The 2026 LA Voter Guide

Why we endorse

Karen Bass is the 43rd Mayor of Los Angeles, the first woman and second African American to hold the office. Before entering politics, she worked as a physician assistant and founded Community Coalition in South LA. She served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 to 2022 and made history as Speaker of the California State Assembly, the first Black woman to lead a state legislative body in U.S. history. This is a practical endorsement, not an ideological one. Bass has real deficiencies on housing production and fiscal discipline. She opposed SB 79, which would have unlocked dense housing near transit. She reversed fast-tracking for affordable housing in single-family neighborhoods, putting an estimated 1,443 potential units in limbo. She supported Measure A, a sales tax increase that burdens every household in the city. These are serious failures. But the alternative is dramatically worse. Her opponent, Nithya Raman, is a DSA-endorsed activist who has voted against banning encampments near schools, opposed enforcement-based approaches to homelessness, and has aligned herself with the most anti-housing-provider factions on the City Council. A Raman mayoralty would mean an ideological agenda imposed citywide: more restrictions on housing providers, more hostility toward the businesses that create jobs, and a retreat from the public safety gains Los Angeles has made. Raman's council record includes votes that undermine LAPD operations and embolden the encampment crisis. Replacing Bass with Raman would not fix what Bass has gotten wrong. It would make every problem worse. On public safety, Bass has delivered measurable results. Homicides and violent crime have declined during her tenure. LAPD applicant numbers have reached record highs. She declared a state of emergency on homelessness as her first act in office and reports that over 21,000 homeless individuals were moved indoors in her first year. She has supported enforcement tools including no-camping zones, a direct contrast with Raman's opposition to those same tools. Bass carries the endorsement of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), LA County Sheriff Robert Luna, and every LA County Supervisor. She also signed an executive order in April 2026 aimed at streamlining residential construction through reforms like self-certification, a step in the right direction even if it does not go far enough. Karen Bass is the better choice for a city that cannot afford to hand its top office to ideological experimentation.

Key positions

• LAPPL-Endorsed on Public Safety: Bass has the endorsement of the Los Angeles Police Protective League and LA County Sheriff Robert Luna. Homicides and violent crime have declined during her tenure, and LAPD applicant numbers have reached record highs. Her opponent voted against banning encampments near schools and has consistently opposed enforcement tools.
• Homelessness Through Enforcement: Bass declared a city state of emergency on homelessness on her first day in office and reports over 21,000 people moved indoors in her first year. She supports no-camping zones and shelter-first enforcement, a direct contrast with her DSA-endorsed opponent's services-only approach that has failed to reduce street homelessness.
• Construction Streamlining Executive Order: Her April 2026 executive order introduced self-certification and other reforms to speed residential construction permitting. While her broader housing record is mixed, these reforms move in the right direction and would be reversed under a mayor aligned with anti-development activist organizations.
• Broad Business Community Support: Bass is endorsed by the Central City Association PAC, BizFed PAC, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce PAC, Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) PAC, and the LA Area Chamber of Commerce's L.A. Jobs PAC. This broad business alignment signals a mayor who will not wage war on the employers and investors Los Angeles depends on.
• Her Opponent Would Be Worse: Nithya Raman is DSA-endorsed, has aligned with Ground Game LA and the most anti-housing-provider members of the City Council, and has voted to obstruct LAPD operations and encampment enforcement. A Raman mayoralty would mean more regulation, more tax burden, and less public safety at a time the city can afford none of it.

Why we endorse

Tim Gaspar is a lifelong West San Fernando Valley resident who built Gaspar Insurance from the ground up in 2008, growing it into one of the largest independent insurance firms in Los Angeles with over 60 team members and 11,000 clients before selling in 2021. He holds a B.S. in Finance from Cal State Northridge and has served on the boards of the West Valley YMCA (chairman since 2015) and the West Valley Boys and Girls Club (since 2013). He topped the June 2026 CD3 primary with 46% of the vote and now heads into a November runoff. District 3 needs a councilmember who understands what it costs to meet a payroll, sign a lease, and navigate the city's permitting bureaucracy. If elected, Gaspar would be the only member of the Los Angeles City Council who has ever built and run a business. His opponent, Barri Worth Girvan, carries the endorsement of DSA-LA, an organization whose agenda includes expanded rent control, new taxes on housing providers, and a "care-first" approach to homelessness that rejects enforcement. The West Valley cannot afford a councilmember beholden to that coalition. Gaspar offers the opposite: a pro-growth, enforcement-first agenda backed by the people who keep the city safe and the economy running. Gaspar's endorsement sheet reads like a blueprint for competent city governance. He is the only candidate in the race endorsed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League. He also carries the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the LA Airport Peace Officers Association, and the LA County Professional Peace Officers' Association. On the business side, BizFed, the LA Chamber PAC, the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, and the Southland Regional Association of Realtors all back his campaign. Former Councilmember Laura Chick, outgoing CD3 Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, Councilmembers John Lee and Monica Rodriguez, LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, and third-place primary finisher Christopher Robert Celona have all endorsed him. On homelessness, Gaspar has done the math that City Hall refuses to do. He points out the city spends over $700 million a year on homelessness with dismal results: Inside Safe costs $257,000 per person for permanent housing placements and $80,000 annually per motel room. His alternative is zero tolerance for illegal encampments, aggressive enforcement of anti-camping laws, and partnerships with cost-effective organizations like the Salvation Army. He has already coordinated encampment clearances with LAPD through his "Serving Before Swearing In" initiative, delivering results before taking the oath of office. On housing, Gaspar supports cutting the red tape that drives up construction costs and slows building timelines. He backs development in appropriate areas like Warner Center while opposing mandated density increases in single-family neighborhoods. He opposes rent control expansions that discourage new housing investment. On the economy, he wants a top-to-bottom review of the city's permitting and licensing process, a crackdown on unlicensed operators who undercut legitimate businesses, and the restoration of a standalone economic development department. Tim Gaspar is the pro-growth, pro-safety, pro-accountability leader District 3 has been waiting for.

Key positions

• Law Enforcement's Clear Choice: Gaspar is the only candidate in the CD3 race endorsed by the LAPPL. He also carries ALADS, LAAPOA, and the LA County Professional Peace Officers' Association. He supports hiring and retaining more LAPD officers and firefighters and has criticized the city for letting staffing fall to early-1990s levels.
• Zero Tolerance on Encampments: Gaspar calls the city's $700 million annual homelessness spend a failure, citing Inside Safe costs of $257,000 per permanent placement. He enforces anti-camping laws, has already coordinated clearances with LAPD before taking office, and partners with cost-effective providers like the Salvation Army.
• Pro-Housing, Anti-Red-Tape: Endorsed by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles and the Southland Regional Association of Realtors, Gaspar opposes rent control expansions and supports streamlining permits to bring housing costs down. He backs smart development in Warner Center while protecting single-family neighborhoods from forced density mandates.
• Business Builder, Not Bureaucrat: Gaspar built a 60-person, 11,000-client insurance firm from scratch. He would be the only councilmember who has ever run a business. He is endorsed by BizFed, the LA Chamber PAC, VICA, and Rick Caruso, and advocates eliminating permitting delays that drive businesses out of the city.
• DSA-Endorsed Opponent: Gaspar's runoff opponent carries the endorsement of DSA-LA, which supports expanded rent control, new taxes on housing providers, and services-only homelessness policies that reject enforcement. District 3 voters have a clear choice between an activist agenda and accountable, results-driven leadership.

Why we endorse

Jose Ugarte is a longtime community organizer and former deputy chief of staff to termed-out Councilmember Curren Price in City Council District 9. An immigrant from Oaxaca, Mexico, he holds a bachelor's degree from California State University, Northridge and has spent over a decade working in CD9, first as a field deputy and later as a senior staffer. He finished first in the June 2026 primary and faces Estuardo Mazariegos in the November runoff. District 9, which stretches across South LA from University Park to Green Meadows, needs a councilmember who can deliver tangible improvements in public safety, housing production, and economic opportunity. Ugarte has assembled the coalition most likely to get things done at City Hall: the LA Area Chamber of Commerce's LA Jobs PAC, Central City Association, Abundant Housing LA, YIMBY Los Angeles, and UFLAC (United Firefighters of Los Angeles City). That combination of business, pro-housing, and first-responder support signals someone who understands that South LA's future depends on investment, construction, and safety, not ideological posturing. On public safety, Ugarte supports proactive policing, more foot and bike patrols, recruitment, and banning homeless encampments near schools, parks, and places of worship. His UFLAC endorsement confirms that the firefighters who serve this district trust him to prioritize emergency response. On housing, his backing from Abundant Housing LA and YIMBY Los Angeles distinguishes him as a pro-supply candidate in a district that desperately needs more units built, not more barriers to development. On economic development, Ugarte has focused on local hiring for major construction projects and ensuring the 2028 Olympics and World Cup generate real jobs for South LA residents, an approach endorsed by the Chamber and Central City Association. Ugarte does carry baggage. He agreed to pay a $17,500 fine to the LA City Ethics Commission for repeatedly failing to disclose outside income while working as a council staffer. That is a serious lapse in transparency, and voters should expect a higher standard from him going forward. His language around "affordability-centered measures" also warrants scrutiny; South LA needs more housing supply, not price controls that discourage construction. But in a two-candidate runoff, Ugarte's endorsement coalition, district knowledge, and stated commitment to enforcement-backed homelessness policy make him the stronger choice for CD9. Jose Ugarte is the results-oriented leader District 9 needs.

Key positions

• Pro-Supply Housing Coalition: Endorsed by Abundant Housing LA and YIMBY Los Angeles, the two most credible pro-housing organizations in the city. District 9 needs thousands of new units. Ugarte's support from these groups signals a commitment to building, not blocking.
• Encampment Enforcement Near Schools: Supports banning homeless encampments near schools, parks, and places of worship, paired with transitional housing and mental health services. Enforcement and services together, not one or the other.
• Firefighter and Business Backing: Endorsed by UFLAC, the LA Area Chamber of Commerce's LA Jobs PAC, and the Central City Association. First-responder and business community support in a single candidate is the combination South LA needs.

Why we endorse

The Los Angeles Community College District serves nine colleges across the region and controls billions of dollars in public facility spending. Seat 2 voters have two acceptable choices: a veteran trustee with deep institutional knowledge and a record on job-focused tax credits, or a real estate professional and former charter school trustee running on fiscal responsibility and lower taxes. The district's priorities should be workforce readiness, careful stewardship of bond dollars, and accountability to the taxpayers who fund it, and both candidates can advance that work. Steven F. Veres Steven F. Veres has served on the LACCD Board of Trustees since 2011 and currently holds the position of 2nd Vice President. He is a former mayor of the City of San Fernando and a former state legislative staff director, and he has worked as a teacher, college instructor, journalist, and news editor. He lives in Sherman Oaks. Veres brings more than a decade of board experience and a working knowledge of how Sacramento funds and regulates community colleges. As a legislative staffer, he helped negotiate the tripling of California's Film and Television Tax Credit, an effort to keep entertainment production and the jobs it supports in Los Angeles instead of losing them to other states. He also helped develop the California Homeless Hiring Tax Credit, which rewards employers who hire people working their way out of homelessness. At LACCD, he has presided over nearly $4 billion in facility improvements across all nine colleges and has led efforts on student housing challenges. That spending demands rigorous oversight, and his experience positions him to deliver it. Kristina Irwin Kristina Irwin is a first-generation immigrant from the former Yugoslavia, a real estate professional, and a parent of three based in Pacific Palisades. She holds a bachelor's degree in Communication Studies from California State University, Northridge. Irwin has built her public profile on government accountability and fiscal responsibility to taxpayers. She ran for State Senate District 24 in 2022 on lowering individual, business, and gas taxes, and she criticizes government overreach and unnecessary mandates. She brings direct education governance experience as a recently completed elected trustee at Palisades Charter High School, and she serves on the Santa Monica College General Advisory Board. Her endorsements include former Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, former Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and former State Senate Democratic Majority Leader Gloria Romero. Steven Veres and Kristina Irwin both offer Seat 2 voters a serious, experienced trustee.

Key positions

• Stewardship of Bond Dollars: LACCD has overseen nearly $4 billion in facility improvements across nine colleges. Seat 2 needs a trustee who will make sure every dollar delivers usable classrooms and training facilities, not cost overruns.
• Jobs-Focused Tax Policy: Veres helped triple California's Film and Television Tax Credit to keep production jobs in Los Angeles and helped create the Homeless Hiring Tax Credit. Irwin has campaigned on lowering individual, business, and gas taxes.
• Education Governance Experience: Veres has served on the LACCD board since 2011 and is its 2nd Vice President. Irwin served as an elected trustee at Palisades Charter High School and sits on the Santa Monica College General Advisory Board.
• Accountability to Taxpayers: Irwin lists government accountability and fiscal responsibility as core priorities. She has the support of former Supervisor Michael Antonovich and former Sheriff Alex Villanueva.
• Watchpoint: Spending Restraint: New programs and future bond proposals should come with clear cost controls and independent audits. We expect whoever wins Seat 2 to insist on measurable results for students and taxpayers.

Why we endorse

The Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees oversees one of the largest public college systems in the country, and its decisions shape whether working Angelenos can get the skills, credentials, and jobs that move families forward. Seat 4 needs a trustee who treats district resources as a public trust and measures success by student outcomes. Elaine Alaniz and Darryn Harris come at the job from different directions, but both bring a practical, results-first focus the board needs. **Darryn Harris** Darryn Harris is an instructor at Santa Monica College and serves as Chief Government Affairs & Community Relations Officer at St. John's Community Health, one of Los Angeles's largest Federally Qualified Health Centers. He holds a Master's degree in Higher Education & Organizational Change from UCLA and has spent more than a decade in public service, including as Chief of Staff and District Director to Congresswoman Karen Bass, Senior Advisor to Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, and District Director for Assemblyman Steven Bradford. Harris knows how public institutions work from the inside, as both a classroom educator and a senior government operator. His most promising idea is to develop student, faculty, and workforce housing on district-owned land. The district already owns the land, so new homes there add supply without new acquisition costs, and they help keep instructors and students close to campus in a city where rent drives people out. He pairs that with a clear focus on workforce training that connects students to good-paying jobs. **Elaine Alaniz** Elaine Alaniz is a healthcare workforce specialist and a product of the system she wants to oversee: an alumna of Los Angeles City College and Los Angeles Valley College who went on to earn a Bachelor's in Business from Western Governors University. She works as a Recruitment Coordinator at Firefighters First Credit Union and a Public Affairs Specialist at the U.S. Small Business Administration, and she serves as President of the Westlake North Neighborhood Council. Alaniz brings the fiscal discipline a large public budget demands. She has named unnecessary overspending as a core problem facing the district and has built her campaign around responsible stewardship of taxpayer-funded resources. She is direct about the burden on residents: small businesses and working families are carrying a growing financial load while government spending keeps expanding, and she has pledged to manage public resources so families are not forced to shoulder ever-increasing taxes. Her record is grounded in her neighborhood. As Westlake North Neighborhood Council President, she has spoken out on public safety and on the Mayfair Hotel homeless housing project, insisting that homelessness dollars be tied to measurable outcomes that help people regain stability and independence. Her work with the SBA supporting small business recovery and her service on the City of LA Mayor's Crisis Response Team give her firsthand experience with the residents and employers community colleges are meant to serve. Either Darryn Harris or Elaine Alaniz will give Seat 4 the results-focused leadership LACCD students need.

Key positions

• Housing on District Land: Harris supports building student, faculty, and workforce housing on land LACCD already owns. That adds homes without new land costs and keeps instructors and students near campus.
• Accountability for Every Dollar: Alaniz has identified unnecessary overspending as a key district problem and pledges responsible stewardship of taxpayer-funded resources. Her focus is results, not bigger budgets.
• Training for Real Jobs: Both candidates center workforce development: connecting students to the skills and credentials that lead to good-paying jobs. That is the core purpose of a community college.
• Protecting Working Families: Alaniz opposes heavier tax burdens on small businesses and working families, drawing on her work at the U.S. Small Business Administration supporting small business recovery.
• Experience Inside the System: Harris teaches at Santa Monica College and holds a UCLA master's in Higher Education & Organizational Change. Alaniz is an alumna of LA City College and LA Valley College. Both know the system from the student and classroom side.

