Los Angeles City

TL;DR: DSA-LA recommends Barri Worth Girvan for Council District 3.

Los Angeles CD 3 covers much of the West San Fernando Valley, including Woodland Hills, West Hills, Tarzana, Winnetka, and Reseda. Current councilmember Bob Blumenfeld is termed out, leaving us two potential candidates to replace him: Tim Gaspar and Barri Worth Girvan.

Gaspar is Blumenfield’s chosen successor. He touts endorsements from the Los Angeles Police Protective League and many of the moderate to conservative elected representatives in the SFV. According to his website, his priorities involve “restoring law and order in every neighborhood,” supporting and expanding 41.18 encampment bans, and cutting red tape for small businesses. A self-described "entrepreneur" and founder of Gaspar Insurance, Gaspar lists donations from real estate, the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, and a bevy of other donors who donate to candidates who run against DSA-LA endorsees. Gaspar and the opponents to DSA-LA’s endorsed candidates for Council District 9 and City Attorney recently participated in the sparsely attended “Los Angeles Clean & Safe Forum,” hosted by the Los Angeles Hospitality Partnership at the Los Angeles Police Museum, a true Mad Libs nightmare of an event (even featuring AI-ified headshots of the candidates on the flyer—seriously, who are these guys?).

Girvan has the most labor endorsements in the race, with the LA Federation of Labor endorsement along with SEIU 721, NUHW, AFT 1521, and more. She also lists a handful of endorsements from various eras of the LA political status quo, including her old boss, Lindsay Horvath, and many within the state assembly where she used to work. While no socialist, her platform includes references to properly expanding unarmed crisis response teams, humane solutions to homelessness, including centralizing homelessness outreach and support within the city, and ensuring housing is built quickly and by transit and jobs hubs.

While Girvan is no socialist, she would be a step forward in the SFV in the face of a candidate who wants to increase policing and criminalization of homelessness.

DSA-LA recommends Barri Worth Girvan for Council District 3.

Los Angeles City

TL;DR: Vote NO.

Proposition TE carves out an exemption from Measure ULA, which funds affordable housing and tenant support. The exemption covers residential properties, including apartment buildings, damaged or destroyed in the Palisades Fire. Any qualifying sale between January 7, 2025, and January 6, 2030, by whoever owned the property the day the fire started, gets a one-time exemption or refund. Refunds reach back to ULA taxes already paid.

ULA applies only to sales above an inflation-adjusted threshold. The threshold is currently $5.4 million for the 4% rate and $10.9 million for the 5.5% rate. Anyone TE helps is, by definition, selling a property worth more than $5.4 million. TE does not ask whether the property was the seller’s only home, whether they lived there, or whether they are struggling. It asks only whether the property was damaged and whether the seller owned it on January 7, 2025.

The City Administrative Officer estimates TE will cost the House LA Fund $35 million to $66 million through January 2030. The estimate is based partly on rebuilt Palisades homes already listed for sale, which means some of the benefit goes to owners who rebuilt and then sold, not only to people forced to sell burned lots. The House LA Fund pays for affordable housing production and homelessness prevention, including legal help for tenants facing eviction. The City’s Chief Legislative Analyst says TE “may lead to... a decrease of funding for affordable housing and tenant assistance programs”. In other words, the fund that pays for eviction defense and affordable housing would give up revenue so that sellers of $5.4 million-plus properties can skip the tax.

TE is backed by Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Traci Park, council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, and Palisades Community Council; no formal opposition was submitted.

Fire survivors deserve to be made whole, particularly the renters displaced by the fire, for whom TE does nothing. Because of the political optics of the Palisades fires, this is almost certain to pass, but we should understand this initiative's economic impacts for what they are: an initiative to cut public funding that helps low-income Angelenos in order to lower taxes for the wealthiest homeowners affected by the fires.

Vote NO.

Los Angeles City

TL;DR: For us, removing restrictions on public enterprise is a major opportunity to expand what our city can directly provide for Angelenos, so vote YES on charter amendment LA.

Charter Amendment LA is a package of reforms aimed at modernizing how LA manages its money, infrastructure and public services. It would move the City toward two-year budgeting, require long-term infrastructure planning, reform the Department of Public Works,and update contracting rules.

Particularly exciting, LA's Charter currently bars the City from running purely commercial or industrial businesses unless voters approve each one at the ballot box. Amendment LA removes that requirement, clearing the way for future publicly owned alternatives to private businesses and services.

There are minor concerns about other provisions, particularly expanded authority to mortgage City property and changes to the Board of Public Works. But the amendment also gives LA tools for stronger long-term public investment and municipal ownership. Two-year budgeting cycles will also give our city government more ability to intentionally fund longer-term infrastructure projects, instead of the annual race to cover budget holes caused by LAPD overspending in order to generate better headlines.

City Controller Kenneth Mejia and Councilmembers Bob Blumenfield and Katy Yaroslavsky authored the official argument in support, and the Council, including our four socialist councilmembers in office, voted 13–0 to put the measure before voters.

(That said: wait, can you give any charter amendment whatever initials you want?)

For us, removing restrictions on public enterprise is a major opportunity to expand what our city can directly provide for Angelenos, so vote YES on charter amendment LA.

Los Angeles City

TL;DR: Vote yes on PL.

LA has an infamously labyrinthian planning system. We wish it was the good kind of labyrinthian, with David Bowie and Jim Henson creations. Instead, it’s the bad kind of labyrinthian (confusing).

What it does

Charter Amendment PL tries to simplify things in three ways:

• One appeals body instead of seven. The City's seven Area Planning Commissions, with 35 commissioners between them, would be replaced by a single citywide Neighborhood Appeals Commission of at least seven members.
• More authority for City Planning. The Planning Department would get clearer power to decide certain land-use cases itself.
• No more death by inaction. Today, if a General Plan amendment has been approved by both the City Planning Commission and the Mayor and the Council doesn't act within 75 days, it is denied. Under PL, it would be approved. Supporters say the City Council should have to kill something with a vote, not by running out the clock. Former DTLA Councilmember Huizar’s infamous corruption case involved his failing to agendize plan items until their sponsors bribed him.

LA’s planning process can be painfully slow and confusing, and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy isn’t inherently bad. Area Planning Commissions matter far less than they used to. State and local changes have made many project approvals ministerial, so there is less for them to hear. The seven commissions currently have 35 commissioners in total; Measure PL would replace them with a single commission of at least 7 members. If passed, this would make small but noticeable reforms to approve new construction with fewer opportunities for municipal corruption.

The measure is supported by Charter Reform Commission chair Raymond Meza and Roy Samaan, President of the Engineers & Architects Association; no formal opposition was submitted.

Ultimately, this amendment is legitimately mostly streamlining an outdated planning process.

Vote yes on PL.

Los Angeles City

TL;DR: Vote YES on Charter Amendment PRK.

Charter Amendment PRK is about LA’s parks needing money. (Get it, PaRK)

The measure would gradually double the minimum funding the City is required to provide its Department of Recreation and Parks over the next 10 years. It does not create a new tax or source of revenue; instead, it increases the share of existing City revenues guaranteed to parks under the charter. Currently, the charter requires the department to receive.0325% of the total assessed value of taxable properties in the City. Under the existing formula, that minimum is projected to grow to $303 million by 2036, PRK would instead increase it to roughly $995 million.

And they could use it. LA’s parks ranked 93rd among the nation’s 100 largest cities in the Trust for Public Land’s 2026 ParkScore and the City’s own park assessment found that LA spends about two-thirds less on parks than comparable cities. LA has more than 500 parks, 150+ recreation and senior centers and 59 pools, while the department has struggled with staffing shortages, aging facilities and a massive maintenance backlog. More guaranteed funding means more money for things like playground and bathroom repairs, park cleaning, and money for the workers keeping these places running. The Los Angeles Police Protective League opposes the measure, arguing that guaranteed additional spending through the charter would leave the city with less flexibility to respond to future budget crises. Very thoughtful of them. Now, to take a big sip of coffee and look at how much money the city pays to bail out corrupt or abusive cops every year.

Because PRK does not create new revenue, however, the debate is ultimately over how the City prioritizes its existing resources including funding for parks relative to other departments. This amendment also has support from LAUSD’s Board of Education, who has noted that additional park funding could help expand Community School Parks. During a declared fiscal emergency, the City Council could reduce the increased funding required by this measure by up to 30% for the duration of the emergency.

Public parks are a basic public good that every Angeleno should be able to enjoy, and LA has underfunded ours for far too long. It’s unfortunate and structurally poor governance that the method by which we’re funding them is a charter reform for guaranteed funding - it would be far better if our elected councilmembers had the political courage and principles to prioritize them instead of giving LAPD a 20th helicopter.

Vote YES on Charter Amendment PRK.

Los Angeles City

TL;DR: Vote YES on PRT.

