC, including being located in or serving a high-need community and providing services on a sliding scale. So this measure, if passed, would place greater restrictions and penalties on clinics that serve low-income, rural, and non-white communities at a time when the healthcare landscape in California is already precarious. This measure will likely result in clinic closures and the loss of services in vulnerable areas.
State Measure 45: No
The sales pitch on 45 is reform of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a 1970 state law that requires public agencies to analyze, disclose, and minimize the significant environmental impacts of proposed discretionary projects before approving them. If passed, the proposition would shorten the review process for development projects deemed “essential,” which includes construction of housing, power infrastructure, and highways, among others.
While CEQA has in some cases been abused to prevent housing and transit projects, the cure can’t be worse than the disease. Prop 45 is a mix of arbitrary timelines and carve-outs that are designed to serve the most destructive developers rather than improve our state’s built infrastructure. The goal of radically shortening the amount of time for public comment and agency review is meant not to improve the review process but to evade it entirely; the time limits that would be imposed on the courts by Prop 45 have been described as “arbitrary and unrealistically short” by the Judicial Council.
Ultimately Prop 45 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, using the need for housing and transit to fast-track highway construction and AI data centers.
Over 400 organizations oppose this: including the ACLU, the Sierra Club, the California Firefighters Association, the American Lung Association, and organized labor. That last group is a particularly clear example of the goals of Prop 45, as the building trades will endorse almost anything that increases construction. This proposition, however, is not about actually building out the things we need — it’s a corporate-funded power grab dressed up as reform.
Vote NO.
Los Angeles County
Measure A: No
This measure amends the LA County Charter to make changes to union bargaining by “public safety” units — most notably the LASD deputies and county firefighters. Public safety units generally have priority in bargaining with the county, and the terms of their agreements have significant impacts on other county workers.
The primary impact of Measure A would to be to allow any deadlock in union negotiations to be sent to binding arbitration. In a most fundamental sense, this would allow the major public safety units to force contract agreements that ignore the broader financial and policy needs of the county, putting at risk county priorities and the needs of other unions.
We do not need to give the corrupt Sheriff’s Department any more power over the county’s budget. Vote no.
Measure E: Yes
This one is vitally important. By passing this measure, LA County would be locking in the independence of and funding for the County Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance. $14.3 million per year would be given to the Commission as an independent body. Passing Measure E means more power for ethics investigation and more strength for the Commission to enforce penalties.
Measure E would also remedy one of the more embarrassing moments in county history, the accidental erasure of Measure J in 2024. The popular measure codified a commitment to reducing incarceration, and programs that it funded, like the Office of Diversion and Reentry, which have been incredibly effective at transitioning arrestees to mental health and substance abuse treatment. Restoring Measure J ensures that this funding continues uninterrupted. A clerical error should not have been allowed to overturn the will of millions of Angelenos.
Los Angles City
Measure TE: No
Measure TE is an attempt to create tax exemptions for people whose homes burned in the Palisades Fire should they wish to sell their property. If passed, it would allow these certain residential property owners to be exempt from Measure ULA, which taxes real estate sales that surpass $5.4 million. This exemption would run for five years from the date of the fire, expiring in 2030.
We want to be clear about something: the loss of a home during a fire is a traumatic and terrible occurrence. The Palisades Fire was a devastating event, and the rebuilding process will be long and difficult.
We also believe that if passed, Measure TE would set a precedent for wealthy homeowners to opt out of taxes, an option that is not available to people in Altadena who lost their homes in the Eaton Fire. If an individual’s property sells for more than $5.4 million, even as a bare lot, it’s not right to exempt that sale from a tax. $5.4 million is a lot of money for a piece of land without a house on it! To protect the integrity of Measure ULA, we do not support creating carve outs to the mansion tax. The recommendation is no.
Measure LA: Yes
We are fans of this one. If passed, this measure would change the LA City Charter to create capital infrastructure plans and a two-year budget cycle, along with a host of other shifts. Capital infrastructure plans are needed to restore and repair the city’s existing infrastructure. The two-year budget cycle would create more long-term planning, build more financial stability, allow evaluation to occur during off years, and improve oversight. This is a common-sense update that makes the basic functions of the city easier to carry out. We like this. The city needs this.
Measure PL: Yes
This measure is quite technical and of limited scope. If PL passes it would consolidate the Area Planning Commissions and let certain additional decisions be made by the City Planning Department. It would also prevent City Council from killing projects by refusing to put them on agenda, a favorite bribe-inducement strategy of former councilmember and current federal inmate José Huizar. Essentially, the measure streamlines certain planning elements and removes some opportunities for corruption or tomfoolery.
PL is supported by the Engineers & Architects Association, the union that represents city planners. Vote yes.
Measure EE: Yes
EE is a grab bag of charter reforms. A “yes” vote grants more authority to LAPD’s Inspector General and LAFD’s Independent Assessor, civilian oversight bodies designed to audit the departments and investigate claims of misconduct. It would also raise the penalties for campaign finance violations, something that grassroots progressives could benefit from.
Measure EE also brings down the number of required weekly City Council meetings from three to one. Some feel that would reduce accountability, but we don’t agree; if anything, the current system makes it easier to miss meetings or hide motions in the shuffle.
Another part of EE would raise the threshold for referendums to overturn a City Council action to 15%, similar to voter initiatives. This is not a desirable change but its impact is small enough that it is outweighed by the other parts of the measure.
Measure PRK: Yes!
We love this one. This measure, if passed, would amend the LA City Charter to change the minimum budget allocated to the Department of Recreation and Parks. To put it simply, more money for parks! Los Angeles desperately needs this. Our parks department has struggled to staff and maintain our existing parks, to say nothing of expanding the amount of green space in the city. With our weather we deserve to be a city of world-class parks. Let’s have more playgrounds, more bathrooms, more concerts and programming, and more beautiful spaces to enjoy.
PRK is opposed by the LAPPL, because “How dare you want something nice? What about 300 new cop cars instead?”
Measure PRT: Yes
Not a very consequential measure unless you care a lot about airport commissions. If passed, it would allocate funds for waterfront public access projects and would also require people serving on Airport Commissions to live near the airport (though it doesn’t particularly define “near”). This is a fairly minor change. Don’t lose sleep over it.
Measure FD: Yes
This one is simple. Using a 0.5% sales tax (raising the sales tax from 10.25% to 10.75%), Measure FD would raise funds for the LA Fire Department. No surprises here. As the climate crisis grows and dangerous fire conditions continue to increase, more funding for the fire department is a positive. Los Angeles faces horrific wildfire risks across a huge territory, and we need to grow our fire department staff and facilities and take proactive steps to prevent fires and harden our infrastructure.