Why we endorse

The Los Angeles Community College District serves hundreds of thousands of students and, by Tonia Arey's count, manages a budget of more than $10 billion, roughly 90 percent of it from taxpayers. Seat 6 needs a trustee who brings outside expertise and asks hard questions about how that money is spent. Voters have two qualified options in this race: a licensed architect and attorney who has run large public investment programs, and a businesswoman running explicitly on taxpayer accountability. Either one is a sound choice. Randall Winston Randall Winston is a licensed architect and attorney who serves as Deputy Mayor of Infrastructure for the City of Los Angeles, where he coordinates public works and transportation investments. He holds a B.A. in Government from Harvard, a Master of Architecture from the University of Virginia, and a J.D. from UC Berkeley School of Law. He also serves as a JAG officer in the U.S. Army National Guard's 40th Infantry Division. A community college district is, in large part, a construction and facilities operation. Few candidates arrive with Winston's mix of design, legal, and project management training. As Executive Director of the California Strategic Growth Council under Governor Jerry Brown, he oversaw more than $1.3 billion in investments. He has experience reading contracts, managing capital programs, and holding large public projects to a standard, which is the expertise trustees need when overseeing LACCD's facilities and capital spending. Tonia Arey Tonia Arey is a Calabasas-based real estate agent with Coldwell Banker Realty, licensed since 2014, and Vice President of Sales at dkspecialties, a promotional products company. She holds a B.S. in Kinesiology from San Francisco State University. Earlier this year she ran for LA County Supervisor in the 3rd District before entering the Seat 6 race. Arey is running on taxpayer accountability. She has said that "students and taxpayers deserve responsible stewardship of public funds, transparent decision-making, and trustees who answer for their actions." Her campaign has focused on cutting wasteful spending and reducing the regulations and taxes that drive up the cost of housing and doing business in Los Angeles. Arey's public safety credentials are strong. She hosted Public Safety Summits with retired LASD Chief Patrick Jordan and earned endorsements from former Sheriff Alex Villanueva and the LA County Deputy Probation Officers' Union Local 685. Small business group Back to Business California also backs her. She has criticized Housing First policies that offer no treatment and supports addiction and mental health recovery along with diversion courts. Randall Winston and Tonia Arey both bring the professional seriousness LACCD's board needs.

Key positions

• Accountability for Public Funds: Arey is campaigning on transparent decision-making and stewardship of a district budget she describes as more than $10 billion and 90 percent taxpayer-funded. Trustees should answer for every dollar.
• Expertise in Capital Projects: Winston is a licensed architect and attorney who oversaw more than $1.3 billion in investments at the California Strategic Growth Council. That background is directly relevant to overseeing college facilities and construction.
• Backed by Public Safety: Arey is endorsed by former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, retired LASD Chief Patrick Jordan, and the LA County Deputy Probation Officers' Union Local 685.
• Small Business Alignment: Arey is endorsed by Back to Business California and supports reducing the regulations and taxes that raise housing and operating costs.
• Service and Discipline: Winston serves as a JAG officer in the U.S. Army National Guard's 40th Infantry Division, bringing legal rigor and a record of public service to the board.

Why we endorse

John McKinney is a Deputy District Attorney with nearly 30 years of prosecutorial experience in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, where he currently serves as Director of Specialized Prosecutions. In that role, he oversees eight divisions covering juveniles, family violence, sex crimes, narcotics, major crimes, and gang homicide. He earned his J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 1997 and has tried over 100 jury trials, including nearly 40 murder cases with a reported 97% conviction rate. The City Attorney's office is the legal backbone of Los Angeles. It drafts the laws the Council passes, defends the city in court, and prosecutes misdemeanor crimes that drive residents out of their neighborhoods. Since 2020, the city has paid out nearly $1.1 billion in liability settlements and judgments. That is not a legal department performing at the level this city demands. McKinney would bring a prosecutor's discipline to an office that desperately needs it: aggressive risk management to reduce costly payouts, early settlement of meritorious claims, vigorous defense against frivolous ones, and far less outsourcing of legal work to expensive private law firms. McKinney's public safety credentials are unmatched in this race. He has spent his entire career in prosecution and law enforcement partnership, and his priorities reflect the quality-of-life issues Angelenos raise at every town hall: repeat offenders, organized retail theft, street racing, open-air drug markets, and illegal firearms. On homelessness, he supports an enforcement-based approach that keeps sidewalks passable, protects parks and schools, and addresses dangerous encampments, combining accountability with diversion programs rather than a permissive, services-only model. His endorsement from the Los Angeles Police Protective League is the clearest signal that the officers who do the work trust him to back them up. He also carries endorsements from District Attorney Nathan Hochman, former District Attorneys Steve Cooley and Jackie Lacey, Councilmembers Traci Park, Tim McOsker, John Lee, and Monica Rodriguez, the LA Daily News editorial board, and the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles. John McKinney is the experienced, results-driven City Attorney Los Angeles needs.

Key positions

• Proven Prosecutor, Day One: Nearly 30 years in the DA's office. Over 100 jury trials, including nearly 40 murder cases with a 97% conviction rate. He does not need on-the-job training.
• Backed by Law Enforcement: Endorsed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League, DA Nathan Hochman, and former DAs Steve Cooley and Jackie Lacey. The people closest to public safety trust McKinney to lead this office.
• Fiscal Accountability in Legal Spending: The city has paid out nearly $1.1 billion in liability costs since 2020. McKinney has pledged aggressive risk management, early settlement of meritorious cases, and reduced outsourcing to expensive private law firms to stop the hemorrhaging.
• Enforcement on Quality-of-Life Crimes: Prioritizes prosecuting repeat offenders, organized shoplifting, street racing, open-air drug markets, and illegal firearms possession. These are the crimes that hollow out neighborhoods and drive businesses away.
• Compassionate Accountability on Homelessness: Supports keeping sidewalks passable, protecting parks and schools, and clearing dangerous encampments. Combines enforcement with service access rather than adopting a permissive, services-only model.

Why we endorse

Brian Goldsmith is a Harvard and Stanford Law graduate, small business owner, media consultant, and first-time candidate running for the open State Senate District 24 seat being vacated by Sen. Ben Allen. He founded Kona Media & Message, a media consulting firm, and two tech startups. He spent over a decade as a political journalist and producer at CBS News, Yahoo News, and CNN before moving into Democratic strategy, advising Pete Buttigieg's 2020 presidential campaign and serving as a senior adviser to Democratic Majority for Israel. SD-24 covers some of the most consequential ground in Los Angeles County, from Santa Monica and West Hollywood to the Westside and South Bay beach cities. The next senator will shape state policy on housing production, public safety funding, and the fiscal accountability Sacramento desperately lacks. Goldsmith is the rare candidate who combines private-sector experience with a clear-eyed willingness to challenge his own party's orthodoxies. He supported Proposition 36 and actively made ads for it. He backed Nathan Hochman for LA County DA. He openly questions why the state budget ballooned from $208 billion to $349 billion without any measurable improvement in public services. That kind of intellectual honesty is exactly what Sacramento needs. Goldsmith's endorsement portfolio tells the story. He carries the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP), the Professional Peace Officers Association (PPOA), the California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA), and CAL FIRE Local 2881. On the political side, he has earned the backing of former Mayors Antonio Villaraigosa and Eric Garcetti, Rick Caruso, DA Nathan Hochman, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, and Teamsters Joint Council 42. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles PAC also supports him, a signal of alignment with housing providers and the building community. On housing, he correctly identifies that it costs 2.5 times more per unit to build in California than Texas and calls for streamlining permitting, modernizing CEQA, enabling commercial-to-residential conversions, and pushing to exempt disaster zones from Measure ULA. He opposes expanding rent control and rejects SB 79's unfunded mandates. On fiscal policy, he wants to double the state's rainy day fund, audit education spending, root out waste and fraud in Medi-Cal, and end programs that fail to deliver measurable results. He opposes the wealth tax. Brian Goldsmith is the pro-growth, fiscally accountable senator SD-24 needs.

Key positions

• Law Enforcement's Clear Choice: Endorsed by LAPPL, PORAC, CAHP, PPOA, CPCA, CAL FIRE Local 2881, and LA School Police. Goldsmith supported Proposition 36, made ads for it, backed Nathan Hochman for DA, and has never supported defunding police. He wants to increase state and local law enforcement funding.
• Fiscal Accountability in Sacramento: Goldsmith is asking the question Sacramento refuses to answer: why did the budget grow by $140 billion without better outcomes? He wants to double the rainy day fund, audit education spending, root out Medi-Cal fraud, and end programs that fail to deliver results. He opposes the wealth tax.
• Pro-Housing, Anti-Red Tape: Supports streamlining permitting, modernizing CEQA, commercial-to-residential conversions, modular housing, and workforce housing on public land. Wants to exempt disaster zones from Measure ULA. Opposes SB 79's unfunded mandates and does not support expanding rent control.
• Outcomes-Based Homelessness Spending: Supports transparent metrics for every dollar spent on homelessness, scaling up nonprofits that deliver results, fully funding Prop 36's behavioral health treatments, and expanding Care Courts. Says plainly: 'There is nothing progressive about allowing anyone to sleep on the street.'
• Small Business Protection: Wants to review and streamline small business regulations to lower compliance costs, protect brick-and-mortar businesses from unlicensed street vendor competition, and expand the film and TV tax credit to keep production jobs in California.

Why we endorse

Sara Hernandez is a housing, land use, and environmental attorney, a former LAUSD middle school teacher, and the current President of the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees. She holds degrees from Duke University, Loyola Marymount University, and Loyola Law School, and she founded the nonprofit Helping Young People Excel. She is running to represent State Senate District 26, a diverse district stretching across central and northeast Los Angeles. This race comes down to a clear choice. Hernandez's opponent carries the backing of DSA-endorsed organizations and the activist infrastructure that has pushed Sacramento further toward tax increases, enforcement rollbacks, and anti-housing-provider regulations. Hernandez, by contrast, has assembled a coalition that includes California YIMBY, Abundant Housing LA, the Housing Action Coalition, and a deep bench of labor and infrastructure-focused endorsements. She is the candidate in this race who understands that building more housing requires removing barriers, not adding them. On housing supply, her instincts are correct: she supports increasing multifamily housing near transit, streamlining approvals, eliminating parking minimums, expanding ministerial approvals, and CEQA exemptions for infill housing. Those are the positions that will actually bring down housing costs in Los Angeles. As President of the LACCD Board of Trustees, Hernandez oversees a nine-college system serving over 200,000 students across Los Angeles County. That is real executive experience managing large public institutions, budgets, and workforce issues. She has earned endorsements from LA County Supervisors Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, State Senator Ben Allen, and LA City Councilmember Tim McOsker. Her support from the Teamsters Joint Council 42 (and more than 22 affiliated locals), IBEW Local 11, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 12, and the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters signals alignment with the workers who actually build housing and infrastructure in this city. Sara Hernandez is the pro-housing, pro-building candidate District 26 needs in the State Senate.

Key positions

• Pro-Supply Housing Record: Endorsed by California YIMBY, Abundant Housing LA, and the Housing Action Coalition. Supports streamlining approvals, eliminating parking minimums, expanding ministerial approvals, and CEQA exemptions for infill housing. These are the policies that actually increase supply and bring down costs.
• Large-System Executive Experience: As President of the LA Community College District Board of Trustees, Hernandez governs a nine-college system serving over 200,000 students. That is hands-on experience managing budgets, personnel, and institutional accountability at scale.
• Opponent Is DSA-Backed: Hernandez's opponent carries support from DSA-aligned organizations that have consistently pushed for tax increases, rent control expansions, and enforcement rollbacks in Sacramento. Hernandez represents the practical alternative.
• Building Trades Coalition: Backed by the Teamsters Joint Council 42, IBEW Local 11, Operating Engineers Local 12, and the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. These are the unions that build housing and infrastructure, not the ones that block it.
• Trusted by Elected Leaders: Endorsed by LA County Supervisors Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, State Senator Ben Allen, and LA City Councilmember Tim McOsker. Leaders who have held office trust her judgment and her priorities.

Why we endorse

Rick Chavez Zbur represents California's 51st Assembly District, covering Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and Santa Monica. A Yale and Harvard Law graduate, Zbur practiced environmental law at Latham & Watkins for nearly 30 years before leading Equality California as Executive Director from 2014 to 2021. He has served in the Assembly since December 2022 and currently chairs the Assembly Democratic Caucus. Zbur has demonstrated real leadership on public safety and combating antisemitism at a time when both issues demand serious attention. As Chair of the Select Committee on Retail Theft, he championed a bill package that increased criminal penalties for shoplifting, pushing back against the permissive status quo that has gutted accountability in California retail corridors. He has been a consistent and vocal champion for the Jewish community, standing firmly against rising antisemitism when too many Sacramento legislators have been silent or worse. In a district home to one of the largest Jewish populations in California, this is not symbolic; it is essential representation. His opponent represents a sharp turn toward the activist fringe. A race that elevates ideological extremism over constituent safety and economic stability would be a disaster for a district that depends on tourism, entertainment, and small business. The 51st District cannot afford a representative beholden to an agenda that treats law enforcement as the enemy, housing providers as villains, and every tax increase as a solution. Zbur's retail theft legislation is a meaningful course correction: he recognized that reducing penalties for theft was destroying businesses and took concrete legislative action to reverse it. He has also worked to build affordable housing near transit and expand transition shelters, balancing the district's acute homelessness crisis with practical steps rather than sloganeering. His nearly three decades of complex legal practice at one of the world's top law firms gives him a command of regulatory and fiscal detail that most legislators simply lack. Contributions from law enforcement PACs, including the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, signal that he takes public safety seriously enough for the people who do the work to invest in his reelection. Rick Chavez Zbur is the experienced, serious legislator the 51st District needs.

Key positions

• Fighting Antisemitism Head-On: Zbur has been a vocal champion for Jewish safety and a leading voice against antisemitism in the California Legislature. In a district with one of the state's largest Jewish communities, his willingness to stand up when others stay silent is both principled and necessary.
• Retail Theft Accountability: As Chair of the Select Committee on Retail Theft, Zbur led a legislative package that increased criminal penalties for shoplifting. This is a direct correction to years of failed leniency that devastated small businesses across the district and the state.
• Law Enforcement Support: Zbur has received contributions from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association PAC and other law enforcement organizations. Officers and corrections professionals backing a legislator signals that his public safety record goes beyond rhetoric.
• Opponent Is a Risk: Zbur's opponent would drag the 51st District toward ideological extremism, prioritizing activist agendas over the public safety, economic stability, and constituent services that Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Westwood residents depend on. This is not a race where sitting out is an option.
• Deep Legal and Policy Expertise: Nearly 30 years at Latham & Watkins gave Zbur command of regulatory complexity that most legislators lack. He brings private-sector rigor to legislative drafting, fiscal analysis, and oversight of state agencies.

Why we endorse

Ashley M. Brown is a licensed psychiatric social worker and attendance counselor who has served students in LAUSD since 2014. She holds three degrees, including a Master's in Social Work from CSU Dominguez Hills and a Master's in Education Counseling from National University. She also runs a private mental health therapy practice. This race is about accountability. Incumbent Isaac Bryan has aligned himself with Sacramento's most ideological faction, supporting tax increases, rent control expansions, and an activist agenda that has made California more expensive and less safe. Brown offers District 55 voters an alternative: a working professional rooted in the community, not in Sacramento's political machine. Any challenger willing to break the incumbent's hold on this seat deserves serious consideration, and Brown is that challenger. Brown's career has been spent in direct service to families and young people in the district. Over a decade of frontline work in public schools gives her a grounded understanding of what communities actually need, not the abstract policy rhetoric that defines Sacramento's ideological class. She has built a private practice and a media platform, demonstrating the kind of entrepreneurial initiative that is vanishingly rare among Assembly candidates. Ashley M. Brown is the community-rooted alternative District 55 needs.

Key positions

• A Check on Sacramento Extremism: Incumbent Isaac Bryan has been one of Sacramento's most reliably ideological votes, backing tax increases and anti-business regulation. Brown provides voters a meaningful alternative grounded in real-world professional experience, not activist politics.
• Over a Decade in LAUSD: Brown has worked as a psychiatric social worker and attendance counselor in District 55 schools since 2014. That frontline experience with families and students gives her a practical understanding of education and community needs that cannot be acquired in a legislative office.
• Professional Depth: With three advanced degrees and both a public-sector career and a private therapy practice, Brown brings intellectual seriousness and entrepreneurial energy to a seat currently held by a career political operative.
• Accountability Over Ideology: District 55 deserves a representative who prioritizes economic stability for working families over the ideological wish lists of Sacramento's activist class. Brown's focus on community stability signals a willingness to put residents first.

Why we endorse

Constance Jewel Menzies is a Republican running for California State Assembly District 57. Her ballot designation is In-Home Care Provider. She has no campaign website, no campaign committee, and no publicly stated policy positions. By every conventional measure, this is a nominal candidacy. We are endorsing her anyway, and the reason is simple: the incumbent, Sade Elhawary, is a DSA-endorsed ideologue whose record in Sacramento represents the worst of what activist politics produces. Elhawary has championed price controls on housing, pushed new taxes on businesses, and embraced a regulatory agenda that punishes the people who build, hire, and invest in Los Angeles. A vote for Menzies is a vote against that agenda. In a district where the registration gap makes a Republican victory effectively impossible, this endorsement is a statement of principle: DSA-endorsed legislators should face opposition on every ballot line, in every race, every cycle. Menzies has not articulated a policy platform, and we do not pretend otherwise. She carries the endorsement of the California Republican Assembly. She is the only alternative to an incumbent whose ideological commitments, from rent control expansion to anti-business taxation, actively harm the district's economic future. In a two-candidate general election, the choice is binary. A vote for Constance Jewel Menzies is a vote against the DSA's grip on District 57.