Charter Amendment PRT would update how the City runs its airports, its harbor, and the Department of Water and Power. (Get it: PoRT). It would:

• Increase the Airport Commission seats reserved for residents near LAX from one to at least three, and near Van Nuys from one to at least two, for a total of at least 5 local seats instead of two.
• Require the Harbor Department to devote a portion of its annual operating income to waterfront public access projects.
• Require applicants for certain Port leases or projects needing coastal development permits to disclose how the project would affect jobs.
• Allow the Council to extend airport and LADWP leases beyond the 30-year default to as long as 66 years. Such an extension would require a finding that the longer term serves the City and a two-thirds vote of the Council. The Mayor may veto the extension, and an override requires a three-fourths vote of the Council. The Council can already approve 50-year leases for the airport and LADWP, so the change adds up to 16 more years, but the longer term requires a two-thirds vote.

For residents of neighborhoods next to LAX and Van Nuys, who live with the noise and pollution, PRT would expand their guaranteed seats on the Airport Commission from two to five. Commissioners are still appointed through the usual process, so residency alone will not guarantee that they speak for affected communities.

PRT would also require applicants for certain Port leases or coastal permits to report the expected effects on employment and the regional economy before the Port acts. Applicants would pay for these disclosures themselves. That would put job impacts on the public record, giving dockworkers, other Port workers, and the community something concrete to organize around.

However, the waterfront money would not be guaranteed at current levels. The City says PRT “codifies” the Port’s practice of putting 10% of operating income into public access projects, roughly $28.6 million a year. The Charter text requires only “a portion,” and it gives the Harbor Commission “the sole authority to determine the appropriate amount” each year. Nothing would stop the commission from going below 10%. Today, though, the Charter requires no waterfront investment at all, so PRT at least sets a floor above zero.

Even so, we believe PRT is a net gain for communities near the airports and for Port workers. It’s still mostly a technical update, and we should keep watching and organizing towards better public ownership.

Vote YES on PRT.

Los Angeles County

TL;DR: Vote Sam Sukaton for State Board of Equalization.

The low-visibility, low-voltage, countywide California State Board of Equalization (the recently-defanged state tax commission) is one of the few Dem-on-Dem races coming out of the June primary. The California State Board of Equalization (BOE) is the only elected tax board in the US. We Californians love voting for things, especially when they’re very esoteric to voters. Before 2017, the BOE had far more responsibilities, but due to mismanagement of millions of dollars of funds and political corruption, Governor Jerry Brown and the California Legislature stripped the BOE of most of what it was tasked to do. Now, it primarily administers taxes and audits state-assessed properties. The BOE has four elected districts—District 3 covers all of Los Angeles County.

Mike Gipson is leaving the Assembly after twelve years of service to Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and the cop lobby, up to lying about his own police service. He's leveraged his power in the Capitol to build a war chest for his retirement gig on the BOE. The status quo coalition is falling in line behind him, as he’s received the endorsement from the Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor, and numerous electeds from his time in the state assembly. The BOE is an office that is largely bureaucratic and non-political in nature, but the campaign donations from big corporations don’t instill confidence in us that he’ll make sure that everyone pays their fair share of taxes.

Democratic socialist and higher education labor organizer Sam Sukaton beat a field of ten, including a self-funded millionaire and a former Assemblymember to face Gipson in November.

With Gipson’s warchest and establishment support, making up the 10% gap between him and Sukaton will be tough. But between an immigrant-baiting, Islamophobic, unprincipled, fossil fuel-funded corporate hack and a comrade with a vision to tax the rich, fix Prop 13, and fund our future, there's no contest.

Vote Sam Sukaton for State Board of Equalization.

Los Angeles County

TL;DR: Vote No.

Measure A is a County Charter amendment covering 14 public safety bargaining units. The covered workers include firefighters, deputy sheriffs, DA investigators, deputy medical examiners, lifeguards, their supervisors, and nonadministrative civilian workers in the Fire, Sheriff’s, and Medical Examiner departments. It does four main things:

• Bans strikes. Any covered worker who willfully joins an illegal strike or work stoppage could face discipline up to and including firing. This sounds really bad but actually most of the units covered are already banned from striking as public safety workers. But it adds two new building trades units and bans them from striking. So it is bad, just a little less bad than it sounds.
• Replaces bargaining deadlocks with binding arbitration. When contract renewal talks stall, a three-member panel decides. The County and the union each appoint one member, and the two sides select a neutral chair. The panel picks one side’s final offer on each issue.
• Makes awards binding without a vote. Once an award is final, “no other actions by the Board of Supervisors or by the electorate” to confirm or approve it are permitted.
• Freezes current terms. Existing wages and conditions stay in place until a deal or award is reached, so the County cannot impose a contract.

Measure A would affect covered workers differently. For sworn sheriff deputies and firefighters, who are already prohibited from striking, binding arbitration would provide a new tool when negotiations reach impasse. Rather than allowing the county to ultimately impose its final offer, unresolved issues would go to a neutral arbitration panel. If you’re already banned from striking, that can help workers get better contracts than they would otherwise.

But this measure was not built around lifeguards. The deputy sheriffs' union, ALADS, is its largest funder at more than $2 million, and it represents more than 8,000 deputies. ALADS has been without a salary contract since January 2025 and is bargaining with the County right now. The board subsequently voted to place its own measure on the November ballot.

That creates broader fiscal concerns. County officials have warned that arbitration awards not tied to the county’s budget policies or financial projections could strain reserves and limit its ability to fund other priorities particularly as the county faces increased fiscal pressures from federal healthcare cuts, wildfire recovery, and major legal settlements. When combined with the fact that the relevant union currently negotiating with the county is that for County Sheriffs– a notoriously corrupt “law enforcement” agency– it looks even worse.

Further, for covered civilian and non-sworn officers who currently retain a legal right to strike, the measure would take away that right. Binding arbitration can sometimes help workers, but as socialists we should always prioritize the right and power that comes from organizing collectively as workers to strike.

Vote No.

Los Angeles County

TL;DR: Vote yes.

Measure E was brought forward by supervisor Lindsey Horvath. It would establish our county’s first independent ethics commissions and restore the community-investment requirements of Measure J, which were inadvertently and honestly extremely embarrassingly repealed when voters approved Measure G in 2024.

In 2020, voters approved Measure J, requiring at least 10% of the County’s locally generated unrestricted revenue to support community investments and alternatives to incarceration, including housing, mental health treatment, and diversion programs. Measure J prohibits those funds from being spent on prisons, jails, or law enforcement agencies. Measure J’s passage was one of the only material victories of the George Floyd uprisings in Los Angeles public policy, and the campaign to pass it helped launch the campaigns of both Assemblymember Isaac Bryan and democratic socialist City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez.

Restoring Measure J by passing Measure E is not only correct from a bureaucratic measure-G-wasn’t-supposed-to-repeal-anything embarrassing amateurish “correctness” reason. It’s also a legitimately important, redistributive, anti-carceral initiative.

Vote yes.

Los Angeles County

TL;DR: Following our friends at La Defensa, we recommend voting for: Rhonda Haymon for Office No. 64 No recommendation for Office No. 65 No recommendation for Office No. 87 David Ross for Office No. 131

This voter guide is all about judging who to vote for. Now we’ve got to judge the judges!

Voting for judges is difficult. Voters generally have no meaningful way to evaluate which candidates are good or bad, seats frequently go uncontested, and the people who get elected are typically well-off prosecutors who’ve spent their careers putting poorer working-class plaintiffs in jail for minor offenses. While there are some sites for public review, there is overall little public information about judges because these are non-partisan races and campaigns rarely fundraise or campaign significantly. Once seated, incumbents who file for reelection without a challenger automatically begin a new term without appearing on the ballot. Not super democratic.

Fortunately, there are movement organizations stepping out to fill the void of information and try to wield these elections to push our punitive justice system to be, well, a little less punitive. This year, we’re going to rely on the guidance from La Defensa, a Los Angeles-based abolitionist and judicial accountability organization founded by our very own Socialist-in-Office Eunisses Hernandez. La Defensa conducts one of the most rigorous and value-driven judicial evaluation processes in the county. Their work centers identifying candidates who will reduce the harms of incarceration and bring greater humanity to the bench.

You can find their recommendations in green below reflecting those recommended or endorsed by La Defensa’s judicial evaluation process, and you can follow the link to their guide (here) for a full analysis based on their in depth process, which includes questionnaires and interviews.

Following our friends at La Defensa, we recommend voting for:

Rhonda Haymon for Office No. 64

No recommendation for Office No. 65

No recommendation for Office No. 87

David Ross for Office No. 131

Santa Clarita

TL;DR: Vote for Brett Haddoak.

Brett Haddoak’s platform aligns with several DSA priorities, and his support for active issues like the local de-Flock effort is well received by many. A 3rd generation Santa Claritian, Brett has called Santa Clarita home his entire life. His wife is a member of the board for the Newhall Unified School District as well. This paired with his professional expertise as a software engineer and his experiences volunteering with Bridge for Homes, the primary homeless services provider in SCV, has given him an incredible insight into how to implement real change in Santa Clarita.

Brett’s priorities for the city are served with a healthy dose of reality: Santa Clarita is the 3rd largest city in LA now, and it’s time its city council starts acting like it. Brett has a large focus on housing and homelessness. On housing, he has plans to build varied housing options that incorporate public transit expansions while maintaining

environmental resilience and strengthening disaster prevention and preparedness. On homelessness, he understands the largest current barrier is reliable city support, and would work to implement lasting budgetary stability that can outlast him. Unlike the current council members, Brett understands modern technology for all its benefits and its risks. He has been a vocal anti-Flock candidate since the beginning of his campaign, while also being an advocate for much needed modernization to the city’s technological suite and civil resources and the jobs that modernization can create. Most important to residents, Brett plans to build a f***ing hospital.