Measure FD is primarily opposed by the LA Police Protective League, which is investing millions against it for reasons that seem unclear; as best we can tell it’s a mixture of spite and anti-tax sentiment. They might want to think twice — if the fire department misses out on this revenue, folks might start looking at the LAPD budget sooner rather than later.
We do need to offer our recommendation with some caveats. First, a sales tax is a regressive tax. Lower income Angelenos will pay more as a percentage of their income than the rich. Second, we simply cannot fund everything forever by carving out fractional cents of sales tax and earmarking it for different departments; this is not a way to manage a budget, and will eventually hit the limit of its usefulness.
In the long run, we need to talk seriously about the budget, particularly the huge proportion of it eaten up by LAPD and the hundreds of millions in liability claims they face every year. We need to talk about Prop 13 and the hole it has blown in municipal governance in California. And we need to talk about billionaires and concentrations of massive wealth.
In the meantime, we will offer a reserved “yes” on FD.
Measure SC: Yes
This one is quite specific. If passed, it would do what it says on the tin: clarify campaign finance rules for Board of Education elections by making them match the same rules as the Mayor. That’s fine. It could be interesting in the future if voters also pass Prop 4 — maybe matching funds could be extended to the School Board race as well.
California State Legislature
Statewide Races
Governor: Not Steve Hilton
A hugely disappointing place to find ourselves, but here we are.
Steve Hilton is a rabid Republican with his own very lame spin on MAGA sloganeering: “Make California Golden Again.” Hilton is a British political hack who moved to California in 2012, and his understanding of the state and our issues is just as deep as that would suggest. Despite being an immigrant himself, he is an enthusiastic supporter of ICE and Trump’s mass deportation regime. He wants to roll back our state’s hard-earned environmental protections, increase drilling for oil, and is opposed to renewable energy, calling offshore wind “an abomination.” Having helped drive England into a ditch as a Tory advisor, Hilton is hoping to do the same with California.
Xavier Becerra continues the corporatist right-wing swing of Governor Newsom, who abandoned his many commitments to LGBTQ+ and abortion rights and helped block vital environmental and healthcare reforms. The milquetoast former attorney general was in the right place at the right time and has the right lack of moral conviction to take up the establishment line after Rep. Swalwell was forced out of the race by allegations of sexual assault.
It’s not really worth describing Becerra’s policy views, as they change depending on the whims of the donor class. He accepted a maximum donation from Chevron and consistently sides with the oil industry — including supporting new drilling and oil production in California. He turned his back on single-payer healthcare to earn the backing of a health industry lobby. Becerra is clay in the hands of wealthy corporations.
We urge you to vote against the fascists. As pathetic a creature as Becerra is, we cannot afford to have our state laid bare and vulnerable by MAGA leadership for the last two years of the Trump administration.
While we cast these ballots, however, we should also ask why the governor’s race looks the way it does. Why are candidates backed by Democratic Party power players unwilling to call for the elimination of Trump’s fascist stormtroopers? Why are candidates still willing to call for more oil drilling, against the will of the voters, in a state that has seen the devastating effects of climate change firsthand? Why are our state politics, in a state with democratic supermajorities all up and down the line, still so captured by the wealth and influence of right-wing interests?
Lieutenant Governor: Fiona Ma
Fiona Ma, California’s treasurer, is an easy choice next to anti-trans, anti-vax, charter-backed Republican Gloria J. Romero. While a comparatively weak position, lieutenant governor is next in line if the governor vacates office or their health is compromised. The role also includes an important role in higher education, and includes a number of regent and trustee board roles.
Michael Tubbs and Oliver Ma were both exciting options for this seat, which the progressive movement is unfortunately still not in a position to crack.
Secretary of State: Shirley N. Weber
The secretary of state oversees state and federal elections, as well as managing the corporate filings for businesses, nonprofits, and lobbyists. Given the attacks on free and fair elections by the Trump administration and the Supreme Court, this normally sleepy office becomes an important line of defense. California’s elections are slow to be certified, and our data on lobbyists and campaign finance is hard to navigate.
Weber is endorsed by a broad coalition of labor organizers, activists, and elected officials. Her goals for the coming term include strengthening cybersecurity and expanding voter registration outreach to high school and college students and the formerly incarcerated. She is also a consistent opponent of GOP-led “voter ID” disenfranchisement schemes.
Controller: Malia Cohen
Similar to the controller for the City of Los Angeles, the controller for the state oversees financial disbursements, audits, and unclaimed property. Given the size and economic power of California, this is no small task. California has a country-scale budget, and transparency is critical for advocacy. Malia Cohen is running for reelection against Herb Morgan, a retired Republican investment firm founder and CIO. No need to overcomplicate this runoff. If you want to keep the office of controller out of Republican hands, vote for Cohen.
Treasurer: Eleni Kounalakis
Eleni Kounalakis, a seasoned democrat and current lieutenant governor of California, is up against Jennifer Hawks, a GOP-backed retired business executive. As lieutenant governor, Kounalakis attempted to disqualify Trump from the 2024 presidential election after a Colorado court case ruled that Trump’s involvement in the January 6 attack constituted engagement in insurrection — a bright spot in a career mostly notable for her ability to leverage her family’s enormous wealth.
One of the highlights of Hawks’ platform is a proposal to create a spending database including a searchable registry for “repeat recipients” of aid. We do not need more tools in the racist playbook to scapegoat and stigmatize the poor. Hawks is not a worthy candidate and should be nowhere near office.
Attorney General: Rob Bonta
At this historical moment, the most important thing an attorney general can do is use the legal system to throw up roadblocks in the way of the fascist in the White House. By that metric, Bonta has done an excellent job putting his foot on Trump’s neck. His department’s lawsuits have fought the federalization of the national guard, challenged the weakening of environmental standards, and confronted anti-immigrant and anti-trans policies.
We would note, however, his surprising cowardice on the Paramount/Warner Bros merger. The multi-state lawsuit he led was a righteous and legally necessary fight against a merger that not only threatened to do horrific damage to the film industry, but would also hand control of a shocking amount of the news media to allies of Trump and the Saudi government. When Governor Newsom (who has never met an oligarch he didn’t like) intervened on behalf of the merger, Bonta folded.