Key positions

• Rejecting DSA Ideology: The incumbent, Sade Elhawary, is DSA-endorsed and has advanced an activist agenda in Sacramento that includes rent control expansion, new business taxes, and anti-housing-provider legislation. Menzies is the only alternative on the ballot.
• Watchpoint: No Policy Platform: Menzies has not published any policy positions, does not operate a campaign website, and did not respond to voter guide surveys, including from the CRPA. Voters should be aware this is a protest vote, not a policy endorsement.
• Watchpoint: Campaign Infrastructure: Menzies has raised zero dollars, filed no campaign committee, and ran no visible outreach operation in the primary. This endorsement reflects opposition to the incumbent, not confidence in the challenger's capacity to win.
• Anti-Tax Signal: District 57 residents and small business owners deserve a representative who opposes new taxes and fees. Elhawary's record of supporting transfer taxes and business tax increases makes her a direct threat to the district's economic vitality. Any alternative is preferable.
• Accountability for Incumbents: Endorsing the opposition candidate in uncompetitive races sends a clear message: DSA-aligned incumbents will face organized resistance. Voter registration gaps do not entitle ideological extremists to uncontested power.

Why we endorse

Brian Lockwood is a Republican running for the 61st Assembly District seat currently held by Tina McKinnor. While Lockwood is running a lean campaign with limited public-facing policy detail, the race presents a clear contrast: McKinnor is a DSA-endorsed incumbent whose record in Sacramento has aligned with the activist wing of the Legislature on tax increases, rent control expansion, and anti-business regulation. The 61st District deserves a representative who will defend small businesses, oppose new taxes, and resist the ideological agenda that has driven investment out of working-class communities across South Los Angeles and the surrounding area. McKinnor's DSA endorsement is not incidental; it reflects a governing philosophy that prioritizes government expansion over economic opportunity. Every new mandate, every new tax, every new layer of regulation championed by DSA-aligned legislators makes it harder for families in this district to build wealth, start businesses, and find affordable housing. Lockwood offers voters an alternative to that trajectory. Lockwood's campaign centers on a simple and urgent message: rebuild before it's too late. That instinct, to prioritize recovery and renewal over ideological crusades, is exactly what this district needs from its Assembly representative. His Republican registration signals alignment with fiscal discipline and opposition to the Sacramento tax-and-spend consensus that has failed communities like Inglewood, Hawthorne, and Gardena. Brian Lockwood is the fiscally responsible alternative the 61st District needs.

Key positions

• Oppose the DSA Agenda: Incumbent Tina McKinnor carries a DSA endorsement, aligning her with an activist agenda that pushes tax increases, rent control expansion, and anti-business regulation. Lockwood provides voters a clear contrast on economic freedom.
• Defend Small Business: Small property owners and business operators in Inglewood, Hawthorne, and Gardena bear the brunt of Sacramento mandates. Lockwood's platform signals opposition to the compliance burdens and cost increases that crush neighborhood businesses.
• Housing Through Less Regulation: California's housing crisis is a supply crisis caused by regulation, permitting delays, and price controls. The 61st District needs a representative who will remove barriers to building rather than add new ones.

Why we endorse

Paul Seo is the Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes, a West Point graduate who served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, and a Deputy Attorney General in the California Department of Justice where he investigates and prosecutes political corruption, corporate fraud, and cold case murders. Before joining the AG's office, he spent seven years as a Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles County prosecuting serious and violent felonies. He holds an economics degree from West Point and a law degree from Loyola Law School. The 66th Assembly District needs a representative who takes public safety seriously, understands accountability from the inside, and will not treat the legislature as a platform for ideological experiments. Seo's opponent is DSA-endorsed, representing an activist agenda that has consistently pushed for defunding law enforcement, expanding government control over the housing market, and layering new taxes and mandates onto the small businesses that keep communities afloat. The contrast in this race could not be sharper. Seo is a prosecutor, a veteran, and a mayor who has governed a real city with real budgets. His opponent is backed by an organization whose policy prescriptions have made Los Angeles less safe, less affordable, and less functional. Seo has built the strongest law enforcement endorsement coalition in the race. He carries the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, and the California Professional Firefighters. These are not ceremonial nods. They reflect the judgment of the people who do the work of keeping communities safe that Seo will fight for the tools, staffing, and resources they need. On homelessness, he calls for cutting red tape, demanding accountability from government programs, and getting people off the streets and into housing or mental health treatment, rejecting the bureaucratic drift that has defined Sacramento's approach to the crisis. As the son of small business owners, he frames economic policy around lowering the cost of living, reducing regulatory burdens, and partnering with developers to build more housing. Paul Seo is the proven, accountable leader the 66th District needs.

Key positions

• Deep Law Enforcement Support: Endorsed by LAPPL, ALADS, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Narcotics Officers Association, Long Beach POA, and the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. Seo calls for increasing funding for police, deputy sheriffs, prosecutors, and firefighters, giving them the tools to reduce crime.
• Prosecutor, Not an Activist: Seven years prosecuting serious and violent felonies as an LA County Deputy DA, now investigating political corruption and corporate fraud as a Deputy Attorney General. His career is built on holding people accountable, not on ideological crusades.
• Opponent is DSA-Endorsed: The DSA-endorsed candidate in this race represents the same activist agenda that has pushed to defund police, expand rent control, and impose new taxes on housing providers and businesses. Seo is the clear alternative for voters who want results over ideology.
• Pro-Housing, Cut Red Tape: Supports building more housing by reducing bureaucratic barriers and partnering with developers, while respecting high-risk fire zones. Frames housing as an affordability problem that government regulation has made worse.
• Accountability on Homelessness: Demands that government homelessness programs deliver measurable results. Calls for commonsense approaches that move people off the streets and into housing or mental health treatment, rejecting the status quo of spending without outcomes.

Why we endorse

Jay Obernolte represents California's 23rd Congressional District, a largely San Bernardino County seat stretching from Big Bear through the High Desert. A Caltech-trained engineer with a master's degree in Artificial Intelligence from UCLA, he founded the video game developer FarSight Studios in 1990 and built it into a lasting private-sector business. He has 19 years of public service, including the Big Bear City Airport Board, Big Bear City Council (where he served as Mayor), the California State Assembly from 2014 to 2020, and Congress since 2021. Washington needs members who understand that every federal dollar is taken from a working family or a small business before it is spent. Obernolte treats the national debt as the threat it is. He has authored legislation to force the federal government to balance its budget, voted against the American Rescue Plan Act and Build Back Better, and rejected the bipartisan infrastructure bill because more than half of its spending was not infrastructure. In April 2026 his House colleagues elected him GOP Conference Policy Chair, putting a fiscal conservative with real technical expertise at the center of national policy. His record on taxes is consistent. Obernolte voted to make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act individual rates permanent, voted against the Inflation Reduction Act and its IRS funding expansion, and has fought to repeal gas taxes and deliver relief to small businesses. He opposes minimum wage mandates and supports free trade, noting that "lowering barriers to trade reduces costs for consumers." The NFIB and Citizens Against Government Waste both score him at 100 percent, and he carries the endorsements of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. On public safety, Obernolte has authored legislation to hold fentanyl dealers accountable and voted against the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. He is endorsed by San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus, District Attorney Jason Anderson, the Sheriff's Employees' Benefit Association, and California Professional Firefighters. He also secured more than $100 million in increased funding for veteran homelessness programs through the National Defense Authorization Act, delivering targeted results without creating new bureaucracy. Jay Obernolte is the fiscally disciplined, pro-safety representative District 23 needs.

Key positions

• Balanced Budget Champion: Obernolte authored legislation requiring the federal government to balance its budget and cut wasteful spending. He voted against the American Rescue Plan Act, Build Back Better, and an infrastructure bill in which more than half the spending was not infrastructure.
• Lower Taxes, Real Relief: He voted to make the TCJA individual tax cuts permanent and opposed the Inflation Reduction Act's IRS expansion. Endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the High Desert Taxpayers Association.
• Backed by Law Enforcement: Endorsed by the San Bernardino County Sheriff, District Attorney, Sheriff's Employees' Benefit Association, Redlands Police Officers Association, and California Professional Firefighters. He authored legislation to hold fentanyl dealers accountable.
• Small Business Ally: Scored 100 percent by the NFIB and Citizens Against Government Waste and endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He opposes wage mandates and supports free trade to lower costs for consumers.
• Results for Veterans: Obernolte secured more than $100 million in increased funding for veteran homelessness programs through the National Defense Authorization Act, calling it "completely unacceptable for any veteran to be unhoused."

Why we endorse

Luz Maria Rivas represents California's 29th Congressional District, covering the northeast San Fernando Valley. A graduate of MIT in Electrical Engineering and Harvard in Education, Rivas founded DIY Girls, a nonprofit encouraging young women to pursue careers in STEM. Before entering elected office, she served as a commissioner on the Los Angeles Board of Public Works and represented the 39th District in the California State Assembly from 2018 to 2024. This race comes down to a simple question: do voters in CD-29 want a representative who works within institutions, or one aligned with the DSA-endorsed movement to dismantle them? Rivas's opponent carries the backing of the activist left, a coalition that supports tax increases, rent control expansions, and the kind of regulatory overreach that has driven housing costs through the roof and pushed businesses out of Los Angeles. Whatever disagreements we have with Rivas on policy, the alternative is measurably worse for the district's housing providers, small businesses, and working families. Rivas has delivered concrete results. She secured the endorsement of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City (UFLAC/IAFF Local 112) and the International Association of Firefighters, signaling trust from the men and women who protect this district. She carries support from the LA/OC Building and Construction Trades Council and IBEW Local 11, unions whose members actually build housing and infrastructure. During her six years in the State Assembly, she focused on workforce development and STEM education pipelines, practical investments in human capital that create opportunity without expanding the tax burden on residents. In Congress, she sits on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, a seat that positions her to push for accountability in federal spending. Luz Maria Rivas is the practical, credible choice to keep CD-29 out of the hands of the activist fringe.

Key positions

• Firefighter-Endorsed Representative: Rivas carries the endorsement of UFLAC (IAFF Local 112) and the International Association of Firefighters. First responder trust matters, especially in a district that faces wildfire risk across the foothills of the northeast Valley.
• Blocking the DSA Agenda: Her opponent is DSA-endorsed, representing a movement that supports tax increases, expanded rent control, and activist-driven policies that punish housing providers and small businesses. Rivas is the only viable candidate standing between CD-29 and that agenda.
• Building Trades Support: Endorsements from the LA/OC Building and Construction Trades Council, IBEW Local 11, Laborers Local 300, and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 12 confirm that the people who actually build housing and infrastructure trust Rivas to protect their jobs and the projects the Valley needs.
• STEM and Workforce Investment: Rivas founded DIY Girls to bring engineering and technology education to underserved communities. With degrees from MIT and Harvard, she brings technical competence to policy discussions on innovation, infrastructure, and economic development.
• Federal Oversight Role: As a member of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight within the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Rivas has a platform to scrutinize federal spending and demand accountability from agencies that serve this district.

Why we endorse

Jimmy Gomez has represented California's 34th Congressional District since 2017, following service in the California State Assembly. He holds degrees from UCLA and Harvard's Kennedy School and sits on the influential House Ways and Means Committee, giving the district a voice on federal tax and spending policy. This race comes down to a simple question: do you want a representative who works within the system to deliver for the district, or a DSA-endorsed challenger whose agenda would push federal policy toward the same anti-growth, anti-investment ideology that has damaged Los Angeles at the local level? The DSA platform calls for abolishing ICE, defunding police, imposing national rent control, and enacting sweeping new taxes on businesses and investment. Voters in CD-34 deserve a representative who will reject that agenda. Gomez is that representative. Gomez earned the endorsement of the Los Angeles Police Protective League and the California Professional Firefighters, signals that he takes public safety seriously despite the ideological headwinds in his party. He serves on the Ways and Means Committee's Tax and Work and Welfare subcommittees, where he has direct influence over the federal tax code and workforce policy. His tenure gives CD-34 seniority and committee placement that a first-term DSA-backed challenger simply cannot replicate. Jimmy Gomez is the experienced, effective representative CD-34 needs to keep DSA ideology out of Congress.

Key positions

• Stopping the DSA Agenda: Gomez's opponent carries the DSA endorsement, a movement that advocates for police defunding, national rent control, and massive new taxes on businesses and investment. Gomez is the only viable candidate standing between CD-34 and that agenda.
• Law Enforcement Support: Gomez earned the endorsement of the Los Angeles Police Protective League and the California Professional Firefighters, demonstrating a commitment to public safety that his DSA-endorsed opponent cannot credibly claim.
• Ways and Means Seniority: As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Gomez has direct influence over federal tax policy, trade, and social insurance programs. That seniority gives CD-34 leverage that would be lost with a first-term replacement.
• Proven District Advocate: Gomez has served the district since winning a 2017 special election, building relationships and delivering constituent services across Northeast Los Angeles, Boyle Heights, and downtown. Institutional knowledge matters.
• Rejecting Anti-Growth Ideology: While the DSA wing of the Democratic Party pushes for price controls, wealth taxes, and government expansion, Gomez offers a pragmatic alternative that keeps the district's voice within the mainstream of federal policymaking.

What it does

Shall an ordinance be adopted to provide a one-time exemption from the City's special documentary transfer tax (Proposition ULA) for residential properties that were damaged or destroyed in the Palisades Fire and are sold within five years of the date of the Fire?

Why we support

Measure TE would grant a one-time exemption from the Proposition ULA transfer tax for residential properties damaged or destroyed in the January 2025 Palisades Fire. The exemption applies to original owners as of January 7, 2025, covers one transaction per property, and expires five years after the fire. It also authorizes refunds for any ULA tax already paid on qualifying sales before the measure takes effect. The case for Measure TE is simple: fire victims should not be punished for selling what remains of their homes. Proposition ULA imposes a 4% to 5.5% surcharge on higher-value property transactions. In Pacific Palisades, where median home values far exceed ULA's threshold, that surcharge can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of selling. Families who lost everything in January 2025 should not face a six-figure tax bill for choosing to move on rather than rebuild. That is not a policy choice. It is cruelty by spreadsheet. Measure TE also serves as an inadvertent confession. The City Council is acknowledging what economists and housing providers have said since Measure ULA passed: the tax discourages property transactions. If it is harmful enough to waive for fire victims, it is harmful enough to question for every property owner in Los Angeles. The estimated $35 million to $66 million reduction in revenue to the House LA Fund is not a loss. It is money that stays in the hands of families who need it to restart their lives, rather than flowing into a special fund that has faced persistent questions about spending effectiveness. The exemption is narrowly scoped, time-limited, and fiscally disciplined. It creates no new spending, no new bureaucracy, and no new taxes. It simply removes a penalty from people who have already suffered enough. Vote Yes on Measure TE. Fire victims deserve relief, not a transfer tax bill.

Key points

• Relief, Not Revenue Extraction: The Palisades Fire destroyed entire neighborhoods. Measure TE ensures that families deciding to sell are not hit with a 4% to 5.5% ULA surcharge on top of catastrophic property loss.
• ULA's Harm, Acknowledged: By exempting fire victims, the City Council is admitting what Thrive LA has argued from the start: Proposition ULA discourages property sales and punishes owners for transacting. The exemption is welcome. The broader tax remains the problem.
• No New Spending or Bureaucracy: Measure TE does not create a new program, a new agency, or a new line item. It simply removes a tax penalty for a defined group of disaster victims over a five-year window.
• Fiscally Disciplined Scope: The exemption is limited to one transaction per property, applies only to original owners verified by the Department of Building and Safety, and expires by January 2030. The estimated $35 million to $66 million reduction in House LA Fund revenue reflects money returned to fire-affected families, not a budget gap.
• A Step, Not a Solution: Measure TE addresses a narrow injustice. The broader problem, Proposition ULA's chilling effect on housing transactions across Los Angeles, remains. Thrive LA will continue to support efforts to repeal or reform ULA citywide.

What it does

Shall the City Charter be amended to: establish a capital infrastructure plan and two-year budget cycle for the City; increase the authority of the Director of Public Works and allow for the elimination of or changes to the Board of Public Works; remove restrictions prohibiting the City from engaging in business enterprises and mortgaging City-owned property; and change certain contracting rules and procedures?