By contrast, his opponents Gloria Mercado-Fortine and Denise Lite have both found themselves repeatedly tied up in various controversies across their careers in public service. Both speak enthusiastically about their commitment to public safety (read: commitment to empower the sheriffs department to the fullest extent). Neither have much more of a position or policy plan except the platitudes of ‘accountability, transparency, expertise.’

Santa Claritans should support the progressive choice in this race.

Vote for Brett Haddoak.

Santa Clarita

TL;DR: Vote for Valerie Bradford.

Four of the five candidates (Peter Yahiayan, Jeffrey Berman, Valerie Bradford, and Nick Somers) in this race are running on very similar platforms: transparency, public infrastructure, public safety, and traffic.

Valerie Bradford takes these focuses a step further than the rest: environmental stewardship in the SCV’s drought prone region, systemic and dignified intervention on homelessness, real affordable housing for renters and home buyers alike, and job creation and retention. Valerie has been a long time community volunteer and non-profit founder, and is the only candidate who has had direct experience working in this community. She has made a concerted effort to work with young people to ensure their needs are being met at a time, where she sees fewer and fewer opportunities available to them and is the only candidate to be endorsed by youth groups, labor unions, and environmental clubs.

The fifth candidate, incumbent Mayor Laurene West, seems to have no interest in actually winning this seat, or maybe a brazen confidence that it is guaranteed to her. Either way, we can’t find any campaign efforts or voter outreach Laurene has done this election season. That leaves voters with only her record while in office, racially discriminatory legislation and indifference to her constituents' concerns in favor of sheriff expansion and her growing her own property values.

Vote for Valerie Bradford.

Santa Clarita

TL;DR: But over a landlord, we recommend a vote for Dr. Kelvin Driscoll.

Predominantly covering Canyon Country and Sand Canyon, the new District 5 of Santa Clarita is the area of Santa Clarita that has been most neglected. Often called the ‘bad part of town’, this area is the most diverse area of Santa Clarita and has a larger population of renters than other areas. In this race is Dr. Kelvin Driscoll, a non-profit leader with over a decade of experience in social services and child welfare, or realtor Bob Khalsa, a landlord with a record some might describe as slummy.

Their priorities for the area align with their backgrounds, with Khalsa prioritizing housing developments with good resale valuations and Driscoll prioritizing infrastructure developments that make for a stronger community. It is important to note, Driscoll does appear to be a fan of A.I., though his views on it and A.I. infrastructure/expansion are unknown.

But over a landlord, we recommend a vote for Dr. Kelvin Driscoll.

Santa Clarita

TL;DR: Protect public schools, vote for Julee Brooks.

Bryan Biggers is a Moms for Liberty selected candidate who has homeschooled his children until August of this year, when he enrolled two of his children into Hart District. We are sure that is unrelated to his slogan “Hart Grad, Hart Dad.”

Julee Brooks, a mother of a Hart District student who did not just enroll this year, and CEO of an extended learning non-profit across Los Angeles, has common sense priorities: supporting teachers, accessible and special education funding, proper resource allocation, parental involvement, and student safety. This has made Julee Brooks quite a controversial candidate for some local parents who do not support her anti-ICE and pro-trans perspectives. She is endorsed by many local educators, teachers unions, and high school youth groups across the district.

Protect public schools, vote for Julee Brooks.

Santa Clarita

TL;DR: We recommend you vote for Stacy Fortner.

Incumbent Joe Messina has been on the school board since 2009. An author of “Ramblings of a Right Wing Bible Thumping White Guys” and host of the daily radio show “The Joe Messina Show,” he has been open about his beliefs to those who will listen. He believes every meeting should start with a prayer, wants to ban critical race theory, opposes vaccinations and wants a school policy to forcibly out queer students…really a caricature of a conservative nut.

Stacy Fortner has been a community advocate across Santa Clarita and Hart schools for years. She has a strong focus on the long term challenges facing the district and has been an outspoken supporter of the vulnerable students being targeted by the current board’s tactics. Multiple people have run against Joe Messina and have lost due to low voter turnout and Joe’s extensive campaign funds. With the extensive outreach projected this year, there is a real chance to materially change

the shape of the district.

We recommend you vote for Stacy Fortner.

Santa Clarita

TL;DR: Stand with our teachers and public schools and vote for Larry Grable for Trustee Area 1, Alisa Gentry for Trustee Area 2, and Chris Turnkey for Trustee Area 5.

This school district serves students in the neighborhoods of Saugus, Valencia, and Canyon Country. We have two fun facts for you.

Fun fact #1: The neighborhood of Saugus is named after Saugus, Massachusetts.

Fun fact #2: Saugus, Massachusetts has a giant orange dinosaur overlooking US Route 1 going in and out of Boston. (Get it? Dino-Saugus?) So we are forced to ask: why is Santa Clarita’s Saugus not upping the ante with an even larger dinosaur?

While our recommendations are all standard centrist Democrats running for a school board, their opponents are all curated Moms for Liberty candidates hiding their radical positions behind student first/”transparent leadership” platforms.

Stand with our teachers and public schools and vote for Larry Grable for Trustee Area 1, Alisa Gentry for Trustee Area 2, and Chris Turnkey for Trustee Area 5.

Santa Clarita

TL;DR: Vote for a voice who puts people over profits, vote for Noah Ropp.

In Santa Clarita, the Water Agency has immense power, including over housing and infrastructure developments.

One of those candidates is democratic socialist Noah Ropp. Noah has an impressive record of environmental organization, and currently works for the Food & Water Watch nonprofit serving the area. Noah tells us he’ll “be a tireless voice on the water board fighting for folks to be able to trust what comes out of their tap, to afford their tap whenever they need, and to preserve water access for future generations.”

Incumbent Bill Cooper has served across the water district for over 40 years, and been on the Water Agency for almost 10. By his own website, he doesn’t believe the water board has authority to handle the things it handles. He has worked repeatedly to support the interests of developers at the detriment of our watershed.

Vote for a voice who puts people over profits, vote for Noah Ropp.

Lynwood

TL;DR: Vote for Team Better Lynwood.

Lynwood has many things to be proud of. One of those things is fostering a young Weird Al Yankovic. For that, we are all grateful. Go give Straight Outta Lynwood a re-listen.

Lynwood also has a non-weird City Council, consisting of five-members who are all elected at-large, meaning all voters citywide vote for all open council seats. Three seats are up for election in 2026, each carrying a four-year term.

The so-called “Team Lynwood” slate (Mayor Gabriela Camacho, Council Member Luis Cuellar, and Alfonso Morales) and their families have held office for more than 50 years combined, and they have endorsed or campaigned alongside former Mayor Jorge Casanova, who has spread anti-trans Moms for Liberty content.

Camacho stalled Lynwood’s sanctuary ordinance for seven months and opposes rent control. Cuellar was appointed to the council after losing at the ballot box, then celebrated a JD Vance speech attacking sanctuary cities as his "Highlight of the Day." Morales has spent 21 years on the school board. Under his watch, Lynwood schools are slated to close, teachers nearly went on strike, and student achievement sits below state benchmarks. He moved to install a former Republican Party delegate on the board over a colleague's objection to "putting money or politics over students," and he campaigned alongside Casanova in 2024.

To oppose this slate, a counter-slate led by incumbent and UNITE HERE Local 11 organizer Juan Muñoz-Guevara is styling themselves as “Team Better Lynwood.” Juan Muñoz-Guevara, Mishaun Watkins, and Emiliano Arellano are backed by nurses, healthcare workers, UNITE HERE Local 11, the Los Angeles labor federation, and the Working Families Party. They are prioritizing non-police emergency responses, affordable housing, ethics reforms, and protections for immigrants.

Vote for Team Better Lynwood.

Huntington Park

TL;DR: There’s not a lot of good choices, so you should enthusiastically vote Nancy Martiz for District 2 and less-enthusiastically vote Valentin Amezquita for District 4.

Huntington Park has five City Council Seats with four-year terms and is transitioning from at large to district-based elections beginning in 2026. Three seats are up this cycle under the new district lines, which puts both the makeup of the council and its current progressive majority at stake.

First, the pool:

You can’t understand this council race without it. And no, we don’t mean the pool of candidates. We mean a public swimming pool. In 2019, the council approved a roughly $24 million aquatic center at Salt Lake Park and handed the job to a contractor without competitive bidding. Candidates Karina Macias and Graciela Ortiz were both on that council. Seven years and about $14 million later, there is no pool. The city has a fenced-off lot, a football field, and roughly $6.4 million unaccounted for. The council cancelled the project in 2025. The LA County District Attorney has been investigating where the money went since 2022, under the name "Operation Dirty Pond." In February 2025, DA investigators searched 11 locations, including City Hall and the homes of Macias, Ortiz, the city manager, and the contractor's owners. No charges have been announced.

Now, the pool (of candidates):

Ortiz and Macias (“the Alleged Embezzlers”) are now running on a slate to retake a majority along with Celia Rivas, the CEO of an insurance company. Macias is running against fellow incumbent Nancy Martiz in District 2 for a fourth term on council, while Ortiz left the council in 2022 in an unsuccessful bid for LAUSD school board against socialist in office Karla Griego. The three are all tied into local networks of corporate-friendly Democrats.