Michael Gates, his Republican opponent, made a career out of pushing for greater incarceration and opposing affordable housing in Huntington Beach. He had a brief dalliance with the Justice Department, in the dried-out husk of what was once the Civil Rights department, until he was forced out after less than a year for somehow being too toxic and sexist for the Trump administration.
Vote Bonta, but don’t forget.
Insurance Commissioner: Jane Kim
Here’s one you didn’t think you had to think about. The insurance commissioner runs the Department of Insurance, responsible for licensing insurance companies, investigating consumer complaints and insurers, and punishing insurers for regulatory noncompliance. The Department of Insurance impacts home and auto insurance, life insurance, workers’ compensation, and some aspects of health insurance (California, uniquely, splits oversight of health insurance companies between the Department of Managed Health Care, run by the governor, and the independent Department of Insurance).
As insurance rates rise and home insurers abandon the state, working people are being shut out of the economy in a most basic way. Kim wants to create a nonprofit public disaster insurance plan, create transparency around costs and coverage, and use regulatory powers to hold bad actors in the insurance industry accountable. The former San Francisco supervisor carries endorsements from the California Teachers Association, the Working Families Party, and local and national elected officials from Bubba Fish to Bernie Sanders.
Look at this race like Kenneth Mejia’s first run for controller, but with fewer corgis. Insurance commissioner is a technical and regulatory office that most people wouldn’t look twice at, but also offers significant opportunities for a mission-driven public servant to make material improvements in people’s lives.
For insurance commissioner, vote for Jane Kim.
Member State Board of Equalization, 3rd District: Samuel P. Sukaton
What does Board of Equalization even do? Great question; we’ve got answers. The BOE oversees the property tax systems, alcoholic beverage tax, and tax on insurers. It is a five-member body that on paper might seem like a place to park your political career when you’re figuring out your next step. But it might secretly be one of the more underrated tools for budget equity in California.
Our state has been plagued with tax policies that benefit rich homeowners, corporations, and predatory companies. It is not news that right-wing organizations like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association have been key players in developing and standardizing these regressive, trickle-up taxation schemes to hoard wealth, resources, and power. A sharp administrator with an eye toward making the rich pay their fair share could do a lot for Californians.
That’s why we’re recommending Sam Sukaton, a labor organizer and a representative of the California Working Families Party. He has institutional experience, having worked with the California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, Air Resources Board, and Natural Resources Agency. His campaign commitments include equity for homeowners and small businesses across counties, increased transparency on taxation revenue, and safeguards for the environment.
Sukaton is part of a wave of candidates, like Controller Kenneth Mejia, who see the potential for progressive policymaking in more obscure and technical roles. Making a better California for everyone requires every tool at our disposal. Sukaton should get your vote.
Assemblymember Mike Gipson is also running for the seat. He has been repeatedly called out by Greenpeace, Courage California, Project Super Bloom, and Knock LA for taking hundreds of thousands of dollars of oil industry money to abstain on or vote against important environmental bills — at the same time as he was representing one of the most pollution-impacted districts. He doesn’t deserve a second act at the BOE.
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Richard Barrera
The superintendent is the elected executive of the state Department of Education… for now. It’s possible that the position may change significantly in the future, including no longer being elected, but that would be after this round of elections.
The wide-open field attracted a number of strong candidates, and Richard Barrera was one of the better options. The president of the San Diego Unified School District School Board and himself a product of public schools, Barrera has earned major support from teachers and labor. His platform emphasizes the need for strong investment in teacher development and retention, nurses and counselors in schools, and protection of LGBTQ+ students. With his extensive experience and relationships with the unions that educate our kids, he’s well-qualified to take the lead as superintendent.
This contrasts dramatically with his opponent, Republican Sonja Shaw, a bigoted maniac without any background in education. Shaw’s candidacy is driven by her hatred of LGBTQ+ youth and her opposition to COVID-19 vaccines and masks. Her platform is short on education policy and long on conspiracy, and could be quite simply summed up as “more dead kids.” It is vital that California reject this hatemonger and the sick ideology that she represents.
State Judicial [COMING SOON]
Jump to next section: State Senate
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Joshua Groban:
[COMING SOON]
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Kelli M. Evans:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3, Rashida A. Adams:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 4, Helen Zukin:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 5, Brian M. Hoffstadt:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 6, Tari L. Cody:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7, Gonzalo C. Martinez:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 1, Michelle C. Kim:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 1, Gregory J. Weingart:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 2, Anne Richardson:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 2, Steve Goorvitch:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 3, Mark Hanasono:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 4, Nicholas Daum:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 4, Audra M. Mori:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 4, Armen Tamzarian:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 6, Kenneth R. Yegan:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 7, Natalie Stone:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 8, John Wiley:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 8, Matthew A. Scherb:
[COMING SOON]
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division 8, Victor G. Viramontes:
[COMING SOON]
State Senate
State Senate District 20: Caroline Menjivar
Caroline Menjivar has been a strong progressive advocate for this Burbank and San Fernando Valley district during her first term, and has earned a second. Her work in the Senate has included legislation designed to increase oversight and accountability to address prison sexual abuse, including by reducing the use of strip searches, defending LGBT rights, and promoting tenancy protections for small businesses.
Republican Tony Rodriguez offers a warmed-over mash of pro-cop and anti-regulation platitudes that leave one with the impression that he’s not sure what office he’s running for. Vote Menjivar.
State Senate District 22: No Recommendation
Democrat Susan Rubio has a sad track record of supporting corporate interests, including failing to support restrictions on private equity takeovers of health facilities (AB 3129), a state tax on the sale of user data by large corporations (SB 1327), increased regulation of driverless cars (SB 915), and local control over oil and gas operations (AB 3233). She also failed to support a key criminal justice reform of the school-to-prison pipeline that would have ended a requirement that school principals must notify police of students caught possessing small amounts of narcotics (AB 2441).
Mike Netter is a Republican activist and conservative media personality and a strong supporter of President Trump.
Neither of these candidates deserve your vote.
State Senate District 24: John Erickson
West Hollywood City Councilman John Erickson is a long-time advocate for progressive priorities including renter protections, universal childcare, Medicare for All, and safe streets for pedestrians and bicyclists. John is endorsed by numerous labor unions representing working people, as well many progressive politicians.
Erickson faces Brian Goldsmith in this Dem-on-Dem runoff. Goldsmith is a tech entrepreneur and Democratic consultant who proudly boasts endorsements from HIllary Clinton, Traci Park, Rick Caruso, and the LAPD union, as well as right wing incumbents District Attorney Hochman and City Attorney Feldstein Soto. He has little to offer California beyond the status quo.