Why we oppose

Measure LA is a City Charter amendment that would create a capital infrastructure plan, move Los Angeles to a two-year budget cycle, give the Director of Public Works broader authority (while allowing the Board of Public Works to be eliminated by ordinance), remove the city's longstanding prohibition on engaging in business enterprises and mortgaging city-owned property, and loosen competitive bidding requirements for certain contracts. Some of these ideas are sensible on their own. A biennial budget cycle can reduce political churn and improve long-range planning. A capital infrastructure plan brings structure to a city that desperately needs it. Streamlining contracting rules so the city does not lose qualified bidders over minor paperwork defects is common-sense reform. If Measure LA stopped there, it would deserve a closer look. It does not stop there. Buried in the same charter amendment are two provisions that dramatically expand the city's authority to act as a market participant and a borrower. Removing the prohibition on business enterprises means Los Angeles could compete directly with private companies, crowding out the very businesses that create jobs and generate tax revenue. Removing the prohibition on mortgaging city-owned property opens the door to leveraging public assets for debt, exposing taxpayers to liabilities that do not exist today. Proponents note that the California Constitution still requires two-thirds voter approval for mortgage debt, but the charter prohibition is an additional safeguard, and Measure LA strips it away. These are not minor housekeeping changes. They are structural expansions of government power packaged alongside popular reforms to make them easier to swallow. Equally concerning is the delegation problem. The measure allows the Board of Public Works to be eliminated or restructured by future ordinance, meaning the City Council could consolidate executive authority in the Director of Public Works without returning to voters. The capital infrastructure plan's actual parameters would also be set by future ordinance, not by this charter amendment. Voters are being asked to approve a framework and trust elected officials to fill in the details later. That is not accountability. That is a blank check. Vote No on Measure LA.

Key points

• Government Competing With Business: Measure LA removes the charter's prohibition on the city engaging in business enterprises. That means Los Angeles could launch publicly run operations that compete directly with private companies, crowding out investment and distorting markets.
• Mortgaging Public Property: The measure lifts the ban on the city mortgaging city-owned property, opening the door to leveraging public assets for debt. Even with the state Constitution's two-thirds voter approval requirement for mortgage debt, removing this charter-level safeguard increases long-term taxpayer exposure.
• Good Reforms, Bad Packaging: A biennial budget cycle and a capital infrastructure plan are worthwhile ideas. But bundling them with sweeping expansions of government authority forces voters into an all-or-nothing choice. These reforms deserve their own clean measure.
• Blank Check on Oversight: The measure allows the City Council to eliminate or restructure the Board of Public Works by ordinance, without returning to voters. Key details of the capital infrastructure plan are also left to future ordinances. Voters approve the authority; politicians decide how to use it.
• Weakened Competitive Bidding: The measure creates new exceptions to competitive bid requirements for critical infrastructure and software maintenance contracts. While some flexibility is reasonable, loosening competitive bidding rules without stronger oversight invites waste and favoritism.

What it does

Shall the City Charter be amended to: establish a Neighborhood Appeals Commission to replace Area Planning Commissions and establish a process for City Council review of Neighborhood Appeals Commission and City Planning Commission decisions; change the timing and process for City Council action on certain planning decisions; grant the Planning Department the authority to investigate, hear, and determine applications for quasi-judicial review; and allow for changes to floor area regulations by ordinance?

Why we oppose

Measure PL restructures the city's planning and zoning approval process. It consolidates seven Area Planning Commissions into a single Neighborhood Appeals Commission, broadens the Planning Department's authority to process applications at the staff level, creates an automatic approval mechanism for General Plan amendments that stall in the City Council, and allows floor area regulations to be changed by ordinance rather than Charter amendment. On paper, every one of those reforms points in the right direction. Fewer commissions means fewer veto points for NIMBY obstruction. Staff-level processing means faster permits. A 75-day deemed-approved clock on General Plan amendments means the Council can no longer kill housing-enabling changes through inaction. And unlocking floor area ratios from the Charter gives the city the flexibility to enable density where the market demands it. So why oppose it? Because the measure is structurally incomplete, and incomplete Charter amendments are worse than no amendment at all. The Department of City Planning itself has flagged that the ballot measure text fails to address Charter Sections 560, 562 through 564, and 565, leaving gaps that could create legal confusion, implementation delays, and the need for yet another Charter amendment to clean up what this one leaves unfinished. A half-built bridge is not a bridge. It is a liability. There is also a governance concern. Consolidating seven commissions into one concentrates appeals authority in a single body appointed by the Mayor. In principle, that is more efficient. In practice, it removes the distributed check that forces different parts of the city to weigh in on projects affecting their neighborhoods. If the goal is to reduce obstruction, the better path is reforming the existing commissions' scope and timelines, not eliminating geographic representation entirely and hoping a single commission stays accountable. The reforms Measure PL attempts are needed. The vehicle it uses is flawed. Vote No, and demand the Council come back with a complete, fully drafted Charter amendment that delivers these benefits without the legal loose ends.

Key points

• Incomplete Charter Language: The Department of City Planning has identified that the ballot measure text does not address Charter Sections 560, 562 through 564, and 565. These gaps could create legal ambiguity and require follow-up Charter amendments to resolve, undermining the very streamlining the measure promises.
• Concentration Without Accountability: Replacing seven Area Planning Commissions with one Neighborhood Appeals Commission eliminates geographic representation in planning appeals. Efficiency gains are real, but consolidating all authority in a single mayoral-appointed body without stronger accountability mechanisms trades one problem for another.
• Right Goals, Wrong Vehicle: Faster permitting, staff-level processing, and automatic approval timelines are sound reforms. But embedding them in a Charter amendment with known drafting deficiencies locks the city into a flawed framework that is extremely difficult to fix after passage.
• Floor Area Flexibility Deserves Its Own Vote: Allowing floor area ratios to be modified by ordinance rather than Charter amendment is a significant structural change that would give the Council broad power over density rules citywide. That reform merits a clean, standalone measure with full public deliberation, not burial inside a sprawling procedural overhaul.
• No Fiscal Safeguards: While the measure imposes no new taxes or fees, it authorizes no resources for implementation either. Standing up a new commission, rewriting internal procedures, and training staff to exercise expanded quasi-judicial authority all cost money. The measure is silent on where that money comes from.

What it does

Shall the City Charter be amended to: increase the authority of the Police Department Inspector General and Fire Department Independent Assessor; prohibit Ethics Commissioners from running for certain elected offices for five years; increase penalties for campaign finance violations; require City Council to meet at least weekly rather than the currently required three days per week; increase referendum petition signature requirements; and make other changes regarding ethics, elections and governance?

Why we oppose

Measure EE is a City Charter amendment packaged as ethics and governance reform. It bundles several unrelated changes into a single ballot question: strengthening the independence of the LAPD Inspector General and LAFD Independent Assessor, imposing a five-year cooling-off period before Ethics Commissioners can run for city office, raising maximum campaign finance penalties from $2,000 to $15,000 per violation, reducing the City Council's minimum meeting requirement from three days per week to just once per week, and raising the signature threshold for citizen referendum petitions from 10% to 15% of votes cast in the last mayoral election. Some of these provisions are reasonable on their own. Preventing police and fire commissions from blocking Inspector General investigations is a genuine improvement. Higher penalties for campaign finance violations bring enforcement closer to meaningful deterrence. And a cooling-off period for Ethics Commissioners seeking office closes an obvious revolving door. But the measure buries two significant governance rollbacks inside a package designed to look like reform. Reducing Council meeting requirements from three days per week to one gives the City Council permission to do less legislative work with less public scrutiny. Los Angeles is a city of four million people with a $13 billion budget. Cutting the minimum floor for Council sessions is a step backward for transparency and accountability, not forward. More troubling is the 50% increase in referendum petition signature thresholds. The referendum is one of the few tools residents have to challenge bad ordinances after the Council passes them. Raising the bar from 10% to 15% makes it materially harder for ordinary Angelenos to hold their elected officials accountable. That is not ethics reform. It is incumbent protection. When good policy is bundled with provisions that reduce citizen power and legislative accountability, the responsible vote is no. Voters should reject Measure EE and demand these proposals come back as separate, honest questions.

Key points

• Weakens Citizen Referendum Power: Raising the referendum signature threshold from 10% to 15% makes it 50% harder for residents to challenge ordinances passed by the City Council. This is one of the few direct accountability tools voters have, and Measure EE would significantly dilute it.
• Lets Council Meet Less: Reducing the City Council's minimum meeting requirement from three days per week to one day per week lowers the floor for legislative activity and public oversight. A city with a $13 billion budget and four million residents deserves more transparency, not less.
• Omnibus Packaging Obscures Tradeoffs: Bundling genuinely useful provisions (stronger Inspector General independence, higher campaign finance penalties) with rollbacks to citizen power forces voters into an all-or-nothing choice. Each of these changes deserves a separate, transparent vote.
• Inspector General Independence Is Real: The provision preventing the Police and Fire Commissions from blocking investigations by the Inspector General and Independent Assessor is a legitimate reform. It should return to the ballot on its own merits, not as cover for weaker accountability elsewhere in the measure.
• No Fiscal Cost, Real Democratic Cost: Measure EE imposes no new taxes or fees. But fiscal neutrality does not make a measure harmless. The democratic cost of raising barriers to citizen referendums and lowering expectations for Council participation is substantial.

What it does

Shall the City Charter be amended to increase the minimum budget allocated to the Department of Recreation and Parks, phased in over ten years until it is double the current minimum budget allocation, with exceptions for fiscal emergencies?

Why we support

Charter Amendment PRK would double the minimum budget guaranteed to the Department of Recreation and Parks over ten years, increasing the mandated share of assessed property value from 0.0325% to 0.065% by fiscal year 2036-37. No new tax is imposed. Instead, the measure locks in an escalating claim on existing General Fund revenue, growing the parks allocation from roughly $303 million to $995 million annually. Thrive LA supports well-maintained parks. They anchor neighborhoods, give families safe outdoor space, and make communities more attractive to investment. Los Angeles parks have been underfunded for decades, and the results are visible: deferred maintenance, shuttered recreation centers, and facilities that have become magnets for encampments rather than for families. A charter-level funding guarantee forces the city to treat parks as essential infrastructure rather than a line item to be raided every budget cycle. The fiscal trade-offs are real. The City Administrative Officer estimates the mandate will require reallocating up to $497 million annually from other General Fund services by 2036-37, including public safety, public works, and homeless services. The city already faces a projected $63 million structural deficit. Those are serious numbers. But they are also a forcing function. For years, City Hall has avoided the hard work of prioritizing spending and eliminating waste. A binding parks mandate compels elected officials to make choices rather than spreading mediocrity across every department. The ten-year phase-in provides time to restructure, and the fiscal emergency exception preserves a safety valve for genuine downturns. The risk is that future councils respond to the squeeze by raising taxes rather than cutting elsewhere. Thrive LA will oppose any new tax or fee justified by this mandate. The correct response to a binding parks floor is to find efficiencies, consolidate duplicative programs, and eliminate low-value spending in other departments. If this measure forces that discipline, it will have done the city a favor. Vote Yes on PRK. Los Angeles parks deserve a funding floor, and Los Angeles taxpayers deserve a city government that can prioritize.

Key points

• No New Taxes Imposed: PRK does not levy a new tax, fee, or assessment. It reallocates existing General Fund revenue. That distinction matters. The measure increases spending on parks without increasing the burden on residents or businesses.
• Ten-Year Phase-In Period: The doubling of the parks budget floor occurs gradually over a decade, giving City Hall time to identify offsetting cuts and restructure spending in other departments. This is not an overnight fiscal shock.
• Fiscal Emergency Safety Valve: The charter amendment allows the city to reduce the parks allocation during a formally declared fiscal emergency. This preserves flexibility during recessions or catastrophic events like the Palisades fires.
• Watchpoint: No Tax Increases to Backfill: The mandate will create pressure on the General Fund. If elected officials respond by proposing new taxes or fees to maintain other services, Thrive LA will oppose them. The correct response is spending reform, not revenue increases.
• Watchpoint: Public Safety Budgets: LAPD and LAFD funding must not be treated as the offset. Council members who vote to cut police or fire budgets to comply with this mandate will face accountability from voters and from Thrive LA.

What it does

Shall the City Charter be amended to: require the Harbor Department to allocate funds for waterfront public access projects; require disclosure of workforce impacts for certain Harbor Department leases and agreements; increase maximum terms for certain leases; and change the composition requirement for the Airport Commission?

Why we support

Measure PRT amends the City Charter to make four changes across Los Angeles's proprietary departments: it extends maximum lease terms for the Airports Department and Department of Water and Power from 50 to 66 years (matching the Harbor Department's existing authority), adjusts local residency requirements on the Board of Airport Commissioners, requires the Harbor Department to annually fund a Public Access Investment Plan for waterfront projects, and mandates that applicants for Harbor District leases or Coastal Development Permits submit workforce impact disclosures. The strongest provision here is the lease-term extension. Longer lease terms attract private capital by giving investors greater certainty of return, reducing the effective cost of financing airport and utility infrastructure. Aligning all three proprietary departments at 66 years is a sensible, overdue standardization. The Airport Commission residency changes are modest governance housekeeping, ensuring that commissioners actually live near the facilities they oversee. The measure is not without drawbacks. The Public Access Investment Plan codifies an existing Harbor Department practice of spending roughly $28.6 million annually on waterfront access, but embedding it in the Charter rather than leaving it as an administrative decision makes future reallocation far harder. Charter amendments require another citywide vote to undo. The workforce impact disclosure requirement adds a new compliance layer for businesses seeking Harbor District leases. While small businesses and nonprofits may be partially exempted, any added regulatory friction increases the cost of doing business at the Port. On balance, the lease-term extension is a meaningful improvement for long-term infrastructure investment, and the remaining provisions are either neutral or formalize existing practice. The regulatory and fiscal concerns are real but modest enough to support a Yes vote. Vote Yes on Measure PRT.

Key points

• Longer Leases, More Investment: Extending maximum lease terms from 50 to 66 years for the Airports Department and DWP matches the Harbor Department's existing authority. Longer terms give private investors the certainty needed to commit capital to major infrastructure projects.
• Cost-Neutral to Taxpayers: The City Administrative Officer found the measure largely cost-neutral. The Public Access Investment Plan codifies an existing $28.6 million annual allocation, and workforce disclosures are self-funded by applicants, not by the City.
• Watchpoint: Charter-Locked Spending: Embedding the Harbor Department's Public Access Investment Plan in the City Charter reduces future budgetary flexibility. While the Board of Harbor Commissioners retains discretion over the annual amount, reversing the mandate would require another citywide vote.
• Watchpoint: New Disclosure Burden: The workforce impact disclosure requirement adds a compliance step for every Harbor District lease applicant. The City should ensure exemptions for small businesses are meaningful and that the process does not slow lease approvals or deter investment at the Port.
• Smarter Airport Governance: Increasing the number of Airport Commissioners who must live near LAX (from one to three) and near Van Nuys Airport (from one to two) gives affected communities a stronger voice on the board overseeing their airports.

What it does

Shall an ordinance providing funding for the Los Angeles Fire Department, including for hiring firefighters, paramedics, and other staff, purchasing and maintaining vehicles and equipment, building and upgrading fire stations, and brush clearance; by imposing a one-half percent (0.5%) sales tax in the City of Los Angeles; with annual audits and a citizen's oversight committee; generating approximately $345 million annually until ended by voters; be adopted?

Why we support

Measure FD imposes a new half-cent sales tax on every purchase made in the City of Los Angeles, raising the combined rate from 10.25% to 10.75%. The revenue, estimated at $345 million per year, would be dedicated exclusively to the Los Angeles Fire Department for hiring firefighters and paramedics, purchasing apparatus, building and upgrading fire stations, and expanding brush clearance. The tax has no expiration date and can only be repealed by a future vote of the people. Thrive LA does not support new taxes lightly. Every tax reduces economic activity, and sales taxes are regressive: they hit lower-income Angelenos hardest and drive consumers and businesses to shop outside city limits. At 10.75%, Los Angeles would carry one of the highest combined sales tax rates in California, widening the competitive gap with neighboring cities and accelerating the flight of retail spending to online and out-of-jurisdiction alternatives. These are real costs, and we do not minimize them. We support Measure FD anyway, because the Palisades fire exposed a failure that cannot wait for budget cycles to correct. LAFD is understaffed, under-equipped, and operating out of aging stations while the city faces escalating wildfire, earthquake, and emergency-response risk. The General Fund has failed to prioritize fire services adequately for years. Council priorities have drifted toward activist-backed social spending while core public safety infrastructure has deteriorated. A dedicated revenue stream, protected by a maintenance-of-effort clause that prevents the City from simply backfilling existing LAFD spending, is the most reliable mechanism voters have to force the investment that elected officials have deferred. The measure also includes annual independent audits and a citizens' oversight committee to ensure the money goes where it is promised. This is a trade-off, not a celebration. The tax is permanent, it mandates project labor agreements on fire station construction (increasing costs), and it creates a funding silo that reduces budget flexibility. But the core question is simple: do Angelenos trust the City Council to fund fire protection at the level this city requires through the normal appropriations process? The last decade, and the last fire season, answered that question. Vote yes on Measure FD.