Nancy Martiz, who currently serves by appointment, is seeking election to what is now District 2. During her term, Martiz prioritized bringing term limits to the city, working with environmental justice partners, passing a sanctuary city ordinance, strengthening housing stability, and advocating for the safest design of the rail to river connection. She is endorsed by the Working Families Party and Huntington Park Mayor Eddie Martinez, with whom she forms a fragile progressive majority.

That majority is theoretically rounded out by Arturo Flores, who is facing Rivas for District 5. Earlier this year though, Flores faced public allegations of sexual assault and harrasment, though prosecutors declined to file charges. He also faced a recall attempt, which he has referred to as retaliation for his effort to investigate said $25 million dollar pool project.

The allegations have now become an issue in the current campaign as well. An ad from forces aligned with Graciela Ortiz's slate features the woman's account and paints Martiz as standing by Flores. The woman has since said publicly that she doesn't know Martiz and wasn’t aware of the ad’s political impacts, which are misleading anyway: Martiz seconded the censure motion against Flores and voted for it. Nasty business.

The final candidate in the race, facing Graciela Ortiz for District 4, is former councilmember Valentin Amezquita. Amezquita has been a critic of the HP Council ever since he left it in 2017, regularly questioning council decisions on various high-budget public contracts. Clearly, with good reason. In 2016, he was an FBI informant on another public corruption case involving a tow company that was bribing councilmembers. He hasn’t really been raising money for his campaign and seems likely to be steamrolled by Graciela Ortiz, but he’s still better than her.

Overall, governance in Huntington Park makes a pretty good case that we have too many small independent cities in Los Angeles county and could afford to consolidate.

There’s not a lot of good choices, so you should enthusiastically vote Nancy Martiz for District 2 and less-enthusiastically vote Valentin Amezquita for District 4.

Cudahy

TL;DR: Following UNITE HERE Local 11, we recommend you vote for the two Cynthias, Gonzalez and Romo.

All 1.23 square miles of the city of Cudahy is governed by a five member city council, who are all members elected at large. Five candidates qualified to compete for the three open seats this cycle: incumbent mayor Cynthia Gonzalez, incumbent councilmember Martin U. Fuentes, Cynthia Romo, Richard Corvera-Hernandez, and Former Councilmember Jose R. Gonzalez. The third seat is open, as councilmember Elizabeth Alcantar is not seeking another term.

The current council has enacted tenant protections, including a rent stabilization ordinance that caps annual increases for covered units at the lower of 3% or inflation, along with Just Cause eviction protections. Cudahy voters also approved a three term limit for council members in 2024, replacing the city’s previous lack of term limits. Winners will join Daisy Lomeli and Amanda Gomez on the council.

We are not recommending that you use your remaining third vote on any of the remaining three candidates. Incumbent Martin Fuentes, who was elected in 2022, was formally censured by the City Council in March 2026 for findings involving violations of the city’s code of ethics. The specific allegations have not been made public. Fuentes also abstained on a ceasefire resolution, which was particularly significant when Cudahy was the first city in Southern California to pass a ceasefire just one month after the war began.

Richard Corvera-Hernandez has no visible digital footprint. Jose Gonzalez was on the Cudahy council previously, and serves as Chief Technical Officer for the Los Angeles County Office of Education. He also has little about his campaign online, other than his LinkedIn, at which he regularly reposts content about “AI and Innovation”

Cynthia Gonzalez is an educator and incumbent councilmember first elected in 2022 and currently serving as mayor. Since taking office, Cynthia has advanced policies aligned with DSA priorities including pushing a community based approach to public safety with a focus on prevention and connecting communities with basic needs and strengthening sanctuary protections for immigrant residents. Gonzalez is endorsed by the Working Families Party and UNITE HERE Local 11, LAUSD school board members and DSA-LA Socialists in Office, Karla Griego and Rocio Rivas, as well as a number of South East Los Angeles based elected officials and state legislators. Cynthia Romo works as PACE Outreach and Marketing Regional Director at AltaMed Health Services according to LinkedIn. While she does not have a website we could easily find, her Instagram page suggests she is endorsed by UNITE HERE Local 11, the LA Federation of Labor. The two are running together on a slate.

Following UNITE HERE Local 11, we recommend you vote for the two Cynthias, Gonzalez and Romo.

Alhambra

TL;DR: Vote for Amy Wong.

Amy Wong has spent the last decade organizing across the San Gabriel Valley on environmental justice and sustainability, housing, transportation, immigrant rights, public health, and civic engagement.

Through organizations like Active SGV, Nature for all, and SGV Progressive Action, which she co-founded during the COVID-19 Pandemic, she has organized mutual aid and know your rights efforts, mobilized residents against anti-asian hate, and most recently helped lead the campaign to place a ballot measure on the November ballot that would permanently ban data centers citywide. She is also the co-founder of Matajilla Collective, an independent bookstore and community gathering space centered on the diversity of the SGV. She works at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, currently serves on Alhambra's Historic Preservation Commission and previously served on the Environmental Sustainability Commission. She is running on housing access, community safety, and more responsive city government.

Her opponent, Ron Sahu is a longtime Alhambra resident, environmental engineer with a PhD from Caltech, and former Planning and Environmental Sustainability Commissioner. Sahu initially withdrew from the race citing personal reasons, but re-entered and qualified for the ballot after incumbent councilmember Katherine Lee decided not to seek a third term. On Housing, Wong supports expanding housing options at all income levels and adding housing along transit corridors, while Sahu’s platform takes a more cautious approach to growth emphasizing limits on high density development and protecting neighborhood character. On public safety, there isn’t much on his platform but he is endorsed by the Alhambra Police Officers Association. Wong’s platform, by contrast, calls for expanding mental health crisis response and police accountability alongside public safety.

Wong has endorsements from Judy Chu, Assemblymember Mike Fong, Alhambra Mayor Adele Andrade-Stadler and several Alhambra Unified School Board Members in addition to labor and organizational endorsements like SEIU 2015, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), Alhambra Teachers Association, Sierra Club, the LA County Democratic Party and Asian Democrats of Los Angeles County. Wong brings a strong record of grassroots organizing and community centered vision for Alhambra.

Vote for Amy Wong.

Alhambra

TL;DR: Vote Melissa Michelson.

District 5 is a three way race between incumbent Adele Andrade Stadler, community advocate and college professor Melissa Michelson, and commercial plumber Alejandro Covarubias. Andrade Stadler has served on the council for nearly 8 years, elected first in 2018. She was the first Latina to serve as mayor of Alhambra,running on her record of expanding affordable housing opportunities, creating jobs, and making her community “safer and more sustainable.” She told Around Alhambra that she supports bringing workforce housing including for teachers and firefighters and converting surplus land, vacant commercial properties, malls and underused church owned land into housing. Covarrubias doesn’t have much of a visible campaign platform so it’s difficult to place his positions or endorsements. Melissa Michelson is a community college professional, longtime Alhambra resident, and 2016 Berniecrat who has been active in neighborhood preservation, housing, and local government accountability. She helped organize the Measure V campaign which established campaign finance reforms and district elections in Alhambra. She has support from some progressive groups like Stonewall Democratic club and East Area Progressive Democrats. She’s been a part of recent ICE OUT protests and community organizing in the city.

Vote Melissa Michelson.

Monterey Park

TL;DR: Vote Steven Kung for District 5.

This April, Monterey Park became the first city in California to ban data centers within its limits. Great job, Monterey Park! Keep up that energy.

The city of Monterey Park has a five-member City Council elected by district, with Districts 1 and 5 up in 2026. District 1 Councilmember Thomas Wong is running unopposed, while District 5 incumbent Vinh Ngo faces community organizer Steven Kung.

Kung is a co-founder of No Data Center Monterey Park and emerged as a leader in the grassroots fight against a proposed hyperscale data center near his neighborhood. Working with residents and SGV Progressive Action, organizers held multilingual teach-ins, canvassed neighborhoods and built a petition campaign that drew thousands of signatures. The organization helped secure a city moratorium within weeks and ultimately contributed to Measure NDC, which permanently banned data centers citywide with roughly 88% voter support. Kung has described his council campaign as an extension of that organizing and is also campaigning on immigrant protections, government transparency and ending the city’s use of Flock license-plate-reader cameras.

Kung is endorsed by the Working Families Party, No Data Center Monterey Park, La Comadre Network, SGVoices Communities for Change and ArtPAC, along with several local community leaders. Incumbent Vinh Ngo initially supported the proposed data-center development. He lists substantial establishment and labor support, including police and firefighter associations.

Vote Steven Kung for District 5.

Inglewood

TL;DR: This race is about a fresh grassroots organizer versus a corporate leadership, and the choice is obvious - we recommend you vote for Shelby Richardson for Area 2.

Shelby Richardson is an Inglewood native, community organizer, and education and youth advocate, endorsed by the Inglewood Teachers Association and Indivisible South Bay. She holds degrees in economics and works in the nonprofit sector, with experience in youth organizing, legislative and policy advocacy, community engagement, and collaboration with organized labor and teacher unions.