State Senate District 26: Sara Rascón
A brawl of a primary has left two candidates standing, both vying for the progressive mantle. Of the two, Sarah Rascón should get your vote.
Glassell Park resident Sara Rascón was born and raised in El Sereno and brings a local’s eye to the needs of the district. Her career has been defined by public service (working in the Mayor’s office, the East LA Planning Commission, and the Mountains Recreation & Conservation Authority), giving her experience with how the many interlocking wheels of local government actually move. At the same time, she has a clear understanding of herself as part of the larger movement and has been on the ground with the Rapid Response Networks that sprang up to defend the city from ICE.
Rascón’s policy goals are clear and principled. She calls for the repeal of Costa-Hawkins, for single payer healthcare, and for the expansion of unarmed crisis response. She also has a particular knowledge of and interest in reforms in the practices of the Department of Children and Family Services, having gone through family court herself as a child. Her endorsers include Controller Kenneth Mejia, outgoing Senator Maria Elena Durazo, and organizations like the Working Families Party, La Defensa, and Planned Parenthood.
Her opponent, Sara Hernandez, poses an unusual situation. Her highly professional campaign, which has raised a great deal of money and courted a great many endorsers, presents her as a progressive. Her stances around reproductive health, transportation, childcare, and gender affirming care are largely the sort of things we’d like to see in our legislators. Under other circumstances – like against a GOP candidate, or a less accomplished opponent – that might be enough.
However, Hernandez has given us many reasons to be skeptical of her candidacy. Her campaign has been supported by more than $2.5 million in outside spending, and a look under the hood finds not just the usual landlords and business interests, but an explicitly anti-union PAC started by crypto billionaires, an anti-regulation PAC funded by Meta and Google, and another whose funders include Phillip Morris tobacco of all things.
In an interview with the Larchmont Chronicle she unequivocally stated her support for 41.18, the anti-homeless banishment law. For a so-called progressive to support 41.18, particularly after it was found to be an absolute failure, is shocking, and can only reflect deep ignorance or bias against the unhoused.
Hernandez also takes pains to disguise her role at City Hall, where she worked from 2014-2016 as downtown director and special counsel for former-Councilmember and current federal inmate Jose Huizar, all while he was deep in the cash-for-development bribery scheme that eventually sent him to prison. After leaving his office she worked at biglaw firm DLA Piper on “land use” – getting developments through the PLUM committee and approval process.
As we peel back the layers here, it becomes clear that there is only one actual progressive choice in this race. Vote for Rascón.
State Senate District 28: Lola Smallwood-Cuevas
Lola Smallwood-Cuevas is one of LA’s most progressive assemblymembers, having passed legislation to increase worker protections, pushed to end oil drilling at the Inglewood Oil Field in her district, and supported anti-displacement policies in South LA. She also co-authored a criminal justice bill that would have ended the requirement that schools report student behavioral or drug possession issues to law enforcement (AB 2441). She has passed legislation to expand postpartum mental health care and, along with Assemblymember Sade Elhawary, to help inmate firefighters transition to unionized trades jobs. Her record is strong.
Republican Joe Lisuzzo parrots outdated tough-on-crime nonsense and has no concern for the needs of working class people. Lola deserves your vote.
State Senate District 30: No Recommendation
In two terms representing this southeast Los Angeles County district, Democrat Bob Archuleta has repeatedly favored corporate interests over his own constituents. He has failed to support new laws protecting renters, including limits on the deductions a landlord can take out of a security deposit. He has failed to support proposed laws to increase transparency of corporate entities and to restrict private equity from taking over healthcare facilities. He also has a mixed record on criminal justice reform and the environment.
Unfortunately, the assemblymember’s lone opponent, Republican Araceli Martinez, is a right-wing agitator who has appeared at local colleges with a “Deport All Illegals” sign as part of a controversial political stunt.
In a district that consistently votes for the Democratic Party by 20% margins, we can’t put our name behind Bob.
State Assembly
State Assembly District 34: Randall Putz
Republican Tom Lackey is term-limited out in this sprawling High Desert district. Democrat Randall Putz is an active leader in the Big Bear Lake community, having served as city councilmember, mayor, and school board member (among other positions) over the past 15 years. His platform includes ensuring big corporations pay their fair share, fighting to hold law enforcement accountable, procuring more state support for affordable housing, and enacting tenant protections.
Republican Charles Hughes is a former prison guard who has locked up endorsements from police associations and Republican politicians.
Putz is the clear choice in this race.
State Assembly District 39: No Recommendation
Democrat assemblymember Juan Carrillo, who immigrated from Mexico at age 15, remains a disappointment in this Latine-majority district that includes parts of Palmdale, Lancaster, and Victorville. During his time as a member of the Palmdale City Council, Carrillo voted to prevent stronger oversight over offshore drilling platforms while voting to allow private equity takeovers of hospitals and the subcontracting of public jobs.
Carrillo faces Republican Paul Marsh in a rematch of 2022 and 2024, both of which Carillo won with 57% of the vote. Neither candidate deserves a recommendation in this uncompetitive race.
State Assembly District 40: Pilar Schiavo
Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo has represented this swing district in Santa Clarita and Northwest San Fernando Valley since 2022. Schiavo, a former union organizer for the California Nurses Association, has supported tenant protections, worker rights, and affordable housing, but has been an inconsistent ally on criminal justice reforms.
Her challenger, former police officer Rickey Hayes, is running on a purely reactionary platform of increasing criminal sentences and bringing back “conservative values,” whatever those might be. Vote Schiavo.
State Assembly District 41: John Harabedian
Assemblymember John Harabedian compiled a strong voting record in his first term in the assembly, supporting progressive initiatives on affordable housing, criminal justice reform, and consumer protection.
His Republican opponent, Adam Vena, is an anti-trans agitator who has faced domestic abuse allegations.
Not a complicated decision. Vote Harabedian.
State Assembly District 42: No Recommendation
A lot of yikes in this open seat race. Only one Democrat qualified for the ballot after another well-funded Democrat filed their paperwork incorrectly and was booted from the race. That leaves voters to choose between Democrat Deborah Klein Lopez and Republican Ted Nordblum in this very blue Ventura County district that also includes Malibu, Pacific Palisades, and Brentwood. Both of them are running on crime fearmongering (despite remarkable decreases in the crime rate) and shoveling more and more of our state’s resources into the bottomless pit of police funding.