Key points

• Direct LAFD Investment: Every dollar raised goes exclusively to the Fire Department: hiring firefighters and paramedics, purchasing and maintaining vehicles and equipment, building and upgrading fire stations, and brush clearance. The money cannot be diverted to unrelated programs.
• Accountability Built In: The measure requires annual independent audits and establishes a citizens' oversight committee. A maintenance-of-effort provision prevents the City from substituting new tax revenue for existing General Fund commitments to LAFD.
• Watchpoint: No Sunset Clause: The tax is permanent until repealed by voters. Thrive LA expects the oversight committee to publish clear performance benchmarks. If LAFD reaches full staffing and equipment targets, the City should put a repeal measure before voters rather than allow the tax to compound indefinitely.
• Watchpoint: Regressive Tax Burden: A half-cent sales tax hits lower-income residents hardest and raises the combined rate to 10.75%, one of the highest in California. Voters should demand that the City offset this burden by opposing any additional tax increases, including Measure ULA renewal, and by cutting wasteful spending elsewhere in the General Fund.
• Wildfire Readiness Is Non-Negotiable: The Palisades fire demonstrated that LAFD lacks the staffing, equipment, and station infrastructure to protect a city facing escalating wildfire risk. Approximately $345 million annually provides the scale of investment required to close that gap.

What it does

Shall the Los Angeles City Charter be amended to clarify the campaign finance rules for Board of Education elections and allow for changes by ordinance?

Why we support

Measure SC would amend the Los Angeles City Charter to let the City Council update campaign finance rules for LAUSD Board of Education elections by ordinance, rather than requiring a full charter amendment every time a change is needed. This is a straightforward governance improvement. Right now, even minor updates to contribution limits or disclosure requirements for school board races require placing a charter amendment on the ballot, a costly and slow process that makes it nearly impossible to keep rules current. Measure SC fixes that by giving the City Council the flexibility to adjust these rules through the normal ordinance process. The underlying campaign finance framework stays in place; what changes is the mechanism for updating it. There is a reasonable concern that shifting authority from voters to the City Council reduces a layer of direct democratic accountability. That concern is worth noting. But campaign finance regulations for school board elections are technical, procedural matters that benefit from timely updates. Requiring a citywide ballot measure for every adjustment is an inefficient use of public resources and ballot space. The ordinance process still includes public hearings, Council votes, and mayoral approval, meaning transparency and accountability remain built into the system. Measure SC costs taxpayers nothing, creates no new regulations or fees, and streamlines a clunky process. Vote yes.

Key points

• Zero Cost to Taxpayers: Measure SC has no fiscal impact. It is a procedural change that actually saves the city money by eliminating the need to place charter amendments on the ballot for routine campaign finance updates.
• Faster, Smarter Updates: Contribution limits and disclosure rules need to keep pace with changing elections. The ordinance process allows timely adjustments without the expense and delay of a full charter amendment cycle.
• No New Regulations or Taxes: This measure does not impose any new rules on candidates, donors, or taxpayers. It simply changes how existing campaign finance rules for LAUSD Board elections are modified going forward.
• Accountability Remains Intact: The ordinance process requires public hearings, City Council votes, and mayoral approval. Voters retain the ability to hold elected officials accountable for any changes they make to campaign finance rules.
• Good Government, No Ideology: Measure SC is not about expanding or restricting campaign finance regulation. It is about moving a technical governance process out of the charter and into a format that can be updated efficiently.

Why we endorse

Robert G. Luna is the 34th Sheriff of Los Angeles County, elected in 2022 to lead the largest sheriff's department in the nation. Before that, he spent 36 years with the Long Beach Police Department, including seven years as Chief of Police from 2014 to 2021. Raised in unincorporated East Los Angeles by Mexican immigrant parents, Luna holds a master's degree in public administration from Cal State Long Beach and is a graduate of the FBI National Executive Institute and Harvard's program for senior executives in state and local government. The Sheriff has one core job: keep the residents of Los Angeles County safe and run a professional, accountable department. Luna has delivered on that job. Violent crime is falling, clearance rates are rising, and the department is rebuilding staffing after years of cuts. This November, voters face a rematch with former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and the choice comes down to measurable results. We will keep holding the Sheriff's office to a high standard on fiscal discipline and enforcement, and Luna's record gives us reason to expect continued progress. The numbers tell the story. Violent crime in LASD-patrolled areas has fallen every year of Luna's tenure. Homicides are down 14% year over year, and 2024 saw the fewest homicides in five years. Luna created a Crime Strategy Unit that uses data to target the people and places driving crime, and he raised clearance rates for both violent and property crimes, meaning more offenders are actually being caught. He surged deputies onto Metro to make transit safer for riders, and during the 2025 wildfires he led anti-looting operations to protect evacuated homes and businesses. On homelessness, Luna pairs outreach with action. His Homeless Outreach Services Teams have resolved more than 300 encampments and more than 140 RVs, moving more than 1,000 people off the streets. Inside the department, he appointed a civilian Chief Financial Officer to tighten spending, secured funding for new academy classes and equipment upgrades, and launched a public dashboard reporting crime statistics, uses of force, and personnel complaints. The people who do the work stand with him. Luna is endorsed by the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL), the Los Angeles County Firefighters, and District Attorney Nathan Hochman, along with BizFed and the Central City Association. Robert Luna has earned a second term through results, not rhetoric.

Key positions

• Crime Is Falling: Violent crime in LASD-patrolled areas has dropped every year under Luna, homicides are down 14% year over year, and 2024 recorded the fewest homicides in five years. His Crime Strategy Unit and higher clearance rates mean more offenders are held accountable.
• Backed by Law Enforcement: Endorsed by ALADS, LAPPL, the Los Angeles County Firefighters (IAFF Local 1014), the Long Beach POA, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, and District Attorney Nathan Hochman. The deputies who patrol LA County trust his leadership.
• Encampments Cleared, Streets Reclaimed: LASD Homeless Outreach Services Teams have resolved more than 300 encampments and more than 140 RVs, moving more than 1,000 people off the streets. Enforcement is part of the solution, not an afterthought.
• Business Community Support: BizFed PAC, the Central City Association, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Los Angeles Latino Chamber of Commerce all back Luna. Safe streets and safe transit are the foundation for every small business in the county.
• Watchpoint: Fiscal Discipline: Luna campaigned for Measure A, a countywide tax increase, and Proposition 1, a major new spending program. We expect him to keep his department's focus on enforcement and efficiency, and to make his civilian CFO's work show up as real savings for taxpayers.

Why we endorse

Maria Ghobadi is a Deputy District Attorney with over 17 years of prosecutorial experience in Los Angeles County, including more than six years in the Gang Homicide Division. Born in Iran, she fled to the United States following the Iranian Revolution, earned a degree in biology, and went on to build one of the most distinguished trial records in the DA's office. She is running for Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 64. Judicial races rarely get the attention they deserve, but they matter enormously. The judge on the bench determines whether violent offenders face real consequences, whether victims receive justice, and whether the courtroom operates with the efficiency and discipline that public trust demands. Ghobadi's career has been defined by exactly those priorities: holding violent criminals accountable, standing with crime survivors, and earning the respect of law enforcement, fellow prosecutors, and the judges she has appeared before for nearly two decades. Her record speaks in specifics. Ghobadi has tried over 85 jury cases, including 21 homicide prosecutions. She has handled domestic violence, sexual assault, murder, and gang violence cases at the most serious level. The DA's office gave her its highest possible performance rating: "Far Exceeded Expectations, Outstanding." More than 64 sitting and retired Los Angeles County judges have endorsed her candidacy, including Supervising Judge Yvette Verastegui and Assistant Supervising Judge Olivia Rosales. Former District Attorney Steve Cooley, who led the office from 2000 to 2012, has personally endorsed her. The Crime Survivors PAC, the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys, and the Los Angeles Bar Association (which rated her "Well Qualified") have all backed her candidacy. These are not political favors. They are professional assessments from people who have watched her work. Maria Ghobadi is the proven, principled jurist Los Angeles needs on the Superior Court bench.

Key positions

• Deep Prosecutorial Record: Over 85 jury trials, including 21 homicide cases, across 17 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. More than six years spent in the Gang Homicide Division handling the most violent cases in the county.
• Trusted by the Bench: Endorsed by more than 64 sitting and retired LA County judges, including Supervising Judge Yvette Verastegui and Assistant Supervising Judge Olivia Rosales. That breadth of judicial support reflects real courtroom credibility.
• Law Enforcement and Prosecutor Support: Backed by former DA Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys, and the Crime Survivors PAC. Her career has been built on collaborative relationships with law enforcement and a commitment to accountability for violent offenders.
• Highest Performance Rating: Received the DA's office top evaluation, "Far Exceeded Expectations, Outstanding." In a system where performance reviews are routine, that rating is reserved for prosecutors who consistently deliver results at the highest level.
• Public Safety First: Campaign built around "Public Safety. Equal Justice." Ghobadi has dedicated her entire legal career to prosecuting violent crime, not plea-bargaining it away. Los Angeles needs judges who understand the weight of that responsibility.

Why we endorse

Anna Slotky Reitano is a Deputy County Counsel in the Justice and Safety Division of Los Angeles County with nearly 20 years of legal experience spanning criminal defense, civil litigation, and public safety advisory work. She previously spent over a decade as a Deputy Public Defender before transitioning to County Counsel, where she supervises civil litigation and advises departments on justice system operations. She is running for Superior Court Office No. 65, a seat she previously sought in 2022. Judicial races rarely attract the scrutiny they deserve, and voters are often left choosing between candidates with little distinguishing information. Reitano brings substantial courtroom experience from both sides of the justice system. Her years as a public defender gave her firsthand knowledge of how cases move through the courts, and her current role advising County departments on public safety matters means she understands the operational realities that judges must navigate daily. She has represented public safety employees in administrative proceedings and homicide investigations, giving her exposure to law enforcement perspectives that many public defender alumni lack. Reitano has earned endorsements from more than a dozen sitting and former Superior Court judges, including Judge Holly Hancock, Judge Lucy Armendariz, Judge Patti Choi, Judge Patrick Connolly, and Judge Joel Lofton, among others. That level of judicial support signals that her peers on the bench consider her qualified and competent. She also carries endorsements from State Treasurer Fiona Ma, Congressmember Laura Friedman, and Assemblymembers Pilar Schiavo and Nick Schultz. Her nearly two decades of experience across criminal and civil law provide the breadth a Superior Court judge needs to handle the wide variety of cases that come before the bench. Anna Slotky Reitano has the courtroom depth and institutional knowledge to serve effectively on the Superior Court.

Key positions

• Deep Courtroom Experience: Nearly 20 years practicing law in Los Angeles County, including over a decade as a Deputy Public Defender and current service as a Deputy County Counsel. That range of experience across criminal defense and civil litigation prepares her for the full docket a Superior Court judge handles.
• Judicial Peer Support: Endorsed by more than a dozen sitting and former LA County Superior Court judges, including Judge Holly Hancock, Judge Lucy Armendariz, Judge Patti Choi, Judge Patrick Connolly, and Judge Joel Lofton. When that many colleagues on the bench vouch for a candidate, it reflects genuine respect for her legal ability.
• Public Safety Exposure: Has represented public safety employees in administrative proceedings and homicide investigations. Currently advises County departments on public safety matters in her role in the Justice and Safety Division of County Counsel.
• Watchpoint: Enforcement Balance: Reitano's professional background and stated philosophy emphasize rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration. From the bench, she must demonstrate that public safety and accountability remain central to sentencing decisions, not secondary to diversion programs.
• Watchpoint: No Law Enforcement Endorsements: Despite experience advising on public safety matters, Reitano carries no endorsements from LAPPL, UFLAC, ALADS, or any law enforcement organization. We expect a judge who takes public safety seriously to earn that trust over time.

Why we endorse

David DeJute is a Harvard Law graduate and veteran litigator with more than 30 years of legal experience spanning federal prosecution, major corporate litigation, and legal education. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, spent years as Vice President of Litigation at Sony Pictures Entertainment, and currently directs the Disaster Relief Clinic at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law. He is running for Los Angeles County Superior Court, Seat 87. LA's court system is drowning in backlogs, and voters deserve a judge who will run an efficient courtroom, hold lawyers accountable for delays, and apply the law without an ideological agenda. DeJute's combination of prosecutorial experience, high-stakes civil litigation, and academic depth gives him the tools to do exactly that. He describes his judicial philosophy in plain terms: determine the law, apply it, call balls and strikes, and move on. That is the right temperament for the bench. DeJute's record backs up the rhetoric. As a federal prosecutor, he handled complex cases requiring the kind of evidentiary rigor and trial discipline that translate directly to the Superior Court. At Sony Pictures, he managed major commercial litigation for one of the world's largest entertainment companies. At Pepperdine, he built a Disaster Relief Clinic that provided direct legal services to wildfire and disaster victims across Southern California. His endorsements reflect the breadth of his credibility: former Mayor James Hahn, LA County Assessor Jeffrey Prang, civic leader Rick Caruso, retired First Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger E. West, and a roster of sitting and former judges including Hon. David Berger, Hon. Brian Gasdia, Hon. Steve Morgan, Hon. James Steele, and Hon. David Walgren. David DeJute is the experienced, no-nonsense judge Los Angeles County needs on the Superior Court.

Key positions

• Proven Trial Experience: More than three decades practicing law, including service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Vice President of Litigation at Sony Pictures Entertainment. DeJute has tried cases at the highest levels of both criminal and civil law.
• Courtroom Efficiency First: DeJute has made reducing court backlogs a centerpiece of his campaign, advocating for pre-filing review, strict case management timelines, and holding attorneys accountable for delays. A faster court system saves taxpayers money and delivers justice sooner.
• Balanced on Public Safety: Supports strong sentencing for serious violent offenders while recognizing the value of rehabilitation for young, nonviolent, first-time offenders. His prosecutorial background ensures he understands the weight of criminal cases from the inside.
• Broad, Bipartisan Endorsements: Backed by former Mayor James Hahn, LA County Assessor Jeffrey Prang, civic leader Rick Caruso, retired First Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger E. West, and multiple sitting and former Superior Court judges. That cross-sector credibility signals a candidate who will serve the law, not a faction.
• Service to Disaster Victims: As Director of Pepperdine's Disaster Relief Clinic, DeJute provided free legal services to wildfire and disaster victims across Southern California. That hands-on commitment to communities in crisis demonstrates character, not just credentials.

Why we endorse

Donna Tryfman is a veteran deputy public defender with more than 30 years of courtroom experience in Los Angeles County. She currently serves in the Major Cases Unit handling capital homicide litigation, has tried over 100 jury trials involving serious and violent felonies, and has served as a Judge Pro Tem in traffic, small claims, and unlawful detainer matters. In 2025 she received the Gideon Award as Felony Attorney of the Year. Judicial races rarely get the attention they deserve, but they shape the daily reality of public safety in Los Angeles County. The bench needs judges who understand both constitutional rights and the practical demands of protecting communities. Tryfman is the rare candidate who earns trust from both sides of the courtroom. The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) endorsed her, marking the first time that prosecutors' union has ever backed a public defender. Crime Survivors Action PAC and former Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley also support her candidacy. That combination tells you everything: she is not an ideologue, she is a courtroom professional who takes public safety seriously. Her record backs it up. Over three decades in the LA County Public Defender's Office, Tryfman has handled the most complex and high-stakes cases the system produces. She served as President of the statewide Public Defenders Association from 2015 to 2020, demonstrating leadership well beyond her own caseload. On bail, she has articulated a balanced approach that treats public safety as a primary factor and supports custodial detention when conditions cannot assure community protection. She also brings quasi-judicial experience from five years as Commissioner and Chair of the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Commission, where she heard housing provider-tenant disputes and built a reputation for neutral, even-handed adjudication. Her endorsement by the Southern California News Group editorial boards, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, and multiple sitting and retired Superior Court judges (including Justice Anne H. Egerton of the Second District Court of Appeal) reflects broad confidence in her temperament and qualifications. She has also spoken candidly about the fiscal strain on LA County courts from budget cuts and the $4 billion abuse settlement, advocating for efficient court management and reducing case backlogs through preparation and organization. Donna Tryfman is the experienced, balanced, public-safety-minded judge LA County's Superior Court needs.