Richardson brings a grassroots organizing approach focused on building community agency and expanding opportunities for students, families, educators, and residents to shape the policies that affect them. Her experience includes developing and leading a youth leadership curriculum/program that examines identity, power, systemic oppression, the school to prison pipeline, root cause analysis, and abolitionist frameworks. This provides a clear contrast with opponent D’Artagnan Bowers, whose background includes more than 25 years in corporate executive leadership, including work with IBM, Exxon, and Coca-Cola. Richardson has emphasized pairing her economics and policy background with community-driven decision-making as IUSD approaches a potential return to local control after years of state receivership.

Her priorities include rebuilding student enrollment, improving math and English proficiency, strengthening partnerships with community organizations and local businesses, and finding productive uses for closed school campuses.

This race is about a fresh grassroots organizer versus a corporate leadership, and the choice is obvious - we recommend you vote for Shelby Richardson for Area 2.

Inglewood

TL;DR: Vote YES on AT.

Measure AT is the flip side of the same capital vs capital fight, but with a far clearer answer. If passed, this measure would remove the cap on admissions tax revenue from SoFi stadium and the attached “Hollywood Park”, and establish different tax rates based on the venue.

A Yes vote would remove the existing cap on how much admissions tax revenue inglewood can collect from SoFi stadium and impose an admissions tax on Intuit dome tickets; a No vote would leave the current system in place.

Inglewood currently receives about $20 million annually in admissions taxes and taxes, and city staff estimate removing the cap could generate as much as $50 million in additional annual revenue for the city’s general fund.

Supporters argue that the measure would require major venues to contribute more toward infrastructure and public services associated with large events, while opponents argue higher taxes could make Inglewood less competitive for events. The additional revenue would go to the city’s general fund rather than being restricted to a particular program or service. This is good policy in general, but a bit of a bummer given that a majority of the municipal budget goes to cops and it’s operated by a deeply corrupt political establishment.

The campaign supporting Measure AT is primarily backed by billboard company WOW Media and is connected to the broader dispute between WOW media and Inglewood’s major venue operators.

While Measure AT was born out of a corporate fight, it would allow Inglewood to collect substantially more revenue from the major sports and economic activity generated by its major entertainment venues. It’s icky to side with WOW media and Mayor Butts, but there’s no need to overthink it: massive capital interests like SoFi and the other stadiums should pay taxes to the public.

Vote YES on AT.

Inglewood

TL;DR: Vote yes on MM.

OK, this last one isn’t related to the stadiums. Inglewood voters are being asked to approve $396 million in bonds to modernize schools throughout the city’s school district. This measure would add to the more than $450 million previously approved school modernization bonds over the last 30 years, just as the district looks likely to exit 14 years of state receivership. Under receivership, the state has essentially administered the district in exchange for a $55 million emergency loan to address the district’s fiscal insolvency. The district’s structural deficit has several causes, notably a decrease in the school-age population (intensified by gentrification and displacement) in a state that ties funding to daily attendance numbers, and the extreme impact of charter schools in Inglewood—fully one-third of Inglewood students have been siphoned out of the district into charters, creating a devastating fiscal crisis for the district’s remaining students, and Inglewood’s teachers remain among the lowest-paid teachers in Southern California.

Measure MM addresses none of these massive structural problems. This is why the Inglewood Teachers Association opposed Measure MM, with President John Hughes writing in an op-ed, “Teachers understand better than most that our schools need investment. We work in these buildings every day.... Bond funds cannot solve the ongoing problem of educator compensation.” Bonds are paid off by property owners, and much of the rest of the opposition to the measure takes a Howard Jarvis-like tone, bemoaning another new tax. While most individual homeowners will likely pay a couple hundred dollars a year for these bonds, the measure will bring in a ton of revenue from billionaires like Stan Kroenke and Steve Ballmer, whose SoFi Stadium and Intuit Dome are cornerstones of Inglewood’s property tax revenues—Proposition 13 makes this nearly impossible to calculate, but Kroenke alone pays probably more than 10% of Inglewood’s overall property tax revenues, for properties making up fully 25% of the assessed property value in the city.

As always, though, bonds are not a good socialist method of generating public revenue. By issuing bonds to be traded on the public market, they institutionalize debt through financialization. From a socialist perspective, the ideal solution would be to fund public education through progressive taxation of wealth and high incomes, while investing those resources into infrastructure that remains publicly owned and available as a public good. Measure MM is not that. It may provide meaningful resources but it also reinforces finance capital, and wouldn’t pass muster for a DSA campaign endorsement.

The teachers’ union is right that bond measures like MM don’t pay for teacher salaries, support staff, mental health and family services, or most of the other things kids need to learn. They do pay for new buildings, which students need even in the face of declining enrollment, especially as the district has been forced to compete with charters for students.

Vote yes on MM.

West Covina

TL;DR: We recommend a vote for Leslie Garcia.

District 2 is a three-way race between incumbent Mayor Letty Lopez-Viado, Carlos Yado, and Leslie H. Garcia. Lopez-Viado has been on the council since 2018 and has generally voted with its current governing majority. In the above council conflict, Gutierrez says public records show she has two deeds of trust with a mortgage company connected to Wu, which he argues is a conflict of interest. Yado is the conservative option, running on fiscal restraint, more law enforcement, streamlined permitting, and enforcement against encampments and public drug use.

Garcia is running on renter protections, ending the city's Flock surveillance contract, keeping data centers out, and investing in parks, youth recreation and community services. She's a lifelong District 2 resident, a first-generation Mexican American and a Teamsters Local 986 member. She's also an atmospheric scientist who worked on air-quality policy at the California Air Resources Board and now works at the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Her endorsements include the California Working Families Party, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, former West Covina Mayor Brian Calderón Tabatabai, Covina City Clerk Susan Zermeño, and community organizer Dr. Bri Sérrano.

We recommend a vote for Leslie Garcia.

Santa Monica

TL;DR: We recommend Caroline Torosis, Danny Ivanov, and Brett Morrow for the three open seats.

Santa Monica is the home of the Naughty Dog game studios, which means that it’s also the home of their most famous creation, Crash Bandicoot. We regret to inform you that Crash Bandicoot is not running for office this year.

In non-Crash related electoral issues, the Santa Monica City Council is composed of seven at-large seats, and three are up for election in November. The City Council oversees an $830 million budget and advocates for state legislative proposals that affect how much California invests in affordable housing, equitable programs, and local jobs.

A dozen candidates qualified for the ballot, ranging from the current mayor to Rent Control Board members to Daisy the Venice Healer to a guy who plays guitar at the 3rd Street Promenade, and a few business- and police-backed candidates sprinkled in there for good measure.

Several candidates are running together on rival slates. The progressive coalition has coalesced around the slate headed up by Mayor Caroline Torosis and includes County Department of Public Health official Brett Morrow and Rent Control Board member Danny Ivanov. All three are endorsed by Santa Monica Renters Rights (SMRR) and UNITE HERE Local 11.

Councilmember Lana Negrete, backed by the police and firefighters unions and the evil westside Los Angeles Councilmember Traci Park, heads up the other slate, which includes private equity ghoul Doug Trussler and wolf-in-conservationist’s-clothing Ashley Oelsen, a nice liberal who is also backed by the cops. Trussler is an interesting case, while running on the more conservative slate, he has also received Unite Here Local 11’s endorsement. Rent Control Board member Ericka Lesley is also in the race but has not garnered any endorsements, and her campaign presence is low.

The three make up the clearest progressive, pro-renter slate: all three endorsed by Santa Monica Renters rights and UNITE HERE Local 11.

We recommend Caroline Torosis, Danny Ivanov, and Brett Morrow for the three open seats.

State of California

TL;DR: We recommend Jane Kim for California Insurance Commissioner.

California’s Insurance Commissioner is one of the state’s more obscure elected offices, but it has unusually direct power over one of the most predatory industries in the state. The commissioner licenses, regulates, and investigates insurance companies and enforces consumer protections at a moment when Californians are facing soaring premiums, lost coverage, and a growing climate-driven insurance crisis.

Jane Kim, the former San Francisco supervisor and former executive director of the California Working Families Party, has a long history as a prominent figure on the California left. She won office in San Francisco against the Democratic machine, served as California political director for Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign, and has spent years organizing around working-class economic issues.

Kim has clearly distinguished herself as the progressive in this race. She is running on aggressively regulating the insurance industry and creating a public Disaster Insurance for All program. She is endorsed by Bernie Sanders and has significant support from organized labor, including major teachers’ unions, nurses, and other unions.

Her opponent, State Senator Ben Allen, is a mainstream coastal liberal with deep support from the Democratic Party establishment. Allen is to the left of many California Democrats and has worked on insurance and climate issues in the Legislature, but he does not offer the same politics of confrontation with the insurance industry or the same broader working-class orientation as Kim.

This is exactly the kind of general-election race where a socialist recommendation matters: voters have a genuine choice between an establishment liberal and a candidate rooted in the progressive and labor left.

We recommend Jane Kim for California Insurance Commissioner.

State of California

TL;DR: We recommend a Yes vote.

Prop 1 authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds, mainly for multifamily affordable housing, preservation/supportive housing, veterans' housing, homeownership assistance, and farmworker/tribal/student housing.