State Assembly District 43: Celeste Rodriguez
Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez exceeded our expectations in her first term in office, amassing a good voting record on progressive priorities, including criminal justice reform, worker protections, and affordable housing. Her accomplishments include bills to protect the children of immigrant families as well as the authoring of AB 969 to expand assistance for victims of domestic violence.
Her opponent, Ricardo Benitez, is a MAGA Republican and repeat candidate, who has been humiliatingly thrashed in four or five previous races. Celeste took over 70% in the primary, so we think she’ll cruise to victory. But there’s no reason not to run up the score — vote for Celeste Rodriguez.
State Assembly District 44: Nick Shultz
In his first term, Nick Shultz authored and passed several criminal justice reforms, sponsored critical environmental protections bills, and had a strong voting record in support of progressive priorities. He also rejected all corporate campaign donations from the real estate, oil and gas, healthcare, and tech industries. At the same time, as chair of the public safety committee, he has allowed some highly regressive bills to advance past his desk. He deserves another term — but keep up the pressure to make sure he stays on the right path.
State Assembly District 46: No Recommendation
Jesse Gabriel continues to accept large amounts of corporate campaign donations from the real estate, oil and gas, and healthcare industries, as well from police associations. We have given him lukewarm recommendations in the past, but at this point we are fully sick of this corporate influence. California remains one of 29 states that permit corporations to donate directly to candidates, and this will never change with Democrats like Gabriel in the Assembly. Skip this race.
State Assembly District 48: No Recommendation
Blanca Rubio remains one of the worst Democrats in the Assembly, with a track record for raking in egregious amounts of corporate donations and failing to support progressive legislation. In 2025, she voted against increased oversight over offshore oil drilling and did not support a bill to prohibit ICE agents from wearing masks, failing to do the bare minimum. Unfortunately, a progressive voice did not step up to challenge Rubio. Republican Dan Tran, a real estate business owner, can not be recommended either.
State Assembly District 49: Mike Fong
Mike Fong continues to be a reliable supporter of progressive legislation in this district stretching from Monterey Park to Arcadia. In 2025, he voted for bills increasing environmental protections for offshore oil drilling, limiting the terms and conditions of youth probation, and prohibiting investor-owned utilities from using ratepayer funds to pay for lobbying and political ads.
His opponent, Long Liu, is a right-wing anti-LGBT conspiracy theorist who wants to criminalize homelessness. He shouldn’t be anywhere near the government.
Vote Fong.
State Assembly District 51: Colin Hernandez
Voters in this district, which stretches from Santa Monica to East Hollywood, have an exciting opportunity to send a progressive fighter to Sacramento. Colin Hernandez, a native Angeleno, is running on a platform of childcare for all, universal healthcare, improving public transit, and LGBTQ+ rights. He also advocates for a wealth tax on billionaires and raising taxes on the largest corporations.
Current Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur has been in establishment Democratic politics for decades, having fundraised for Governor Bill Clinton. He is in an enviable political situation: with massive financial support, well-worn political connections, and a bright blue district, there are few people in the state who could drive as much legislative progress as Zbur — at least in theory. The reality has been very different. With all this political capital, he focused on chairing a select committee on retail theft and has done the bare minimum with regard to progressive priorities.
With thousands in campaign donations going to Zbur from real estate and landlord lobbying associations, charter schools, gas companies, Amazon, and Airbnb, perhaps his inaction is a feature and not a bug.
Colin Hernandez is the clear choice here.
State Assembly District 52: Jessica Caloza
Jessica Caloza won a competitive race for this seat in 2024 and has compiled a solid voting record during her first term in the assembly. Her priorities include strengthening our sanctuary state protections and reducing the sharing of sensitive immigration information with the federal government. She also sees homelessness as an issue to be tackled with services, not handcuffs.
Her opponent is a Republican pianist who favors cooperation with ICE agents. Caloza is the easy choice in this race.
State Assembly District 53: No Recommendation
In her first term in office, Michelle Rodriguez sank to our low expectations. She voted against stronger oversight for offshore drilling, against allowing judges to offer diversion programs rather than rely on punishment, and against a bill requiring courts to advise defendants of the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Unfortunately her opponent in the general is a replacement-level Republican.
State Assembly District 54: No Recommendation
In his first term, Mark Gonzalez passed a bill to make it easier for cities to seize and destroy recreational vehicles that thousands of unhoused residents rely on as their only home. He also voted to shield oil companies who expand oil drilling in Kern County from environmental review and litigation (SB 237) and failed to support a bill that would have banned all unnecessary uses of forever chemicals (SB 682). He also is pushing for further criminalization and institutionalization of the homeless. In his previous role as chair of the LA County Democratic Party, Gonzalez consistently schemed against reformers and progressives; his place in Los Angeles politics has been singularly toxic and destructive.
Literally no other candidates qualified for the ballot in this race, somehow, so we’re stuck. There’s no point in degrading your ballot with a vote for him.
State Assembly District 55: Isaac Bryan
Assemblymember Isaac Bryan continues to be an effective progressive advocate in Sacramento. Bryan achieved a monumental environmental justice victory in 2024: closure of the Inglewood Oil Field by 2030. This oil field in South LA has been linked with higher rates of asthma, heart conditions, and premature and low birthweight babies in the community for decades. Bryan has also been a consistent voice for criminal legal reform and prisoner rights. His advocacy ended the shameful practice of the state paying incarcerated firefighters only $1 per hour despite fighting the same wildfires and facing the same dangers as other firefighters; Bryan’s bill raised their wage to $7.25 per hour. His record is that of a legislator who followed through on his campaign promises, and who pushes forward the goals of the movement that elected him.
Vote Bryan.
State Assembly District 56: No Recommendation
Democrat Lisa Calderon remains a disappointment in this Dem-leaning district stretching from Pico Rivera to Diamond Bar. With a record of collecting large oil and gas contributions, Calderon surprised no one in 2025 with her failure to support bills to lower residents’ gas and electric bills by prohibiting utilities from spending ratepayer money on lobbying and political ads. Perhaps more surprising, she did not support a bill prohibiting ICE from wearing face masks. Her Republican opponent is a right-wing Christian nationalist. Neither deserves your vote.
State Assembly District 57: Sade Elhawary
Sade Elhawary, an LA native who was the first of her family to attend college, compiled a stellar voting record in her first term in the assembly. She also advocated for bills to allow judges to offer criminal diversion programs instead of punishment and to protect employees from invasive surveillance technology. She has racked up endorsements from progressive and labor groups, and criminal law reformers consider her a champion in Sacramento. Vote Sade.