Key positions

• Trusted by Prosecutors and Victims: The Association of Deputy District Attorneys endorsed Tryfman, the first time that organization has ever backed a public defender. Crime Survivors Action PAC and former DA Steve Cooley also support her, signaling she will protect public safety from the bench.
• 100+ Serious Felony Trials: Over 30 years in the LA County Public Defender's Office, Tryfman has tried more than 100 jury trials involving serious and violent felonies, including capital homicide cases in the Major Cases Unit. She knows the courtroom, not just the theory.
• Bail That Prioritizes Safety: Tryfman supports a balanced approach to bail that considers public safety as the primary factor and backs custodial detention when release conditions cannot protect the community.
• Quasi-Judicial Experience on Housing: As Commissioner and Chair of the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Commission (2019-2024), Tryfman adjudicated housing provider-tenant disputes with an even hand, building a track record of neutral decision-making.
• Fiscal Realism on Court Operations: Tryfman has spoken directly about the strain on LA County courts from budget cuts and the $4 billion abuse settlement. She advocates reducing case backlogs through preparation, organization, and efficient court management rather than excuses.

What it does

Shall the measure amending the Los Angeles County Charter to prohibit strikes by district attorney investigators, medical examiners, and lifeguards; their supervisors; and nonadministrative civilian employees working in the Fire Department, Sheriff's Department, and the Department of Medical Examiner, reiterate existing legal obligations for good faith negotiations, and establish an impartial binding arbitration process for resolving labor disputes with certified public safety employee organizations representing County employees including firefighters, sheriffs, and the abovementioned employees, as specified in the charter amendment ordinance, be adopted?

Why we support

Measure A would amend the Los Angeles County Charter to create binding arbitration for labor disputes between the County and its public safety unions, including firefighters, sheriff's deputies, lifeguards, district attorney investigators, and medical examiners. When contract negotiations reach impasse, instead of the County imposing its final offer, both sides would submit competing proposals to a three-member arbitration panel that picks a winner on each disputed issue. The measure also formally bans strikes by these employees and codifies good-faith negotiation obligations. Thrive LA supports Measure A, but with clear eyes about the fiscal risks it carries. The case for voting yes rests on a single, decisive fact: Los Angeles County cannot protect its residents without firefighters and deputies, and it cannot recruit or retain firefighters and deputies without competitive compensation. The current system, where the County can simply impose terms when talks break down, gives management an asymmetric advantage that has contributed to chronic staffing shortages in the Sheriff's Department and dangerously low recruitment pipelines at County Fire. A structured, impartial arbitration process gives public safety workers a fair mechanism to resolve disputes without the disruption of slowdowns or political standoffs. The formal strike prohibition, while largely redundant under existing California law, codifies an important principle in the Charter. The support behind this measure is broad and serious. ALADS, LA County Firefighters Local 1014, the LA County Professional Peace Officers Association, Sheriff Robert Luna, District Attorney Nathan Hochman, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, and four of five County Supervisors have all endorsed it. That coalition reflects a shared recognition that the County's public safety workforce is under strain and needs institutional reform. We are not blind to the fiscal concerns. Acting County Executive Officer Joseph Nicchitta warned that arbitrator-imposed compensation increases could raise operating costs, balloon unfunded pension liabilities, and pressure the County's credit ratings. Those warnings are legitimate. Binding arbitration does shift leverage toward unions, and research confirms it tends to produce higher compensation outcomes than direct negotiation. There is no spending cap, no sunset clause, and no requirement that arbitrators weigh competing budget priorities like homelessness programs or infrastructure. Embedding this process in the Charter makes it exceptionally difficult to reverse. Voters should understand they are making a structural, long-term choice about how the County allocates resources. On balance, the calculus is straightforward: public safety is the foundational obligation of county government, and the people who perform that work deserve a fair process for resolving disputes. The fiscal risks are real but manageable if elected officials exercise discipline in other areas of the budget. Vote yes on Measure A.

Key points

• Fair Process for First Responders: Binding arbitration replaces a system where the County can unilaterally impose contract terms at impasse. Firefighters, deputies, and other public safety employees deserve an impartial mechanism to resolve disputes, particularly when the County depends on their willingness to serve.
• Strongest Public Safety Coalition: ALADS, LA County Firefighters Local 1014, the Professional Peace Officers Association, Sheriff Robert Luna, and District Attorney Nathan Hochman all support this measure. When every major law enforcement and fire organization in the county agrees on a structural reform, voters should pay attention.
• Codified Strike Prohibition: The measure formally bans strikes by covered public safety employees and writes that prohibition into the County Charter. While California law already restricts public safety strikes, Charter-level codification provides an additional layer of certainty for residents.
• Watchpoint: Fiscal Discipline Required: Binding arbitration creates structural upward pressure on County labor costs. There is no spending cap, no sunset clause, and no obligation for arbitrators to consider the broader budget. Supervisors must offset any cost increases with spending discipline elsewhere, not new taxes or fees.
• Watchpoint: Pension Liability Exposure: The County's own executive officer warned this measure could balloon unfunded pension liabilities and threaten credit ratings. Voters and elected officials must monitor arbitration outcomes closely and hold the Board accountable for long-term fiscal sustainability.

What it does

Shall the measure amending the Los Angeles County Charter to provide greater independence and structure for the County of Los Angeles Ethics Commission, Office of Ethics Compliance, and Ethics Compliance Officer, including appointment processes, qualifications, term, duties and responsibilities, and to continue uninterrupted the County's commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration, as specified in the charter amendment ordinance, be adopted?

Why we support

Measure E amends the Los Angeles County Charter to do two things. First, it establishes the structure, independence, and authority of the new County Ethics Commission and Office of Ethics Compliance created by 2024's Measure G, including appointment processes, qualifications, terms, investigative powers, and guaranteed annual funding. Second, it preserves and relocates Measure J's (2020) mandated budget set-aside for "community investment and alternatives to incarceration" into the new charter framework created by Measure G. The ethics component is the reason to vote yes. Los Angeles County government needs a genuinely independent watchdog with the authority to investigate elected officials, enforce conflict-of-interest rules, and hold the new County Executive accountable. The measure gives the Ethics Commission real teeth: strong independence provisions, clear appointment processes designed to insulate commissioners from political pressure, and dedicated funding so the office cannot be starved into irrelevance by the officials it oversees. For a county that just restructured its entire governance model, standing up a credible ethics enforcement body is not optional. It is foundational. The Measure J preservation is less straightforward. Locking mandated spending set-asides into the charter reduces future budget flexibility and constrains the Board of Supervisors' ability to redirect funds based on what actually works. The "alternatives to incarceration" framework has produced mixed results at best, and permanently shielding that spending from executive oversight or reallocation is the kind of rigid fiscal commitment that makes government less responsive over time. We would have preferred the Board put these two items on the ballot separately so voters could weigh each on its own merits. On balance, the ethics infrastructure outweighs the fiscal rigidity concern. County government desperately needs independent oversight with real enforcement power, and this measure delivers it. Vote yes on Measure E.

Key points

• Independent Ethics Enforcement: The measure creates a structurally independent Ethics Commission with investigative authority over elected officials, strict conflict-of-interest rules for commissioners, and guaranteed annual funding. This is the accountability architecture a reformed county government requires.
• Insulated From Political Retaliation: Appointment processes and term structures are designed to prevent the officials being investigated from defunding or stacking the commission. The Ethics Compliance Officer has defined qualifications and a fixed term, not a political appointment that changes with each election cycle.
• Watchpoint: Measure J Set-Aside: The measure permanently enshrines Measure J's mandated budget allocation for "community investment and alternatives to incarceration" in the charter, shielding it from the new County Executive's veto. This locks in spending commitments without requiring performance metrics or demonstrated outcomes.
• Watchpoint: Bundled Ballot Design: Ethics enforcement and Measure J preservation are unrelated policy items packaged into a single vote. The Board of Supervisors should have separated them. Voters deserve cleaner choices.
• Necessary For Measure G Implementation: Measure G restructured county governance. Without Measure E, the ethics framework that was supposed to accompany that restructuring has no charter-level authority, leaving the new County Executive and expanded Board without a credible check on their power.

Why we endorse

Ben Allen has represented California's 24th Senate District since 2014, covering the Westside, Hollywood, the South Bay, and the Santa Monica Mountains. A Harvard, Cambridge, and UC Berkeley Law graduate, he previously served as President of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education and lectured at UCLA Law School. He has authored more than 90 laws during his time in the Legislature. The Insurance Commissioner's office is not glamorous, but it matters enormously to every Californian who pays a homeowner's, renter's, auto, or business insurance premium. After the devastating 2025 Palisades Fire, the stakes are even higher: millions of policyholders need a commissioner who will hold insurers accountable for paying legitimate claims while maintaining a regulatory environment that keeps carriers writing policies in California instead of fleeing the state. Allen's opponent, Jane Kim, is a Working Families Party activist endorsed by DSA-aligned organizations. Kim's track record in San Francisco politics is one of ideological crusades, not the operational competence this office demands. Allen is the substantive, credible choice. Allen brings real legislative depth on insurance and disaster preparedness. He authored wildfire mitigation and disaster relief legislation following the Palisades Fire, secured funding for brush clearing and forest management, and championed home-hardening standards that reduce risk for homeowners and insurers alike. He carries the endorsement of Former Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, the one living former officeholder who actually ran this department. He is backed by the California Professional Firefighters and the International Association of Fire Fighters, the people who respond when policies get tested by flames. The California Association of Realtors' PAC (CREPAC) supports him, a signal that the real estate community trusts him to keep insurance markets functional. Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper has also endorsed Allen. In the Legislature, Allen earned top marks from the California Clean Money Campaign for transparency and authored the Disclose Act, demonstrating a commitment to open government that will translate directly into how the Department of Insurance publishes rate decisions, enforcement actions, and consumer complaint data. Ben Allen is the experienced, substantive Insurance Commissioner California needs.

Key positions

• Firefighter and Law Enforcement Trust: Endorsed by the California Professional Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Fighters, and Sacramento County Sheriff Jim Cooper. The people who fight fires and keep communities safe trust Allen to protect coverage markets.
• Real Estate Community Support: Backed by the California Real Estate PAC (CREPAC), signaling confidence from the housing and property sector that Allen will maintain a functional insurance market rather than regulate carriers out of the state.
• Wildfire Preparedness Record: Authored legislation on wildfire mitigation, disaster relief, brush clearing, forest management, and home-hardening standards. In a post-Palisades Fire era, this is not theoretical. It is operational experience that matters.
• Opponent Is DSA-Aligned: Jane Kim is a Working Families Party activist with DSA-aligned backing and a San Francisco political record built on ideological campaigns, not insurance market expertise. The contrast could not be sharper.
• Transparency and Accountability: Authored the Disclose Act and earned top transparency scores in the Legislature from the California Clean Money Campaign. As commissioner, Allen has committed to publishing rate decisions, enforcement actions, and consumer complaint data openly.

What it does

Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.

Why we support

Proposition 1 authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund affordable housing programs: $10 billion for multifamily rental housing, homeownership assistance, farmworker and student housing, supportive housing, and infrastructure, plus $1.25 billion for veterans home loans. The bond would cost taxpayers $500 million to $600 million annually for roughly 25 years in debt service, with total repayment (including interest) reaching $12.5 to $15 billion. Thrive LA supports Proposition 1, but with clear eyes. This is not how we would design housing policy from scratch. Government bonds are an expensive way to finance housing, and every dollar spent on debt service is a dollar unavailable for tax relief or regulatory reform. The measure does nothing to reduce permitting barriers, CEQA delays, or zoning restrictions that remain the single largest obstacle to housing production in California. Subsidized units built with these funds carry 55-year affordability covenants that layer bureaucratic restrictions onto the housing stock for generations. So why support it? Because California's housing crisis is an emergency, and this bond will put shovels in the ground. Up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, 40,000 homeownership assistance loans, 2,500 farmworker housing units, and 1,200 university student beds represent real shelter for real people. The $1.25 billion veterans home loan program is entirely self-financing (veterans repay the bonds through their mortgages), making it a zero-cost tool for the people who served this country. And $500 million for infill infrastructure removes one of the key bottlenecks that delays even market-rate development: the roads, water, and sewer connections that new housing requires. In a state where regulatory reform moves at a glacial pace, bond-funded production is an imperfect but necessary bridge. The measure also includes $1.15 billion for supportive housing with on-site services for homeless and at-risk populations. We would prefer that these dollars come with stronger accountability requirements, including expectations around sobriety and treatment participation. But the alternative is not a better bill. The alternative is no new housing production at all while Sacramento debates. Proposition 1 is a practical tool in a crisis that demands action now.

Key points

• Real Units, Real People: The bond funds construction of up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, 40,000 homeownership assistance loans, 2,500 farmworker housing units, and 1,200 university student beds. These are tangible additions to California's critically undersupplied housing stock.
• Veterans Loans Cost Taxpayers Nothing: The $1.25 billion veterans home loan program is self-financing. Veterans repay the bonds through their mortgage payments, meaning this component adds zero burden to the General Fund.
• Infill Infrastructure Unlocks Private Building: $500 million for infill infrastructure (roads, water, sewer) removes a key bottleneck that delays both subsidized and market-rate housing development. Infrastructure is a legitimate public investment that enables private construction.
• Watchpoint: Regulatory Reform Still Needed: This bond does not reduce permitting barriers, CEQA requirements, or zoning restrictions. Bonds without deregulation are an expensive workaround. Sacramento must pair this spending with meaningful supply-side reform to bring down housing costs permanently.
• Watchpoint: Long-Term Fiscal Cost: The $10 billion housing bond portion will cost the General Fund $500 to $600 million annually for 25 years. Total repayment will reach $12.5 to $15 billion after interest. Voters should demand that the Legislature not use this debt as a justification for future tax increases.

What it does

Increases California’s Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns. Fiscal Impact: State budget reserves would be higher.

Why we support

Proposition 2 doubles the cap on California's rainy day fund from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax revenues, requires larger deposits during boom years when capital gains revenue is high, and extends mandatory state debt repayment through 2040. The core idea is sound. California's economy is volatile, driven by capital gains income that swings wildly with financial markets. When those revenues spike, Sacramento has a long history of spending every dollar and then scrambling to cut services or raise taxes when the next downturn arrives. A larger rainy day fund forces the Legislature to save more during good years, reducing the pressure for emergency tax hikes when revenue drops. Extended debt repayment through 2040 is also fiscally responsible: paying down obligations faster lowers interest costs and improves the state's credit standing. There is a real tradeoff here, and voters should understand it. Proposition 2 changes how rainy day fund deposits interact with the Gann Limit, the voter-approved spending cap that has protected taxpayers since 1979. Under current law, deposits into the rainy day fund count against the spending cap, meaning surplus revenue that exceeds the cap can trigger refunds to taxpayers. Under Proposition 2, deposits are excluded from the cap calculation when money goes in and instead count when it comes out. This effectively allows the Legislature to shelter revenue that might otherwise be returned to taxpayers. That is a meaningful weakening of a taxpayer protection, and we do not take it lightly. On balance, however, we support Proposition 2. The fiscal discipline of larger mandatory reserves and accelerated debt repayment outweighs the Gann Limit concern, particularly because the alternative is a Legislature that spends every surplus dollar and then demands new taxes to cover the shortfall. Saving more during booms is the single best way to prevent tax increases during busts. Proposition 2 imposes that discipline by formula, not by trusting politicians to exercise restraint on their own.

Key points

• No New Taxes: Proposition 2 does not impose any new tax, fee, or assessment. It redirects existing revenue into savings rather than immediate spending.
• Larger Reserve, Less Volatility: Doubling the rainy day fund cap to 20% of General Fund revenues forces the state to save more during boom years. A larger cushion means less pressure for emergency tax increases when the economy turns.
• Mandatory Debt Repayment Extended: The measure extends required state debt repayment through 2040, including federal unemployment insurance loans and other obligations. Paying down debt faster reduces long-term interest costs and strengthens the state's fiscal position.
• Watchpoint: Gann Limit Erosion: By excluding rainy day deposits from the spending cap calculation, the measure weakens a voter-approved taxpayer protection. The Legislature gains more discretion to avoid returning surplus revenue to taxpayers. We support the measure despite this concern, but voters should demand transparency on how sheltered funds are ultimately spent.
• Discipline Over Discretion: Formula-driven savings requirements are more reliable than political promises. Proposition 2 locks in countercyclical budgeting by statute, reducing Sacramento's ability to spend every dollar during good times and then claim a crisis when revenues fall.

What it does

Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education. Fiscal Impact: Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.