California's housing crisis is fundamentally a result of housing being treated as a commodity; working-class tenants bear the consequences through enormous rents, displacement, and homelessness. Prop 1 is a flawed solution, but the positives outweigh the negatives. These bonds create a real public subsidy for housing that the private market will not produce at affordable rents. The proposition includes billions for affordable rental construction/preservation and supportive housing. However, as socialists we must note that bonds are a bad way to finance public investment compared with progressive taxation: the state ultimately pays hundreds of millions annually in debt service to bondholders. This is fundamentally a band-aid; we need to tax the rich and build state capacity to build social housing at scale, on the road to decommodifying housing.

Prop 1 is supported by some developer and real estate interests, but also by most affordable housing advocates and organized labor. Socialists should fight for permanently funded social housing, funded by taxing the rich, but we should not reject billions of dollars for affordable housing because just California's financing system is inadequate.

We recommend a Yes vote.

State of California

TL;DR: We recommend a Yes vote.

Prop 2 raises the state reserve cap from 10% to 20%, requires more saving when revenues surge, and importantly excludes deposits into those reserves from California's Gann spending limit.

Recessions routinely become excuses for austerity. Capitalists use economic precarity to justify cuts to schools, health care, public workers, and social programs precisely when working people need them most. Larger reserves give the state greater ability to maintain services during downturns, rather than balancing budgets on workers and service recipients. Excluding reserve deposits from the Gann Limit also slightly weakens one of California's artificial constitutional constraints on public spending.

The California Labor Federation has endorsed Prop 2, as have most progressive institutional endorsers. Opposition comes primarily from Republicans and fiscal conservatives who are hostile to redistributive politics.

Saving money rather than spending it immediately is not intrinsically progressive; socialists generally don't fetishize balanced budgets or reserves for their own sake. However, this proposal leaves workers better off in the long run by providing more security at the state level. A larger cushion against austerity is better than mandated tax rebates/cuts triggered by California's fiscal constitution.

We recommend a Yes vote.

State of California

TL;DR: We recommend a Yes vote.

Prop 5 ends the simultaneous successor contest when a statewide officer is recalled. If the governor is removed, the lieutenant governor succeeds; other vacancies are filled under normal law rather than by a second question on the recall ballot.

This is not a sexy reform, nor is it a socialist one, but it is basic good government housekeeping. California's recall system creates a bizarre democratic loophole in which a majority can elect someone normally, then a smaller and differently composed electorate can remove them and potentially install a replacement with only a small plurality. Previous gubernatorial recalls have had dozens or even hundreds of candidates on the ballot, and often only recall supporters will even vote in the simultaneous successor contest, meaning a tiny plurality of voters can choose the governor.

The recall mechanism should answer the democratic question “should this official be removed?” rather than create an alternative low-turnout route to power for a minority of voters. Despite its abuse in California, socialists shouldn't oppose recall as a democratic mechanism itself. Recall has long been a democratic demand of historical socialist movements. We should, however, eliminate the anti-majoritarian successor-election mechanism.

We recommend a Yes vote.

State of California

TL;DR: We recommend a No vote.

Prop 38 borrows $8.4 billion for immunology/immunotherapy research—and directs half the proceeds to one qualifying UC-affiliated research institute, run by a billionaire, with the rest distributed through grants.

Public investment in biomedical research is obviously good and something we strongly support. But Prop 38 is not constructed primarily to best facilitate this research. The eligibility language appears effectively tailored to the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy; billionaire Gary Michelson is its co-founder/board chair and the chief financial force behind the initiative. FPPC data show roughly $36M in top support contributions dominated by Michelson/Michelson Center and Meyer Luskin.

This proposition is pretty naked self-dealing by wealthy individuals. By phrasing it as promoting medical research, something no one opposes, Michelson hopes to smuggle in a popular mandate to deliver state funds to his own institution. Voters should not constitutionally commit billions in public debt through an initiative constructed around a particular private institution. Instead, we should democratically fund actual public institutions that are accountable for their work. California must expand publicly governed research, make discoveries broadly available, and fund it through progressive taxation.

We recommend a No vote.

State of California

TL;DR: We recommend a Yes vote.

Prop 44 requires nonprofit federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose—which is broader than literally 90% directly on doctors/patient treatment. Waivers are possible in exceptional cases.

These nonprofits receive enormous amounts of public health care money while operating as private institutions whose management structures are not democratically controlled by workers and patients. The measure attempts to constrain how much revenue can be diverted away from the charitable/health-care mission into administrative overhead and related spending. Socialists believe these should be public institutions, not private institutions funded by the government. We certainly think they should treat their workers well. That is, however, not how things work, and in the near-to medium-term future, these institutions will continue to exist.

There is a catch here as well. SEIU-UHW is the sole major financial force behind Yes, putting about $17 million into it. This proposition exists essentially as a tool for UHW's organizing strategy more so than an attempt to craft the best possible public policy. There are reasons for skepticism: FQHCs serve poor and uninsured patients, and these changes could have unintended consequences; some level of administration, IT, facilities, and other overhead costs can actually be necessary to deliver care. National Nurses United and the California Teachers Association oppose Prop 44.

However, this is fundamentally a class struggle issue: the opposition is financed overwhelmingly by the clinic industry—AltaMed, the California Primary Care Association and numerous individual health-center operators. The existence of currently socially necessary nonprofit employers doesn't mean workers or the public should defer to those employers' claims about how public health-care dollars must be managed. Ultimately, as socialists, we support healthcare workers over their employers.

We recommend a Yes vote.

State of California

TL;DR: We recommend a No vote.

Prop 45 is an initiative statute backed by the California Chamber of Commerce that makes sweeping changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prop 45 creates a fast-track version of CEQA for a broad range of “essential” projects, including housing, transportation, energy, water, healthcare, schools, broadband, and public-safety infrastructure.

CEQA can be and is regularly abused to delay housing, transit, clean energy, and other necessary infrastructure at the expense of working class Californians. We don’t default to defending all regulatory and permitting processes just because they give the government power over private business. This is a genuinely thorny issue, with many costs and benefits and bad actors on both sides that can be difficult for socialists to disentangle. CEQA does desperately need further reform. Prop 45 sets fast timelines. It also limits agencies' obligation to study feasible alternatives and restricts the evidence and remedies available to courts reviewing approvals for a broad range of housing and infrastructure projects. Beyond this, it gives much of the housing it fast-tracks weaker labor standards than the other “essential” projects it covers.

For socialists, the key question we care about here is who gains power when review is weakened? As certified Bad Guy Alec Baldwin says in The Departed, “cui bono?” A good reform would accelerate democratically planned affordable housing, transit, and green infrastructure, while preserving workers' and affected communities' power over pollution and development. Prop 45 instead applies broad deregulation across many kinds of private and public projects, concentrating this power in the hands of developers themselves. There’s a reason for this. This reform was written by and for some of the most rapacious capitalists in the state.

The Yes campaign is heavily financed by the Building Industry Association, Chamber of Commerce, Edison, Realtors, developers, and billionaire cutout Building a Better California, a veritable rogues gallery of California politics. The No campaign includes most environmental groups and the state building trades. The latter is notable: the building trades will generally support nearly all construction. The old joke is they would pave over the Pacific Ocean if there was a project labor agreement.

California has already undertaken CEQA reform via AB 130 and SB 131, which broadly exempt urban infill housing from CEQA review. Prop 45’s new reforms use the word “essential” to bring in drastic new changes: covering not only apartments and transit but highways and road expansions, subdivisions, private medical-office buildings, major water systems, power infrastructure, and more. Expanding urban housing and giant infrastructure projects present radically different environmental problems, and need different regulatory regimes. We need more housing and transit; that doesn’t mean gutting regulation on highways and data centers. CEQA has been abused by wealthy homeowners, yes, but it has also been a vital tool for working class communities fighting warehouses, freeway expansions, industrial pollution, contaminated sites, and infrastructure that capitalists and more politically powerful actors want to dump in their communities. The answer is to make it harder for wealthy NIMBYs to block socially useful housing and transit, not to strip the ability of under-resourced working class Californians to fight environmental harm.

If passed, this proposition can only be legislatively amended at all by a 2/3rds vote of the legislature. Any defects or unintended consequences would therefore be incredibly difficult to fix through the ordinary democratic process. California history is littered with examples of poorly worded propositions creating seemingly permanent unintended negative consequences.

CEQA needs reform; California needs a faster process to allow our state to build housing at the needed scale. The housing crunch has been incredibly damaging to working class Californians and their ability to live in this state. CEQA needing further reform doesn’t mean developers and the Chamber of Commerce should be writing that reform. Socialists should support targeted reform, not less reform. This means by-right approval for affordable/social housing, transit, and clean energy. We should support greater public planning capacity; strong labor standards; and targeted limits on bad-faith litigation from wealthy and well-connected homeowners who want to block affordable housing and public transit. But we still need community and environmental protections, as well as a democratic process for development. Prop 45 is not the solution.

Thanks, California DSA! Now, back to the rest of our voter guide.

We recommend a No vote.

California State Senate

TL;DR: Given her incumbency and broad coalition support, she’s not at real risk of losing, but her terms so far have been good enough for you to vote for Caroline Menjivar.