State Assembly District 61: Tina McKinnor
Assemblymember Tina McKinnor is a prominent progressive voice in the state legislature, championing bills on renter protection, reentry programs, and reparations. In 2025, McKinnor finally ended a bizarre California quirk by passing a law to require landlords to provide and maintain a working stove and refrigerator. This success built upon her 2023 bill to limit security deposits to one month’s rent.
McKinnor also authored a novel bill in 2025 to allow colleges to give admissions preference to descendants of slavery, which passed both the assembly and state senate before being vetoed by Governor Newsom without explanation. Give McKinnor your support.
State Assembly District 62: José Solache
While not a progressive, José Solache’s voting record in his first term was better than expected. Essentially he’s someone that we can work with. We remain concerned about the corporate campaign donations he accepts, but he is a far better option than his anti-immigrant Republican opponent.
State Assembly District 64: No Recommendation
Blanca Pacheco is a fake. She is deceiving the residents of Downey and Norwalk by masquerading as a Democrat while voting like a Republican. In 2025, she had the most conservative voting record of any Democrat in the assembly; Courage Score considers her the worst in the eleven years that they have tracked the legislature. She has voted against or failed to support criminal justice reforms, environmental protections, workers’ rights, social housing, the regulation of forever chemicals, and on and on and on.
We expect her to cruise to victory; in this solidly blue district, she faces a Republican challenger who she’s beaten twice before by margins of more than 20%. If you live in this district and are interested in organizing to oust Pacheco in 2028, please reach out to Knock LA.
State Assembly District 65: No Recommendation
Democrat Mike Gipson poorly represented this district for more than a decade, and voters in Watts, Compton, Carson, Wilmington, and San Pedro had an opportunity to choose a new kind of representative.
Unfortunately, the corporate money that kept Gipson afloat was able to box out progressive Fatima Iqbal-Zubair, leaving a race between Ayanna Davis and Republican Lydia Gutiérrez.
Gipson’s preferred successor, Ayanna Davis, is a former principal who has received large campaign donations from the oil companies that long bought out Gipson, as well as support from Airbnb and many police unions. Her endorsements page is an interesting performance, with liberal and progressive organizations featured prominently at the top and right-wing endorsements buried further down. When pressed on some of the major issues of the day, she has made familiar dodges — she refuses to either endorse or oppose the billionaire tax, and offers what appears to be a pre-distributed spiel about AI data centers needing to use clean energy and create jobs.
Gutierrez is terrible on most issues and incoherent on others, though we would note that she strongly opposes AI data center construction. Take note — it would be disastrous for Democrats to cede that issue to the right wing.
As it is, Davis appears a lock to win, and the district will face another decade of corporate misrepresentation. No recommendation.
State Assembly District 66: Sara Deen
Pakistani American Sara Deen is a dentist and president of the Palos Verdes School Board. She initially separated herself from the pack in this open race with her endorsements from nurses’ and teachers’ unions, and her opposition to the genocide in Gaza. On the School Board she had to battle Moms For Liberty to stand up for LGBT students’ rights. She also opposes the use of Flock cameras and similar abusive surveillance, which her opponent welcomed.
Paul Seo is a former prosecutor for Los Angeles County and current mayor of Palos Verdes; he is endorsed by every major police association, trumpets his prosecutorial credentials, and has made increasing police headcount a major part of his platform. Advocates of criminal justice reform agree that he would be a disaster.
State Assembly District 67: No Recommendation
Union leader Ada Briceño, our preferred candidate in the primary, was narrowly pushed out of the top two by Cerritos mayor Mark Pulido. Pulido, like Sara Hernandez, was the beneficiary of a brutal flood of outside spending by crypto billionaires, Google, Meta, Airbnb, and Uber. More than $5 million propped him up, and a couple million more were spent directly attacking Briceño. In the end, demonstrating both the strength and limits of this strategy, Pulido’s lead was less than 2,000 votes but it was enough to box her out.
Now Pulido is in a runoff against Paulo Morales, a Republican cop. Let’s be clear: the Republican Party is a fascist organization, and anything that empowers it pushes the country further toward disaster. That said, how is it possible that Pulido couldn’t manage stronger answers than Morales on dealing with ICE or gender-affirming care, of all things? The bar is on the floor.
Ever since Citizens United opened the floodgates, massive wealth has warped politics across the country. This spending needs to be understood as corruption, and we have to ask what those millions of dollars are buying. The state legislature will inevitably be called upon to regulate the industries and specific companies funding his run. Do we trust Pulido to take a stand against the data centers his donors will build? When Uber asks to continue misclassifying drivers as independent contractors, will he speak against them? Airbnb wants free rein to rent out our city for the Olympics — will he let them? Do you trust him to put the needs of the people before the needs of the companies who handed him power?
We don’t. We can’t make a recommendation in this race.
State Assembly District 69: No Recommendation
Incumbent Josh Lowenthal has compiled another decent voting record with his second term in office. While he supported good bills — like one that would have prevented price gouging under emergency declarations and the No Secret Police Act (preventing law enforcement from wearing masks while operating in California) — a big red flag is that he has authored AB 1953, a bill that would require eligible dwellings to be made available for short-term rentals during declared disasters and tourism events.
After seeing the major price-gouging from Airbnb and other short-term rental businesses after the Eaton and Palisades fires in early 2025, it is reasonable to believe that this bill would open the door for continued abuses by the short-term rental market. Short-term rentals have been a contributor to LA’s housing crisis, driving up annual rents and removing units from the rental market.
Lowenthal is endorsed by Democrats for Israel. And he refers to homeless encampments as “blight” and drivers of crime.
However, Lowenthal’s only opponent, Carolyn J. Essex, doesn’t have a defined policy platform available on her site or any social media. A flyer posted to her LinkedIn does mention her support of affordable housing with wraparound health services, but there isn’t anything else to base a recommendation on.
So, we have no recommendation for this office.
US Congress
More than a few congressional races in the June primary came out differently than we would have liked. In a number of cases, worthwhile candidates failed to make the top two, leaving cartoonish right-wing opponents as the only alternatives to terrible incumbents. The Republican Party has been fully compromised by fascism and in most of these cases we — and you — would probably pull the lever for the Democrat, a perfectly reasonable response. But you didn’t come to Knock LA just to get a list of Democrats, you came here to dig into the details. There are a number of candidates we’re happily backing, but there are others who simply do not deserve a recommendation even if you find yourself voting for them as a matter of harm reduction.