Why we oppose

Proposition 3 would amend the California Constitution to make permanent the higher income tax rates on high earners that voters first approved in 2012 (Proposition 30) and extended in 2016 (Proposition 55). Those rates apply to individuals earning over roughly $371,000 a year, adjusted for inflation, and are scheduled to expire in 2031. When they expire, the top three brackets of 10.3%, 11.3%, and 12.3% would return to 9.3%. Proposition 3 cancels that scheduled reduction permanently. Revenue is directed 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges, with any excess potentially going to children's health care through Medi-Cal. Vote no. Supporters say Proposition 3 is not a new tax, and that is technically true. But voters approved these rates as temporary, twice. Both times, Californians were told the increase would end. Proposition 3 breaks that promise and writes California's highest-in-the-nation top income tax rates into the constitution with no end date. With the existing Mental Health Services surcharge, the top rate stays at 13.3%. Every state with no income tax gains a permanent recruiting advantage over California. The sunset was the accountability. A temporary tax forces Sacramento to come back to voters and prove the money is being spent well. Making it permanent removes that check for good. The state Legislative Analyst estimates the revenue at $5 billion to $15 billion a year, a $10 billion swing driven by the stock market. Locking that volatility into the budget guarantees boom-and-bust cycles, with spending that grows in good years and painful shortfalls when the market turns. This tax does not stay with the wealthy. High earners include the founders, investors, and business owners who decide whether to build, hire, and expand in California or somewhere else. Each one who leaves takes jobs, payroll, and investment capital with them, and that shrinks the tax base everyone else depends on. California's budget problem comes from spending without discipline. It does not come from a shortage of revenue. Before asking taxpayers for a permanent commitment, Sacramento should show it can spend what it already collects responsibly. Californians were promised a temporary tax, and Proposition 3 makes it permanent. Vote No on Proposition 3.

Key points

• A Temporary Tax, Made Permanent: Voters approved these rates in 2012 and 2016 as temporary measures set to expire. Proposition 3 cancels the scheduled 2031 reduction and writes the higher rates into the state constitution for good.
• Highest Rates in America: The measure locks in top marginal rates of up to 12.3%, or 13.3% with the mental health surcharge. That is the highest in the nation and a lasting disadvantage against states with no income tax.
• No More Voter Check: The sunset forced Sacramento to return to voters and justify the tax. Removing it eliminates the strongest accountability tool taxpayers have over this money.
• Built-In Budget Instability: Revenue swings between $5 billion and $15 billion a year depending on the stock market. Permanent reliance on that volatility guarantees boom-and-bust budgeting.
• Drives Away Job Creators: High earners include the entrepreneurs and investors who fund new businesses and housing. Making these rates permanent gives them one more reason to take their capital and jobs out of California.

What it does

Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.

Why we support

Proposition 4 repeals a 1988 voter-approved ban that currently prevents most California state and local governments from using public funds to finance candidates' election campaigns. It does not create any public financing program on its own. It simply removes the prohibition so that future legislatures, city councils, and county boards can establish such programs if they choose. Thrive LA supports Proposition 4 because the current ban creates a two-tiered system that benefits large charter cities at the expense of smaller communities. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland, and Berkeley already operate public campaign financing programs because charter cities are exempt from the 1988 prohibition. Every other city, county, and the state itself is locked out. That means candidates in smaller and mid-sized cities across California have no local option to reduce dependence on large donors or special-interest bundlers, even if their voters want one. Repealing the ban levels the playing field and returns the decision to local communities where it belongs. Public financing, properly designed, can reduce the outsized influence of public-sector unions, developer lobbyists, and activist organizations on local elections. When candidates can qualify for matching funds by demonstrating broad-based small-dollar support, they are less beholden to the narrow interests that currently dominate city hall fundraising. The measure includes explicit guardrails: no funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety can be redirected to campaign financing, and candidates must meet eligibility thresholds before receiving any public dollars. The direct state cost is modest, limited to a few hundred thousand dollars annually for Fair Political Practices Commission guidance. There is a legitimate concern that future legislatures could design bloated programs without spending caps or sunset provisions. That risk is real. But the answer is vigilance over future program design, not a blanket prohibition that entrenches the advantage of charter cities and leaves the rest of California's local governments with no tools to diversify their candidate pipelines. Proposition 4 opens a door. What matters is what communities build on the other side. Proposition 4 is a reasonable, narrowly scoped reform that returns local control to local voters.

Key points

• Levels the Playing Field: Charter cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Long Beach already run public financing programs. Proposition 4 lets the rest of California's cities and counties decide for themselves whether to adopt similar tools.
• Reduces Special-Interest Dependence: Public financing programs that require broad-based small-dollar fundraising to qualify give candidates an alternative to relying on union PACs, corporate bundlers, and activist organizations. That is good for accountability.
• Core Services Protected: The measure explicitly prohibits any future public financing program from using funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. These guardrails are written into the statute.
• Minimal Direct Cost: The state fiscal impact is a few hundred thousand dollars per year for FPPC guidance. The measure itself does not appropriate money or create a program. Future costs depend entirely on what individual governments choose to do.
• Watchpoint: Future Program Design: Repealing the ban is the right call, but future public financing programs must include spending caps, sunset provisions, and strict eligibility requirements. Thrive LA will oppose any program that becomes a blank check for taxpayer-funded political spending.

What it does

Under current law, voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election. This measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment. Fiscal Impact: Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled.

Why we oppose

Proposition 5 would eliminate the replacement-candidate question from California recall elections. Under current law, when voters recall a state officeholder, they simultaneously choose a successor on the same ballot. This measure strips that second question away. If a governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor simply takes over. If another executive officer is recalled, the governor appoints a replacement. Legislative vacancies would be filled by special election at a later date. This is a power grab dressed up as procedural reform. The entire point of a recall is to give voters a direct check on officeholders who have lost the public's confidence. Proposition 5 guts that check by ensuring the recalled official's political allies control the succession. A recalled governor would be replaced by a lieutenant governor from the same party, chosen on the same ticket, carrying the same agenda voters just rejected. A recalled statewide officer would be replaced by a gubernatorial appointee, not by the people. The recall becomes an empty gesture: voters can fire someone, but they have no say over who takes the job. California's recall process exists precisely because representative government sometimes fails. Incumbents accumulate power; party structures protect their own. The simultaneous replacement election is what gives a recall real consequences. It forces the political establishment to compete for the seat on the spot, in front of the electorate, rather than fill it behind closed doors. Proposition 5 would turn a democratic safety valve into a rubber stamp for the party in power. The measure's backers are almost exclusively Democratic elected officials and aligned organizations. That tells you everything about who benefits. This is not about simplifying elections or saving money (the fiscal impact is negligible either way). It is about insulating the ruling majority from the only tool voters have to hold them directly accountable between elections. Vote No on Proposition 5. The recall belongs to the voters, not the political establishment.

Key points

• Voters Lose Their Voice: Proposition 5 eliminates the replacement-candidate ballot question, stripping voters of the ability to choose a successor during a recall. Vacancies would instead be filled by gubernatorial appointment or automatic succession.
• Protects the Party in Power: If a governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor (same party, same ticket, same agenda) automatically takes over. For other offices, the governor handpicks a replacement. The political establishment is insulated from real accountability.
• Recalls Become Meaningless: A recall without a replacement election is a vote to shuffle chairs within the same political machine. Voters expend enormous effort to recall an officeholder only to have the same faction retain the seat.
• No Fiscal Justification: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the fiscal impact at millions of dollars per recall, less than one-tenth of one percent of the General Fund. This is not a cost-saving measure. It is a structural change to who holds power.
• Backed by Incumbents, Not Reformers: The measure's supporters are sitting Democratic officeholders and party-aligned organizations. No credible nonpartisan reform group is championing this change. The beneficiaries wrote the bill.

What it does

Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of purchase price of a newly constructed home priced below about $1.5 million. Borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, meet income limits, and pay at least 3% down. Bonds repaid by mortgage payments, not State. Fiscal Impact: No direct state or local costs.

Why we support

Proposition 37 authorizes the California Housing Finance Agency to sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund fixed-rate second mortgage loans for middle-income buyers of newly constructed homes. Eligible borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, earn no more than 200% of area median income, and put down at least 3%. The loans cover up to 17% of the purchase price on new homes priced below roughly $1 million to $1.5 million, depending on the county. The bonds are repaid by borrowers' monthly mortgage payments, not by the General Fund. Thrive LA supports Proposition 37, but with clear eyes about what it is and what it isn't. California's homeownership crisis is real. The median home price has locked out an entire generation of middle-income families, teachers, nurses, firefighters, and small business owners who earn solid incomes but cannot clear the down payment barrier. This measure targets that gap directly by subsidizing down payments on new construction only, which is the critical distinction. By limiting eligibility to newly built homes, Proposition 37 ties every dollar of demand-side assistance to an increase in housing supply. That link between subsidy and new units is what separates this from a blank check that merely inflates existing home prices. The measure also includes modest but meaningful construction defect litigation reforms through its "qualified builder option," reducing legal risk for participating developers. That reform, narrow as it is, addresses one of the real barriers that has suppressed condo and townhome construction in California for decades. And because the bonds are revenue bonds repaid by borrowers rather than taxpayers, the measure avoids the worst feature of most ballot-box spending: no new taxes, no General Fund exposure. That said, this is still a $25 billion government intervention in the mortgage market, and Thrive LA does not pretend that comes without trade-offs. Government involvement in lending markets has a long history of increasing costs and reducing private-sector competition. The subordinate lien position of these second mortgages may result in interest rates higher than conventional alternatives, meaning some borrowers could pay more in total financing costs than they would through private products. The "qualified builder option" also layers union-adjacent labor standards onto participating developers, raising construction costs. And critically, Proposition 37 does nothing to address the root causes of California's housing shortage: excessive permitting timelines, exclusionary zoning, CEQA abuse, and the regulatory gauntlet that makes it take years and millions of dollars to build anything. Demand-side subsidies without supply-side deregulation are a band-aid, not a cure. On balance, however, the new-construction requirement, the absence of taxpayer liability, and the litigation reform provisions make this measure a net positive for housing production and middle-class families. Proposition 37 is a reasonable, narrowly targeted tool to help working Californians buy homes. Vote yes.

Key points

• New Construction Only: Every dollar of down payment assistance is tied to a newly built home, not an existing one. This links demand-side subsidy directly to housing supply, reducing the risk of simply inflating prices in California's already overheated market.
• No Taxpayer Liability: The $25 billion in revenue bonds is repaid entirely by borrowers' mortgage payments, not from the General Fund. If defaults rise, bond investors absorb the losses, not California taxpayers. The Legislative Analyst confirms no direct state or local costs.
• Litigation Reform Matters: The qualified builder option provides construction defect litigation protections for participating developers. This addresses a key reason California has built almost no for-sale condos and townhomes in two decades, unlocking a housing type the state desperately needs.
• Watchpoint: Market Distortion: Government entry into mortgage lending can crowd out private capital and reduce competition. The subordinate lien position of these second mortgages may push interest rates higher than conventional alternatives, and the union-adjacent labor standards in the qualified builder option add construction costs. These trade-offs deserve ongoing scrutiny.
• Watchpoint: Supply-Side Reform Still Needed: Proposition 37 does not fix a single permitting timeline, repeal a single zoning restriction, or reform CEQA. Demand-side subsidies without supply-side deregulation are incomplete. Sacramento must pair this measure with real regulatory relief, or the underlying crisis will persist.

What it does

Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue.

Why we oppose

Proposition 38 authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. Half the money, $4.2 billion, goes to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit research institute. The other half funds research grants to public and nonprofit institutions. The state's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst estimates repayment will cost $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years, paid from the same General Fund that covers public safety, roads, and every other core state obligation. Medical research matters. This measure is the wrong way to fund it. Proposition 38 is borrowing, and borrowing is a tax deferred: every dollar of principal and interest comes out of future budgets or future tax bills. It names no offsetting spending cuts. Backers promise that revenue from future discoveries will repay the state, but the Legislative Analyst calls that revenue uncertain, and any payoff could take decades to arrive, if it arrives at all. The structure is the bigger problem. The measure never names the institute that receives the first $4.2 billion, yet its eligibility criteria are written so narrowly that, according to CalMatters reporting, a UCLA spokesperson confirmed only one nonprofit qualifies: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded and chaired by the measure's chief backer, billionaire Gary K. Michelson. That same institute would also help steer which projects win the other $4.2 billion in grants. Voters are being asked to write a blank check to a single organization without being told its name. The measure also layers on market distortions: a mandated price discount for California patients on resulting treatments and in-state purchasing requirements for funded research. Both raise costs and shrink the incentive for private investment, the engine that already drives most American medical innovation. Robert Kaplan, a Stanford School of Medicine scholar and former associate director of the National Institutes of Health, has publicly opposed the measure. Vote No on Proposition 38.

Key points

• Decades of New Debt: The Legislative Analyst estimates repayment at $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years. That money comes out of the General Fund with no identified spending cuts to cover it.
• $4.2 Billion, One Recipient: Half the bond goes to a single UC-affiliated institute that the measure never names. Reporting indicates only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, chaired by the measure's chief backer, can meet the eligibility criteria.
• Speculative Payback Promises: Supporters claim future discoveries will repay taxpayers. The Legislative Analyst calls that revenue uncertain and says it could take decades to materialize.
• Price Controls and Protectionism: Mandated patient discounts and in-state purchasing requirements distort markets, raise research costs, and discourage the private investment that funds most medical breakthroughs.
• Insider-Controlled Grant Process: The favored institute would influence which projects receive the remaining $4.2 billion in grants. Public money should be awarded through open competition, not by the same insiders who drafted the measure.

What it does

Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification. Fiscal Impact: Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.

Why we support

Proposition 39 would amend the California Constitution to require voters to present government-issued identification when voting in person and to write the last four digits of a government-issued ID number on their mail-in ballot envelope. The state would be required to provide a free voter ID card to any eligible voter who requests one. The measure also directs election officials to verify the citizenship status of registered voters using government data and to submit to regular audits by the State Auditor. Every functioning democracy depends on one foundational agreement: that the people who cast ballots are who they say they are. In an era when partisan mistrust and misinformation have corroded public confidence in elections, the answer is not to dismiss those concerns. It is to build transparent, verifiable systems that make fraud harder and trust easier. Proposition 39 does exactly that. Requiring identification to vote is standard practice in the vast majority of democracies worldwide, and the provision for a free state-issued voter ID card ensures that no eligible citizen is excluded for lack of resources. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates implementation costs between tens of millions and low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, representing less than 0.25 percent of the state General Fund. That is a modest investment in electoral integrity. More importantly, the measure includes real accountability mechanisms: mandatory biennial audits by the independent State Auditor, required annual public reporting of citizenship verification rates by county, and a citizen right to seek judicial review if counties fail to comply. These are not bureaucratic add-ons. They are the kind of built-in oversight that government programs almost never include, and they give voters a direct tool to hold election administrators accountable. Opponents argue the measure will suppress turnout. But requiring identification to exercise a civic right is no more burdensome than the ID requirements Californians already meet to board a plane, buy certain medications, or pick up a package at the post office. The free voter ID provision eliminates any financial barrier. What remains is a straightforward verification step that most voters already expect exists. Vote YES on Proposition 39. Election integrity is not a partisan cause. It is the foundation every other policy debate rests on.

Key points

• Free ID Removes Barriers: The measure requires California to provide a free government-issued voter ID card to any eligible citizen who requests one. No voter is excluded for inability to pay.
• Built-In Audits and Oversight: Mandatory biennial audits by the State Auditor and required annual public reporting of citizenship verification rates by county create real, enforceable accountability. Citizens can seek judicial review if counties fail to comply.
• Modest Cost, Major Return: Implementation costs represent less than 0.25 percent of the state General Fund. Restoring public confidence in elections is worth far more than that fraction of a percent.
• Global Democratic Standard: The vast majority of democracies worldwide require voter identification. California would be joining an international norm, not adopting an extreme measure.
• Trust Drives Participation: When voters believe the system is secure, more of them show up. Transparent verification processes bring skeptical citizens back into the democratic process rather than pushing them away.

What it does

Imposes 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care. Exempts revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding and spending limit. Fiscal Impact: Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years from wealth tax on billionaires. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires.

Why we oppose

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on California taxpayers with assets exceeding $1 billion, directing the revenue primarily toward health care programs. It would also exempt that revenue from constitutional requirements for school funding and from the state spending limit. This is a wealth tax, and wealth taxes fail everywhere they are tried. France, Sweden, and Norway all abandoned or scaled back their wealth taxes after watching capital flee and revenues disappoint. California would be no different. The state's billionaires hold assets that are mobile: stocks, business interests, venture capital. A 5% levy on those holdings does not sit passively on a balance sheet. It triggers liquidation, relocation, and restructuring. The result is not tens of billions in new revenue. It is tens of billions in economic disruption, followed by a permanent reduction in income tax receipts as high-net-worth residents redomicile to states that do not tax wealth. The measure's own fiscal analysis concedes the point, projecting a possible ongoing decrease of nearly $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires. That is the state's own estimate of capital flight baked into the optimistic scenario. The pessimistic scenario is worse: once a constitutional mechanism for taxing wealth exists, the threshold drops. Today it is $1 billion. Tomorrow it is $100 million, then $10 million. Every small business owner, property holder, and retirement saver in California should understand that this measure establishes the legal architecture to tax accumulated savings at any level the legislature later chooses. Exempting the revenue from school funding formulas and the state spending limit is a further red flag. Proposition 98 and the Gann Limit exist precisely to prevent Sacramento from collecting unlimited revenue and spending it without accountability. Proposition 40 carves out an exception to both guardrails, creating a pool of money that politicians can direct with minimal constraint. Health care is a sympathetic label, but unaccountable spending is unaccountable spending regardless of the line item. Vote No on Proposition 40. It is a wealth tax that will drive capital out of California, shrink the tax base, and establish a dangerous precedent for taxing savings at every income level.