In the 20th State Senate district we have Caroline Menjivar, a young queer Latina veteran. She’s a progressive with Democratic establishment backing, likely to cruise to re-election. Her district covers much of the East and Northeast San Fernando Valley and is a heavily working class Latino district.

Caroline faces Republican Tony Rodriguez, who is running on a standard Republican platform of “more money for police” and “rooting out corruption”. Most of his campaign funds come from self-loans. Rodriguez got 32% of the vote in the primary and is unlikely to improve much on that.

During her first term, Caroline Menjivar has sponsored legislation to add specialized mental health crisis services for LGBTQ+ youth on the 988 Crisis Hotline, fought to keep our undocumented neighbors on Medi-Cal in the face of Gavin Newsom’s cuts, and introduced legislation that would permanently ban ICE officials from being police officers in the state of California. Menjivar has built a legislative record aligned with working class, immigrant communities, and LGBTQ+ issues, with backing from labor and progressive organizations like the Working Families Party.

Given her incumbency and broad coalition support, she’s not at real risk of losing, but her terms so far have been good enough for you to vote for Caroline Menjivar.

California State Senate

TL;DR: We recommend you vote for John Erickson, the clear progressive choice.

With Ben Allen vacating his seat in pursuit of the State Insurance Commissioner position, an open-seat race is unfolding in SD-24. SD-24 is a hysterical combo of random parts of Los Angeles – it starts in Malibu, before going through Agoura Hills and Calabasas, before following down the coast all the way to the ports. It then also goes all the way east through Beverly Hills and West Hollywood and Hollywood before ending just short of Los Feliz.

Despite representing some of the city of LA’s few Republican precincts and socialists in Franklin Village, SD-24 is quite a progressive Senate District, but impact and aftermath of the Palisades Fire still looms large in the psyche of voters.

After a crowded primary election, we see a race between Brian Goldsmith and John Erickson.

Brian Goldsmith has emerged as a serious contender with over $1 million raised, with nearly half of that coming from himself and large dollar donors, including union-busting billionaire Wonderful Company owners the Resniks, disgraced former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso, and the California Apartment Association PAC. He has endorsements from Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Democrats for Israel - Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Police Protective League. His platform states that he will “fight BDS and all attempts to break the bonds between California and Israel.”

In the progressive lane is John Erickson, current West Hollywood city councilmember, long time operative and advocate on gender equity and LGBTQ+ issues. Erickson has already earned support from the California Federation of Labor and other labor organizations, and has raised over $300,000, enough to be competitive in a crowded field. On policy, Erickson has built a record on promoting housing production while still safeguarding housing affordability, tenant protections, and local climate action. He touts himself as a potential leader in healthcare access and public education investment. While Erickson is solid on most issues he also calls to invest more in “21st-century crime prevention tools for first responders that can stop crimes in the first place”.

This general election very clearly puts the billionaire class up against the workers.

We recommend you vote for John Erickson, the clear progressive choice.

California State Senate

TL;DR: The choice is clear: vote for Sarah Rascón.

SD-26 is a slightly more coherently-designed district than SD-24, with Griffith Park and Eagle Rock up north (skipping over Glendale), then goes down through Los Feliz and Koreatown to Pico-Union, before dividing downtown LA and claiming everything north of West 4th, and finally jutting down to Vernon and through to Highland Park and East LA.

With longtime local labor leader turned politico Maria Elena Durazo opting for a run to replace Hilda Solis on the County Board of Supervisors, there’s another open seat in SD-26, where we have a two Sara(h) face-off in the general: Sarah Rascón and Sara Hernandez. Sarah vs Sara. H, not confusing at all.

An attorney, LACCD Board President, and former teacher, Sara Hernandez has tried to portray herself rhetorically as a “progressive” candidate, but in fact represents a deeply pro-capital, Status Quo Coalition establishment politics. She has maximum donations coming from housing developers, property investors, landlords, illegal betting “futures” firm Kalshi, alongside the County Labor Fed and an array of unions. Crypto-billionaire founded PAC Grow California, Google- and Meta-funded “California Leads”, and the “Housing Providers for Responsible Solutions” (the landlord lobby) are funding $2 million in independent expenditures for her. And multiple of Hernandez’s maxed out donors are also significant funders of AIPAC, relationships that date back to a 2018 trip Hernandez took with AIPAC to tour Israel.

Electoral newcomer Sarah Rascón has taken a progressive angle in the race. An El Sereno native, Rascón’s career spans community organizing, state legislative work, Latino civic participation initiatives, and most recently environmental equity at the Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority. Though she has worked for various Status Quo Coalition politicians including a brief term in the Bass administration, she is running a clean-money campaign. Her platform rejects “corporate PACs” and “PACs representing foreign governments”, alongside calling for “the full liberation of Palestine.” In more state-government-specific items, she supports single-payer healthcare via CalCare, repealing the Ellis and Costa-Hawkins Acts, and reforming Proposition 13.

Since her surprise primary performance in which she beat out former Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, Rascón has won endorsements from Carrillo and perennial lefty candidate Maebe Pudlo, union endorsements from the California Faculty Association (CFA), National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW), Communication Workers of America (CWA), several ILWU locals, DSA-LA Socialists in Office Ysabel Jurado, Eunisses Hernandez, and Hugo Soto-Martinez, and current seatholder Maria Elena Durazo.

The choice is clear: vote for Sarah Rascón.

California State Senate

TL;DR: A reliable representative of the left-labor movement in the CA State Legislature, we recommend you vote for Lola Smallwood-Cuevas for another term.

Incumbent Lola Smallwood-Cuevas isn’t facing a realistic challenger in this race and will win reelection easily against Republican Joe Lisuzzo. SD-28 covers Culver City, Palms, Mar Vista, West Los Angeles, Crenshaw, Leimert Park, South Los Angeles, parts of Mid-City, the neighborhoods surrounding USC, and parts of Downtown LA. Chair of the Senate labor committee, she’s been a reliable champion of pro-labor legislation in the State Senate, putting forward bills to require employers to report use of surveillance tools on their workers, strengthen enforcement for price gouging, creating regulations on large grocery store chains in replacing workers with self checkouts. Smallwood-Cuevas has been a reliable cross-endorser of our socialists in office and Shake Up City Hall slate, and is a member of the South LA Working Families Party-endorsed squad in the California legislature.

Smallwood-Cuevas took 74% of the vote in the primary against an NPP candidate and Joe Lisuzzo. Lisuzzo, an HR director running on a generic Republican platform, is unlikely to break 25% in the runoff.

A reliable representative of the left-labor movement in the CA State Legislature, we recommend you vote for Lola Smallwood-Cuevas for another term.

California State Assembly

TL;DR: Even a middling Democrat would be better than his Republican opponent, vote for Randall Putz.

While most of this district is in San Bernardino County, AD-34’s got a liiiiittle bit of Lancaster and Palmdale, so we’re going to do a write up. Hello to everyone reading this in Lancaster and Palmdale! Any good recommendations for Date Shakes?

Republican Assemblymember Tom Lackey is termed out, so we got a face-off between a Democrat and Republican. Democrat Randall Putz narrowly took first place with 37.7% of the vote against three Republicans. If you’re doing your math, that means that the top Republican, Charles Hughes, is probably favored to win by 20+ points. With voter sentiment towards Republicans in free fall though, a blue wave might, just might, make this winnable for Putz.

He’s running on some solid points, such as renter protections, ensuring corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and holding polluters accountable. In other words, Putz is not a total putz.

Even a middling Democrat would be better than his Republican opponent, vote for Randall Putz.

California State Assembly

TL;DR: Vote for Pilar Schiavo.

Pilar Schiavo was elected to this district that covers Santa Clarita and the northwest San Fernando Valley, including Northridge and Granada Hills in 2022. Her win was deeply helped by a redistrict that swung the district in her favor to eke out a 50.2% win over a Republican. In 2024, she won by a slightly larger margin, 52%. She repeated that number in the primary, taking her to the general against Republican Rickey Hayes II, who is endorsed by Los Angeles City Councilmember John Lee (boo! hiss!).

Schiavo’s donations reflect the backing of the Southern California class of state legislature incumbents and labor unions. During her first term in office, she fought to shut down the Aliso Canyon gas facility in the face of the utility commission’s approval to ramp up its production, fought against anti-abortion practices in the state, and has supported pro-worker,social housing, and CalCare bills in the Assembly. Since then, she’s moderated, abstaining from votes on several criminal justice reform bills. She’s also received donations from groups that should take a long walk off a short pier, like the Los Angeles Police Protective League, several other police orgs, and corporations like AirBnB, DoorDash, and FanDuel.

Hayes' website doesn’t even include a policy page, and his social media is barren besides the occasional AI selfie.

It’s likely that Schiavo will once again win this race by the same 4-6 points she won in 2024, but this one is close. Close enough that despite our disappointment with the way she’s moderated, you shouldn’t stay out of this one.

Vote for Pilar Schiavo.

California State Assembly

TL;DR: Schultz is going to coast to re-election, and he’s been decent in Assembly - we recommend you vote for him.