House of Representatives
District 23: Tessa Lynn Hodge
This Republican stronghold in San Bernardino County is represented by MAGA jackass Jay Obernolte, a man with nothing to recommend him. Most recently he’s become a shill for AI, promoting its use in schools and the military.
His challenger, High Desert native Hodge, is a social worker who calls for ushering in single-payer healthcare, creating a path to citizenship for undocumented residents, and expanding education and economic opportunities in rural areas. She also is forthright in calling for an end to the Gaza genocide and stopping military aid to Israel.
It will be an uphill battle for Hodge: Obernolte took 57% of the vote in the primary. On the other hand, his primary share was 63% in 2024. Perhaps his grip on the district is not as strong as it once was; perhaps the electoral wave will surprise us.
District 26: No Recommendation
Rep. Julia Brownley is retiring after representing this Ventura County–based district for 14 years. She has endorsed conservative Democrat Jacqui Irwin as her replacement. During Irwin’s 12 years in the Assembly, she consistently failed to support progressive legislation, including opposing bills to support survivors of domestic violence, to end indefinite probation for youth offenders, and to increase oversight of charter schools. She does not deserve a congressional seat.
Unfortunately, the crowded field kept far-superior Democratic candidates out of the top two. Our recommendation, Chris Espinosa, came in 3rd with 10.3%, and Republican Samuel Gallucci made the runoff with less than 21%. Galucci is running on what is an ordinary GOP platform in 2026, which is to say transphobia, cop-love, bigotry, and support for mass deportation.
District 27: No Recommendation
Rep. George Whitesides, former Virgin Galactic CEO and a self-described “moderate,” was a disappointment in his first term in office. He voted for the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which increased US military spending and gave free rein to Trump’s military deployments to Venezuela, Iran, and US cities. He also voted for an obnoxious resolution opposing socialism and accepted more than $600,000 in donations from AIPAC.
Republican Jason Gibbs pushes empty tough-on-crime rhetoric and is running on a platform of mass incarceration, mass deportation, and NIMBYism.
Ugh.
District 28: Judy Chu
Representative Judy Chu remains one of the only true progressives among LA County’s congressional delegation. She was one of only 37 congressional Democrats to vote against unconditional military aid to Israel and loudly opposed the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which increased military spending. She also favors Medicare for All and citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
April Verlato, her opponent, carries the endorsements of multiple police unions, the Republican Party, and the economic terrorists at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Vote for Chu!
District 29: Angélica Dueñas
In August 2025, when residents of this San Fernando Valley district were being kidnapped by ICE, Representative Luz Rivas took an AIPAC-funded trip to Israel. In all, she has received more than $200,000 in support from AIPAC-aligned groups, in addition to large contributions from oil companies, Amazon, Airbnb, and Facebook. Valley residents are left to wonder whose interests Rivas really represents.
Fortunately, community activist Angélica Dueñas is not willing to let Rivas disappoint any longer. Born and raised in the San Fernando Valley, Dueñas is running a grassroots progressive campaign, and she refuses all corporate and AIPAC donations. She supports housing as a human right, Medicare for All, criminal justice reform, and the abolition of ICE. She also is raising five children who attend LAUSD schools. We recommend a vote for Dueñas.
District 30: No Recommendation
Representative Laura Friedman has a history of accomplishments on affordable housing, transit, and the environment. However, her position on Israel is disqualifying. She refuses to condemn the genocide in Gaza, supports continued military aid to Israel, and failed to oppose a bill that imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court when the court issued an arrest warrant against Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. She also supported Israel’s dangerously escalatory attack on Iran in 2024, and has refused to cosponsor the Block The Bombs Act.
Scott Meyers, her opponent, is a replacement-tier GOP goon who was a leader in the failed and deeply embarrassing attempt to recall Nithya. His anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+, election denier platform will have little attraction to the progressive-minded district, and we expect him to lose thoroughly. Also we’re pretty sure his website’s banner is AI — what do you think?
District 31: No Recommendation
Representative Gil Cisneros does not deserve your vote. He took an AIPAC-funded propaganda trip to Israel in 2025 and voted in favor of sanctioning the International Criminal Court when the court sought to arrest Israeli war criminals. He backed the 2026 NDAA, which increased military funding and failed to constrain Trump’s military deployments. And he voted in favor of a bogus GOP resolution denouncing socialism (right back at you, buddy).
His opponent, Eric Ching, is a Republican who is running on the same platform as the rest of them.
District 32: No Recommendation
Brad Sherman is one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress, receiving over $600,000 in campaign spending from AIPAC and its allies, slandering pro-Palestine protesters (including our own members) as antisemitic terrorism supporters, and using his powerful position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee to increase military aid to Israel. He also voted for the dangerous HR 6090, which has censored and chilled speech critical of Israel on college campuses.
He also helped stall a subway line connecting the Valley and the Westside for years, catering to wealthy NIMBYs in his district at the expense of his working class constituents and the transportation needs of the city. Sherman is a conservative fossil who desperately needs to be replaced.
His opponent in the runoff, Republican Larry Thompson, describes himself as follows:
“I am a Compassionate, Intelligent, Experienced Business Man, Who uses Common Sense. I’m ‘The Sanity Man.’”
Maybe next cycle.
District 34: Angela Gonzales-Torres
Angela Gonzales-Torres, a lifelong Angeleno from Highland Park and first-time candidate, is a self-described “fighter” who grew up on SNAP and Medicaid and whose father was deported when she was 15. She currently works with formerly incarcerated individuals to find pathways to higher education. Her progressive platform includes Medicare for All, community-led climate solutions, and ending blank checks for war and military spending. She is refusing all corporate PAC and AIPAC money and has endorsements from the Working Families Party and Justice Democrats.
Representative Jimmy Gomez is bankrolled by the same pharmaceutical, real estate, and financial services corporations who fund President Trump and raise prices on working class people. He supports unconditional military aid to Israel and has received an astonishing $2.5 million in campaign contributions and independent expenditures from AIPAC and the Pro-Isreal lobby. He has also repeatedly voted in favor of increasing US military spending.
But let’s talk about the elephant in the room: Jimmy Gomez is being investigated for sexual harassment and assault. Gomez was well-known for partying and drinking with his former colleague Eric Swalwell. Swalwell’s campaign for governor of California was derailed and he was forced to resign after multiple accusations of rape and sexual assault were finally made public; that drew attention to Gomez’s behavior, leading him to admit to extramarital affairs. When he claimed that all of his behavior was consensual, however, lawyers for one of the women involved quickly issued a statement contradicting him.