Key points

• Wealth Taxes Drive Capital Out: Every major economy that has tried a wealth tax has watched high-net-worth individuals relocate. California's billionaires hold mobile assets. A 5% levy will accelerate departures and reduce long-term income tax collections.
• The Threshold Will Drop: Today the target is billionaires. Once the constitutional mechanism exists, the legislature can lower the threshold to $100 million, $10 million, or less. This measure creates the legal architecture to tax accumulated savings at any level.
• Bypasses Fiscal Guardrails: Proposition 40 exempts its revenue from both Proposition 98 school funding requirements and the state spending limit. That means billions in new spending with fewer accountability constraints than any other revenue source in the state budget.
• Revenue Projections Are Fantasy: The state's own fiscal analysis projects an ongoing decrease of nearly $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires. That is the cost of capital flight admitted upfront, before behavioral responses fully materialize.
• Punishes Investment, Not Income: A wealth tax is not a tax on earnings. It is a tax on savings, on reinvested capital, on the money that funds startups, builds housing, and creates jobs. Taxing wealth discourages the long-term investment California desperately needs.

What it does

Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes. Fiscal Impact: The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers.

Why we support

Proposition 41 does two things. First, it requires the State Auditor to conduct independent financial and performance audits of any program funded by a new special tax, both before voters approve the tax and every four years after. Second, it closes a loophole that has allowed Sacramento to route special tax revenues around the constitutional spending limit (the Gann Limit), effectively letting the state grow its tax burden without triggering the mandatory rebates voters approved decades ago. California voters deserve to know what their money is buying before they approve a new tax at the ballot box. Right now, initiative sponsors can promise anything. There is no independent check on whether a proposed program will actually cost what proponents claim, whether it duplicates existing services, or whether the private sector could deliver the same results for less. Proposition 41 fixes that. Every pre-election audit must evaluate cost efficiency, identify fraud and waste risks, compare costs to private-sector alternatives, and recommend at least 10% in annual savings. That is not bureaucratic busywork. That is the basic due diligence any taxpayer would expect. The spending-limit provision is equally important. The Gann Limit exists because voters decided state spending should not grow faster than inflation and population growth. When revenues exceed the cap, the surplus goes back to taxpayers. But the Legislature and ballot proponents have learned to write special taxes that exempt their revenues from the limit entirely, draining the cap of its meaning. Proposition 41 says any new state tax enacted after January 1, 2026 that tries this end-run is unenforceable. The spending limit voters approved will actually apply. Every new tax reduces economic activity. It discourages investment, drives mobile capital to other states, and raises costs for the businesses and workers who remain. Proposition 41 does not eliminate the ability to levy new taxes, but it ensures that voters get honest information before they vote and that the constitutional guardrails they already approved cannot be quietly circumvented. Vote yes on Proposition 41.

Key points

• Pre-Election Audits Required: Before voters decide on any new special tax initiative, the State Auditor must publish an independent financial and performance audit evaluating projected costs, fraud risks, private-sector cost comparisons, and at least 10% in recommended annual savings. Voters get real numbers, not campaign promises.
• Ongoing Accountability Every Four Years: Programs funded by new special taxes will be re-audited every four years. The audits are self-funded from the special tax revenues themselves, adding no cost to the General Fund.
• Closes the Gann Limit Loophole: New state taxes can no longer exempt their revenues from the constitutional spending cap. If state spending exceeds the limit, the surplus must be returned to taxpayers as the constitution originally intended.
• No New Taxes Blocked Outright: Proposition 41 does not prevent the Legislature or voters from enacting new taxes. It simply requires transparency and enforces the spending discipline voters already approved. If a tax proposal can survive honest scrutiny, it can still pass.
• Structural Barrier to Tax Creep: California's tax burden is already among the highest in the nation. By making it harder to quietly expand that burden through loopholes, Proposition 41 protects residents and businesses from the compounding cost increases that drive employers, housing investment, and talent out of the state.

What it does

Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.

Why we support

Proposition 42 amends the California Constitution to prohibit any new state tax on the ownership of personal property, including retirement accounts, financial assets, business interests, digital assets, and intellectual property. It also bans retroactive state taxes, with a narrow exception for governor-declared emergencies. If both Proposition 42 and Proposition 40 (a wealth tax targeting billionaires) pass, whichever receives more votes takes effect. This is a straightforward constitutional guardrail against Sacramento's worst instincts. California already has the highest state income tax rate in the nation, the highest statewide sales tax rate, and some of the heaviest regulatory burdens on businesses and individuals. The fact that wealth taxes, unrealized-gains taxes, and retroactive levies are even on the table tells you everything you need to know about the Legislature's appetite for new revenue. Proposition 42 closes those doors before they open. Every tax on personal property is a tax on saving, investing, building a business, and planning for retirement. Wealth taxes punish the accumulation of capital that funds new housing, new companies, and new jobs. Retroactive taxes destroy the predictability that businesses and investors need to commit capital in California rather than move it to Nevada, Texas, or Florida. These are not abstract concerns. California has already lost corporate headquarters, high-net-worth residents, and billions in taxable income to states that offer greater certainty and lower burdens. Proposition 42 sends a clear signal: California will compete for capital, not confiscate it. The measure's coalition reflects its broad appeal. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Small Business Association, California Black Chamber of Commerce, and California Taxpayers Association all support it. So do the Peace Officers Research Association of California and California Professional Firefighters, organizations that understand public safety funding depends on a thriving tax base, not punitive new levies that drive taxpayers out of the state. Tech leaders from Google, Stripe, DoorDash, and Affirm have backed the measure because they know that taxing wealth and innovation is the fastest way to lose both. Vote Yes on Proposition 42. It is the most important taxpayer protection on the 2026 ballot.

Key points

• Blocks Wealth Taxes Permanently: Proposition 42 constitutionally prohibits new state taxes on retirement accounts, investment portfolios, business interests, digital assets, and intellectual property. It directly neutralizes Proposition 40's billionaire wealth tax and prevents future legislatures from imposing similar levies.
• Bans Retroactive Taxation: The measure prohibits the state from taxing past activities retroactively, with only a narrow exception for governor-declared emergencies. This protects businesses and individuals who made financial decisions in good faith from after-the-fact punishment.
• Protects Capital and Jobs: Every dollar taxed out of savings and investment is a dollar not building housing, hiring workers, or funding a startup. California's existing tax burden already drives capital to competing states. Proposition 42 stops the bleeding before it gets worse.
• Broad Business and Labor Support: Backed by the California Chamber of Commerce, California Small Business Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Peace Officers Research Association of California, California Professional Firefighters, and State Building and Construction Trades Council. This is not a partisan measure. It is a pro-California measure.
• No Impact on Existing Revenue: Proposition 42 does not cut a single dollar of current state funding. It only constrains future tax expansion, forcing Sacramento to live within existing revenue structures rather than reaching for new levies every time spending outpaces income.

What it does

Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.

Why we support

Proposition 43 amends the California Constitution to require a two-thirds supermajority vote to pass any citizen-initiated local special tax. Under current law, government-proposed special taxes already require two-thirds approval, but a loophole allows special interest groups to place their own tax measures on the ballot and pass them with a bare majority. Proposition 43 closes that loophole and creates one consistent standard. It also constitutionally prohibits any new ad valorem property taxes beyond the 1% cap established by Proposition 13. Every tax reduces economic activity. Every new fee, surcharge, or transfer tax makes it more expensive to build, hire, and invest in California. The citizen-initiative loophole has allowed well-organized interest groups to exploit low-turnout elections and impose punitive taxes on residents and businesses with slim majorities. The result has been policy disasters like Los Angeles's Measure ULA, a transfer tax on property sales above $5 million that passed with just 58% of the vote. ULA cratered commercial real estate transactions in Los Angeles, discouraged housing investment, and failed to deliver meaningful results on homelessness. Under Proposition 43's two-thirds threshold, ULA would not have passed. That is exactly the point. Taxes that reshape an entire city's economy should require broad, durable consensus, not a bare majority assembled in a single election cycle. Government-proposed special taxes have faced this standard for decades. There is no principled reason citizen-initiated special taxes should get a lower bar. The loophole didn't empower voters; it empowered the organized groups that draft ballot measures and fund signature-gathering campaigns. Proposition 43 levels the playing field and forces tax proponents to make a case convincing enough to earn support from two-thirds of voters. This measure does not cut a single dollar of existing funding. It does not block any tax from ever passing. It simply requires that new special taxes clear the same threshold regardless of who puts them on the ballot. Local governments retain every tool they have today: general taxes still pass with a simple majority, and bond measures and government-proposed special taxes operate under the same rules they always have. What changes is that taxpayers get the same constitutional protection whether a tax is proposed by City Hall or by an outside advocacy group. Vote yes on Proposition 43. It is the strongest taxpayer protection measure on this ballot.

Key points

• Closes the Special Tax Loophole: Government-proposed special taxes already require two-thirds approval. Proposition 43 applies the same standard to citizen-initiated special taxes, ending the double standard that allowed interest groups to pass targeted taxes with bare majorities.
• Would Have Stopped Measure ULA: Los Angeles's destructive transfer tax passed with 58% of the vote. Under Proposition 43's two-thirds threshold, it would not have become law. This measure prevents the next ULA before it reaches the ballot.
• Strengthens Proposition 13 Protections: The measure constitutionally prohibits any new ad valorem property taxes beyond Proposition 13's existing 1% cap, except for voter-approved bond debt-service taxes. This locks in the property tax protections California homeowners and small property owners depend on.
• No Existing Funding Is Cut: Proposition 43 does not reduce any current revenue stream. General taxes still pass with a simple majority. The measure only raises the threshold for future citizen-initiated special taxes, encouraging local governments to prioritize existing resources before asking for more.
• Protects Businesses and Housing Providers: Targeted taxes on real estate transactions, property, and local businesses have driven capital out of California cities. By requiring broader consensus for new special taxes, Proposition 43 makes it harder for activist groups to weaponize the ballot process against the people who build, hire, and invest in the state.

What it does

Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees.

Why we oppose

Proposition 44 would force nonprofit community health clinics (Federally Qualified Health Centers) to spend at least 90% of their total revenue on "program services" or face financial penalties equal to the shortfall. These clinics serve roughly 8.6 million low-income Californians, many of them uninsured or on Medi-Cal, in medically underserved areas across the state. The measure is sponsored and funded almost entirely by one union: SEIU-UHW West. This is a price control on organizational structure, and like all price controls, it will create shortages. The 90% mandate sounds reasonable until you learn that the average community clinic currently spends about 80% of revenue on direct services. That gap is not waste. It covers IT systems, billing staff, compliance officers, facility maintenance, and the administrative infrastructure that keeps clinics open and functional. Forcing clinics to slash that spending by statute, regardless of local conditions, clinic size, or patient complexity, is the kind of rigid, one-size-fits-all mandate that drives organizations into insolvency. Opponents estimate $1.7 billion would be cut from clinic budgets in the first year alone, and analysts warn that 88% of affected clinics could operate at a loss under this threshold. The downstream consequences are predictable and severe. Clinic closures would eliminate jobs, particularly in rural and underserved communities. Displaced patients would flood emergency rooms, driving up Medi-Cal costs to the state. Homeless populations, who rely on these clinics as a primary healthcare access point, would lose care. And the measure creates a new state enforcement bureaucracy costing tens of millions of dollars annually, funded by fees charged to the very clinics it burdens. Those fees ultimately come from public funds, since FQHCs are largely supported by Medicaid and federal grants. There is no offsetting reduction in government spending. The opposition coalition tells you everything you need to know. The California Medical Association, the California Hospital Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, Planned Parenthood, the California Academy of Family Physicians, the California Primary Care Association, and dozens of other healthcare organizations all oppose this measure. So does the Democratic Party of California. So does Reform California. When every major healthcare stakeholder in the state, across the entire political spectrum, agrees that a ballot measure will harm patients, voters should listen. Vote No on Proposition 44. It will close clinics, eliminate jobs, and reduce healthcare access for the Californians who need it most.

Key points

• Price Controls Create Shortages: A rigid 90% spending mandate ignores the reality that administrative costs vary by clinic size, location, and patient complexity. Clinics currently average about 80% on direct services. Forcing compliance with an arbitrary statutory ratio will push clinics into insolvency, not efficiency.
• Clinics Will Close: Opponents estimate $1.7 billion would be cut from clinic budgets in year one. Analysts warn 88% of clinics could operate at a loss under this threshold. Closures would hit rural and underserved communities hardest, eliminating healthcare access where it is needed most.
• New Bureaucracy, No Savings: The measure creates a state enforcement apparatus costing tens of millions of dollars annually, funded by fees on the clinics themselves. Those fees ultimately come from Medicaid and federal grants. There is no identified reduction in existing government spending to offset these costs.
• One Union Wrote This: Proposition 44 is sponsored and funded almost entirely by SEIU-UHW West. Every major healthcare organization in California opposes it, including the California Medical Association, California Hospital Association, Planned Parenthood, and the California Primary Care Association.
• Patients Pay the Price: Clinic closures would shift low-income and homeless patients to emergency rooms, increasing costs to the state and reducing care quality. The measure removes legislative flexibility by locking spending ratios into statute through the initiative process.

What it does

Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. Fiscal Impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars-potentially exceeding $100 million-annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects.

Why we support

Proposition 45 overhauls the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to speed up permitting for housing, transportation, water, clean energy, hospitals, schools, broadband, and wildfire mitigation projects. It imposes hard deadlines on agencies (365 business days for a full environmental impact report), caps public comment periods, limits alternatives analysis to one applicant-proposed option, locks in rules at the time of application, and restricts courts from halting entire projects over partial CEQA violations. Project applicants can opt into the new process or stick with existing procedures. CEQA is the single largest regulatory barrier to building in California. It does not protect the environment so much as it arms litigation against the people who build, hire, and invest in this state. Proponents estimate CEQA adds $75,000 or more to the cost of every new home. That cost lands directly on renters, homebuyers, and small property owners. Every year of delay inflates construction budgets, kills marginal projects, and ensures fewer units reach the market. Proposition 45 attacks the problem at the root: time, uncertainty, and litigation risk. The measure's coalition tells you everything. The California Chamber of Commerce, Building Industry Association, Business Roundtable, California Hospital Association, California Council for Affordable Housing, and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce are all leading supporters. The opposition is led by the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and an array of environmental litigation organizations whose business model depends on the current system. Their objection is not that CEQA works well. It is that Proposition 45 would make it harder for them to block projects. Short-term government implementation costs, estimated by the Legislative Analyst's Office at potentially $100 million annually, are partially offset by applicant fees and dwarfed by the long-term savings from faster public construction timelines, reduced litigation costs, and increased property tax and economic activity from completed projects. This is not a spending measure. It creates no new entitlements, no new taxes, and no new bureaucracies. It is a structural reform to how California processes permits. Vote yes on Proposition 45. It is the most consequential pro-housing, pro-growth measure on the 2026 ballot.

Key points

• Hard Deadlines on Bureaucracy: Agencies get 365 business days to complete a full environmental impact report and 30 days to determine application completeness. No more indefinite review timelines that kill projects through delay.
• Ends Litigation-as-Obstruction: Proposition 45 restricts the scope of judicial review and prevents courts from halting entire projects over partial CEQA violations. This removes the primary weapon used to block housing and infrastructure through endless lawsuits.
• Protects Housing Providers' Investment: The measure locks in rules at the time of application, so agencies cannot move the goalposts during review. Developers and small property owners can plan and invest with certainty rather than absorbing years of shifting requirements.
• No New Taxes or Spending Programs: Implementation costs are partially covered by applicant fees. The measure creates no new entitlements, no ongoing spending programs, and no tax increases. Long-term fiscal effects are likely positive as faster project completion reduces public construction costs and increases tax revenue.
• Broad Economic Impact Across Sectors: The expedited review track covers eight major sectors: housing, transportation, water, clean energy, healthcare, education, broadband, and public safety infrastructure including fire stations and wildfire mitigation projects. Every sector that builds in California benefits.