AD-44 covers Burbank, Sherman Oaks, North Hollywood, Studio City the tippy-top of Glendale, and the Warner Bros. Studio Water Tower Autonomous Zone (soon to be Skydance Studios Water tower??? Will they evict the Animaniacs????). Nick Schultz won his first term in 2024 and is facing Republican Carolyn Daniels.

Schultz is current chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and is running on an affordability agenda, universal healthcare, and protecting renters. He’s worked with criminal justice reform organizations such as Initiate Justice while on the Public Safety Committee. He’s fought against ICE in the levels of state government, including the ban on ICE wearing face masks, and supported ending AI from hiring decisions in the workforce. He’s worked closely with DSA-LA Socialist in Office Konstantine Anthony while he was on the Burbank City Council and supports our endorsed candidates.

A progressive left vote in the Assembly, he’s endorsed by every big labor union in the state.

Schultz is going to coast to re-election, and he’s been decent in Assembly - we recommend you vote for him.

California State Assembly

TL;DR: With an unquestionably Democratic Socialist platform, vote for Colin Hernandez.

AD-51 covers Santa Monica, West LA, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, the Hollywood Hills, Hollywood, and Hancock Park, a large district that mixes renters and some of the most wealthy areas of the city.

Over the course of his two years in the State Assembly, Rick Zbur has demonstrated why he remains one of the more odious establishment power brokers in both the region and the state. While trying to appear “progressive”, he continues to vote in lockstep with the wishes of his megadonors, such as tax-dodging corporations well-known for crushing organized labor (Uber, Walmart, and Amazon) or public utilities (PG&E and Edison International). The latter was successful in pushing Zbur to back down from supporting limitations on lobbying and advertising by investor-owned utilities (AB 1167)! He also co-authored AB 715, a bill that was advertised as a defense against antisemitism in California public schools, but was specifically designed to censor public education and protected speech regarding Israel and Palestine.

Democratic Socialist Colin Hernandez is the only candidate running from Zbur’s left. A 9th-generation Californian, Hernandez’ platform includes CalCare, Housing for All, walkable cities, climate justice, and taxing the rich. His platform prioritizes building social housing and the repeal of the Costa-Hawkins and Ellis Acts, clearly naming private equity and corporate landlords as our class enemies. Colin calls for a “California that is against imperialism and Colonialism,” drawing a clear distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and opposes AB715.

With an unquestionably Democratic Socialist platform, vote for Colin Hernandez.

California State Assembly

TL;DR: Isaac Bryan should win handily, but he’s still good enough to vote for and for our recommendation.

Incumbent Isaac Bryan is expected to handily win this race, as he faces a challenger who has no reported campaign contributions in this safe blue district that covers Culver City, Palms, Mid-City, West Adams, Crenshaw, Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights, Leimert Park, Jefferson Park, West LA, Westwood, and Century City. He has one of the strongest progressive records in the State Assembly, advocating for decarceration and policing reform, workers’ rights, social housing, and a California single payer healthcare system. Bryan is broadly seen as a rising star on the progressive wing of the Assembly Democratic Party, and is one of a new generation of leaders that have emerged across South LA in recent years.

He’s continued this focus, which launched after he co-chaired the Measure J alternatives to incarceration funding campaign alongside Socialist in Office Eunisses Hernandez, through his recent terms. Bryan is likely to be a fixture of the progressive Angeleno political scene for cycles to come.

He’s facing school social worker Ashley Brown, who got 19% of the vote in the primary. Her website features some uncanny AI images and only two organizational endorsements: from “Inglewood's 1st and only wine bar” and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

Isaac Bryan should win handily, but he’s still good enough to vote for and for our recommendation.

California State Assembly

TL;DR: As a strong and consistent progressive voice in the Assembly, we recommend that you vote for Tina McKinnor.

AD-61 covers the Los Angeles neighborhoods of Venice, Marina del Rey, Westchester, Inglewood, Hawthorne, and Lawndale.

Tina McKinnor faces a write-in Republican candidate who got 1.4% of the primary vote. She’s going to win easily.

But we’d like to note that she’s endorsed a lot of our Shake Up City Hall slate and is yet another part of the WFP State Squad here in LA. A friend of labor, McKinnor has been a reliable presence at picket lines and has co-authored legislation allowing legislative staff the right to form a union as well as ensuring all apartments for rent come with a refrigerator and stove.

As a strong and consistent progressive voice in the Assembly, we recommend that you vote for Tina McKinnor.

California State Assembly

TL;DR: Vote for decidedly non-socialist but still lesser-of-two-evils Sara Deen.

With Al Muratsuchi terming out after an unsuccessful go at State Superintendent for Public Instruction, Assembly District 66 (covering much of the South Bay) sees two Democrats on the ballot in the General.

Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor Paul Seo entered the primary as a pro-business, law and order candidate, and has consolidated the Status Quo Coalition in the general with endorsements from Labor Fed and California SEIU. His top priorities are increasing law enforcement hiring and funding, which earned him primary LA Police Protective League (LAPPL), California Fraternal Order of Police, and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) support.

He faces dentist, urgent care facility owner, and Palos Verdes School Board President Sara Deen. Deen’s platform is relatively sparse and nondescript, talking about “access to healthcare,” and reducing the “influence of special interests in our political system.” Which special interests, Sara? Presumably you don’t mean the American Medical Association, for whom you dropped your past advocacy in favor of single-payer healthcare. Anyway, Deen has the endorsement of progressive unions like NUHW and California Nurses Association (CNA), as well as progressive grassroots organizations like Indivisible, California Women’s List, South Bay Forward, and a couple YIMBY organizations.

This general election has gotten extremely nasty, with Deen, a Pakistani American, getting attacked by various Seo-supporting business PACs for being “a radical Muslim”. Deen responded by… condemning DSA-LA for recommending her in the first place, claiming that our (honestly, very tepid) recommendation “misrepresents [her] values” and equates Muslim Americans with socialism. We didn’t say you were a socialist, Sara, we just said you were the better candidate in the race. If you want to go ahead and make the case for why you are a worse candidate to vote for than Seo, you have our email. Until then, we’re going to keep recommending the best candidate in every race.

Vote for decidedly non-socialist but still lesser-of-two-evils Sara Deen.

United States House

TL;DR: With under $37k raised and no meaningful endorsements, Dueñas is a protest vote, but one worth taking.

CA-29 includes North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Panorama City, Pacoima, San Fernando, and Sylmar. The district is heavily urban, about 40% renter, nearly two-thirds Latino, and is currently occupied by Luz Rivas, elected in 2024. The former California state Assemblywoman was anointed by conservative New Democrat Tony Cardenas who held the seat since 2013, but didn’t run for reelection.

This is where Angelica Dueñas comes in (again). Angelica has challenged Cardenas every year since 2018 and continues her tradition in this cycle by challenging Luz Rivas. Dueñas, is a Bernie to Jill Stein 2016 progressive activist. After losing in the primary in 2018 as a Green, Dueñas switched to the Democrat ballot line and peaked with 43% against Cárdenas in 2020 and 2022, running on a Berniecrat platform that led with Medicare for All and incorporated various other left movement demands around racial justice, canceling student debt, Green New Deal, before falling back to a 24% vote share against Rivas after the Primary election. At some point, you have to wonder when it’s time to take a hint and work on building durable left organizations instead of running solo races.

In 2024, we said this about Luz Rivas:

Rivas has been a fairly progressive assemblywoman spanning the standard CA Dem status quo coalition – strong support from organized labor with a helping hand from a little bit of business and real estate money. The Jarvis Taxpayers Association hates her and the CA Labor Fed loves her, and if she wins the seat (as she’s likely to, given the strength of the establishment machine helping her), she’ll be a slight improvement over Cárdenas. Her background as an educator, MIT trained engineer, and founder of DIY Girls, an organization that promotes STEAM education through programming for young women, remains at the forefront of her mission and she has stated this as the source of motivation for running for office in the first place.

And, this is pretty much what has borne out. Rivas is an improvement on Cárdenas but is a fairly standard LA Democrat – sponsoring Medicare for All and opposing ICE funding, but also taking money from Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) and refusing to the Block the Bombs Act.

With under $37k raised and no meaningful endorsements, Dueñas is a protest vote, but one worth taking.

United States House

TL;DR: Based on the fundraising and name recognition differential, we don’t think it’s likely to be this year, but you should still vote for Samantha Mota.

CA-37 includes Mid City, some of West LA, and the northern portions of South LA. Incumbent Sydney Kamlager seems to be endorsed by every center-leaning and left-leaning official in the county – and basically all of organized labor. She’s likely to coast to victory. She’s done the baseline things a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus ought to do, like co-sponsoring Medicare for All and even moving to cosponsor the Block the Bombs act, but has received an “F” on her scorecard from the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, and has taken money from JStreet’s PAC as well as corporations like Blue Shield CA.

She faces another Democratic candidate Samantha Mota, who received an impressive 11.7% of the vote in the primary despite under $1,000 in reported fundraising. In the General, she reports a little over $9,000 in fundraising. Mota’s left platform on Medicare for All, and Arms Embargo, and the abolition of ICE earned her a recommendation in our primary voter guide, and that position hasn’t changed for the general election. CA-37 should have a rep that will stand up to special interests and the war machine.

Based on the fundraising and name recognition differential, we don’t think it’s likely to be this year, but you should still vote for Samantha Mota.