We expect the scandal will only grow as more details are released. It’s time to cut this off and leave the district in capable hands. Vote for Angela Gonzales-Torres.
District 35: No Recommendation
This is what we wrote in 2024:
“Representative Norma Torres, the only member of Congress born in Central America, has represented Pomona and parts of San Bernardino County since 2015. Torres voted for unconditional military aid to Israel, despite the ongoing genocide perpetuated with those weapons, and for House Resolution 894, which ignorantly declared ‘anti-zionism is antisemitism.’ However her opponent, Republican Mike Cargile, opposes abortion rights, supports hateful anti-LGBT+ policies, and is a vocal advocate for guns. We cannot recommend a vote for either candidate.”
Torres has compounded her previous errors by refusing to vote to restrain Trump’s warmongering. Beyond that, nothing has changed.
District 36: No Recommendation
Who does Representative Ted Lieu represent? He is elected to represent Westside and South Bay residents. However, large corporate campaign donations and $2.2 million from AIPAC and pro-Isreal lobbyists reveal his true loyalty. He voted for unconditional military aid to Israel, supported a GOP stunt bill proclaiming socialism to be evil, and approved a military spending bill that placed no restrictions on Trump’s ability to deploy the military in US cities or foreign countries. When Beverly Hills gave in to religious extremists and blocked the construction of an abortion clinic, women’s rights advocates couldn’t get Lieu to meet with them, much less lift a finger to help. Lieu remains a phony and a disgrace.
His opponent, Republican Houston Brignano, is hardly worth mentioning.
District 37: Samantha Mota
While Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove holds some progressive policy positions, she voted to continue weapons shipments to Israel — despite the use of those weapons to kill civilians in Gaza. This vote alone is disqualifying. She also accepts campaign donations from numerous large corporations, including Amazon.
27-year-old Mexican American Samantha Mota was born and raised in Los Angeles County in a single-family household that relied on WIC and SNAP benefits, Medicaid, and other programs to survive. This lived experience and a decade of activism has led her to challenge the Democratic Party establishment with an urgent call to reverse the neglect of low-income communities. She boasts a detailed progressive platform, including housing for all, universal healthcare, immigration reform, and student loan forgiveness. She also opposes military aid to Israel and our militarized foreign policy. Thankfully, she made it through to the runoff.
Vote Mota!
District 38: Hilda Solis
Last fall, voters in California voted to redraw the state’s congressional maps to counter President Trump’s cynical ploy to redraw congressional maps in Texas to rig the midterm elections. As a result, two Democratic-leaning districts (the new 38th and new 41st) were created in the rough area of the former 38th District, and a Republican-leaning district in Riverside County (the former 41st) disappeared. Linda Sanchez, the current representative of the 38th District, is running in the new 41st.
Long-time politician and current LA County supervisor Hilda Solis quickly consolidated support in this race, leaving little drama. During her previous stints in the state Legislature and Congress, Solis was a progressive voice on labor and environmental justice issues, and she voted against the Iraq war in 2002. As LA County supervisor, she has consistently supported rent protections, criminal justice reform, and compassionate answers for the unhoused.
Republican Pedro Casas is a big tough military veteran, which is why he’s terrified to go outside in the drug-riddled dystopia of the San Gabriel Valley.
Vote Solis.
District 41: No Recommendation
Democrat Linda Sanchez, incumbent in CA 38 until recent redistricting, regularly votes to increase military spending and receives large amounts of campaign donations from landlord associations, banks, health insurance companies, and AIPAC. Southeast LA residents deserve someone better.
Unfortunately, Republican Mitch Clemmons finished ahead of a pair of far superior progressive candidates.
There’s not much to say here. The district will be a pickup for the Democratic Party, but we wish the seat were going to someone worthy.
District 42: No Recommendation
Long Beach representative Robert Garcia became the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee in 2025, yet whose interests he represents remains an open question. He has received significant amounts of corporate cash from the real estate, insurance, and healthcare industries, as well support from AIPAC and its allies. He also voted for unconditional military aid to Israel, despite the country’s slaughter of civilians in Gaza.
No worthwhile challenger appeared in the primary, and runner-up Republican Brian Burley is going to be crushed in the general election. We aren’t going to make a recommendation in this race.
District 43: Maxine Waters
Representative Maxine Waters was one of only 37 congressional Democrats to take a stand against the genocide in Gaza and vote against unconditional military aid to Israel in April 2024. We wish more of her LA colleagues had such sense. She has also repeatedly called for a federal civil rights investigation into the violent LASD deputy gangs.
We have nothing to say about her opponent, Republican Cristian Morales. There are a lot of these guys, they’re running on the same nonsense, and they’re incredibly boring. Let’s move along.
District 44: No Recommendation
While Representative Nanette Barragán purports to hold progressive views on many issues, her actual values became apparent in April 2024 — when she voted to continue sending unconditional military aid to Israel, despite those weapons being used to kill thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Times and minds change, however, and Barragan may have seen the writing on the wall. Earlier this year she became a co-sponsor of the Block The Bombs Act. “Progressive Except for Palestine” is no longer a viable stance for a Democratic Party electorate horrified by the genocide in Gaza and the war on Iran.
Republican healthcare executive Genevieve Angel is a worse option. We decline to recommend either candidate in this safely blue district.
District 45: No Recommendation
In his first term, Representative Derek Tran voted to increase military spending and favored cryptocurrency interests. He even voted for a resolution that “expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel, for protecting the homeland” (yikes). Tran campaigns on putting “more police on the streets to crack down on rising crime” which is an absurd and offensive regurgitation of right-wing talking points. Crime is down nationwide, even — or especially — in cities where police department headcounts have decreased. Meanwhile local police are powering Trump’s mass deportation machine through 287(g) agreements. Constantly shoveling money into police coffers feeds the fascist machine that is attacking our communities; Democratic electeds need to understand that their crime pandering is directly funding their enemies.
Republican Chuong Vo spent twenty five years with Torrance Police Department. You may recall them from a recent scandal where more than a dozen officers were caught exchanging racist, antisemitic, and homophobic text messages — surprising literally no one who has ever dealt with the department.
We are not making a recommendation in this race.
Paid for by Ground Game LA. Not authorized by or coordinated with any candidate or a committee controlled by any candidate.