This is a transformative election for the City of Portland, which will select the first cohort of leaders for the brand new city government. Portland DSA’s two amazing candidates will come ready to fight for social and economic justice, offering a fresh vision for Portland following years of rule by candidates committed to regressive policies.

City government has a tremendous amount of power over critical issues like housing, public safety, climate resilience, and more. It’s time for a city that prioritizes the needs of its citizens over downtown developers who live in the suburbs.

Endorsement, Green Lights, Red Lights, and Renter’s Bill of Rights

Endorsed (Rank #1)

Portland DSA’s two endorsed candidates, Tiffany Koyama Lane & Mitch Green, will be listed first — with a “#1” symbol and additional details about our endorsement. We think you should rank them number one in Districts 3 and 4!

Preferred Candidate/Green Light

Portland DSA’s preferred candidates rose to the top through an internal process that included a mock election, extensive research by Portland DSA’s Socialists in Office Committee, as well as a member forum.

Renter’s Bill of Rights: A house icon indicates green light candidates who have signed the Renter’s Bill of Rights.

DSA Member: A rose icon indicates green light candidates who are also members of Portland DSA. Join us!

District 1

For District 1, Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. None were endorsed by the chapter:

District 2

For District 2, Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. None were endorsed by the chapter:

*Jonathan Tasini is a member of Portland DSA. We regret the error.

District 3

For District 3 Portland DSA has greenlighted six candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. It includes Tiffany Koyama Lane who Portland DSA endorsed!

Rank Tiffany Koyama Lane #1 on your ballot! Portland DSA was proud to endorse her earlier this year. We have been out non-stop knocking doors and calling voters for Tiffany. Teacher Tiffany is a leader in the Portland Association of Teachers and their successful strike last November. Tiffany comes from a background of collective action based in the labor movement. We consider her election to validate the struggles of educators that were raised in that strike. Nike put their executive in as chair of the school board, we are striking back and putting a union teacher on City Council.

District 4

For District 4 Portland DSA has greenlighted five candidates and encourages you to rank all of them. It also includes Mitch Green who Portland DSA endorsed!

Rank Mitch Green #1 on your ballot! Portland DSA was proud to endorse Mitch earlier this year. We have been out non-stop knocking doors and calling voters for him. Mitch is a mainstay of Portland DSA, picket lines, and karaoke bars. He’s been a member for six years and has served as our treasurer. Mitch is an open, proud socialist who wears his membership on his sleeve.

Mayor

For Mayor we do not have an endorsed candidate and were only able to pick 4 from the list:

Red Light / Do Not Rank

The following is our list of candidates we encourage members not to rank at all on their ballot. These are candidates who were endorsed by the Portland Police Association (police union) and United for Portland / the Portland Metro Chamber (formally known as the Portland Business Alliance). Some are vitriolically opposed to the Renters Bill of Rights. Others are critics of the teachers’ union. None of them belong on your ballot. Portland DSA is supportive of the Don’t Rank Rene movement and we want it to be clear which candidates have stood against our movement and its demands like Jesse Cornett and Jon Walker.

Many candidates for the new Portland city government are not listed in the Portland DSA’s voters guide. Voters might consider ranking these candidates to fill out the ballot if they run out of DSA-endorsed or preferred candidates to rank. Filling out your ballot helps to keep Red Light (Do Not Rank) candidates out of office.

Made it to the end? WOW. Ready to take action and secure a pro-working class majority on Portland City Council? Take the pledge here and join our movement!

By the Editorial Board

Question 3 on the Ballot

Come election day, Massachusetts voters will cast ballots on five initiatives, including Question 3: “Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Transportation Network Drivers Initiative.”

Question 3 is backed primarily by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and at first glance it appears to be a positive initiative to give desperately needed union rights to Uber and Lyft drivers.

Rideshare drivers are currently among the growing set of workers who are misclassified as independent contractors instead of as employees, despite being the core workforce of the companies which profit from their labor. Under the National Labor Relations Act, which only covers employees, independent contractors lack the right to unionize.

Trump’s NLRB issued a memo confirming that Uber and Lyft drivers were in fact independent contractors in 2019, and Biden’s NLRB has yet to overturn this guidance, leaving app workers without protections.

Instead of pushing for driver rights within the federal labor relations system, Question 3 attempts to rectify this situation by creating a state-level collective bargaining system for rideshare drivers. The legislation would allow drivers to vote for a collective bargaining representative, with which Uber and Lyft would then have to negotiate over wages and working conditions. The legislation covers only app workers transporting passengers, leaving out take-out and grocery delivery workers.

Question 3 Is Company Unionism

Despite backing from major unions, the majority of organized labor as well as progressive advocates in the app worker space do not support Question 3 or the model it is based on.

In fact, the Machinists union’s operations in the rideshare space, under the banner of the Independent Drivers Guild (IDG), have widely been criticized since 2016 (see: New York Times and Labor Notes) as functionally a company union which makes unacceptable compromises in exchange for kid-glove treatment by Uber and Lyft.

The system implemented under Question 3 is company unionism for three basic reasons. First, the model has been spearheaded by an organization, the Machinists, which is funded in its rideshare organization directly by Uber and Lyft; meanwhile, most other unions and the Massachusetts AFL-CIO oppose the model (see next section). Second, the basis of this alliance is the willingness of the Machinists/SEIU camp to concede the fight to make drivers employees, instead accepting misclassification and leaving the door open for the expansion of misclassification beyond the app-based transport space. Third, the system as written allows drivers to vote for or against collective bargaining but does not mandate any driver rights within the “union” once it is recognized. The IDG groups have never been democratically run by drivers, and there is no reason to believe that the Machinists would start now. (See: The American Prospect and Fast Company)

As legal scholar Veena Dubal has pointed out, those skeptical of these reasons should ask themselves: if Question 3 creates a real union, then why aren’t Uber and Lyft spending hundreds of millions to oppose it? Although the June settlement between Uber and Lyft and the state Attorney General required them to suspend support for their own misclassification ballot initiatives, it didn’t prohibit them from opposing Question 3.

The whole model is built on misrepresentation and misinformation, and Question 3 contains a new innovation over past attempts: an apparent prohibition on company unions written into the language. This is obviously a pre-emptive attempt to fend off accusations of company unionism, but a careful reading of the actual language finds that it does not at all prohibit those, namely the Machinists, who already have secret funding agreements with Uber and Lyft from representing app workers under the new system.

The Rise of Company Unionism

The Machinists formed the IDG in 2016, taking millions of dollars from Uber as part of an undisclosed five-year contract. Although this partnership was originally conceived as part of a legal settlement, that settlement was tossed out by another judge, and the IDG partnership was formed separately.

The original agreement covered New York City, with Uber authorizing IDG to run reactivation courses for deactivated drivers, with Uber then reinstating those drivers. IDG began expanding around the country, establishing groups in Chicago, Massachusetts, and elsewhere. The initial contract was apparently extended, and Lyft was also brought in as a partner, expanding the company union industry-wide. At one point Lyft was advertising the IDG to Connecticut drivers in the driver app. Can you imagine the CEO of any company promoting the benefits of a real union to workers on a company-wide email?

Since the formation of IDG, the Machinists have lobbied for legislation roughly along the lines of Question 3, including in Massachusetts. Other labor organizations, including the Mass AFL-CIO, initially supported the Machinist model, possibly because they were unaware of its criticism or the funding relationship between the Machinists and Uber. However, organizing by critics of the IDG model, with support from several major unions including the UAW, UFCW, and the Teamsters, pushed the national AFL-CIO to block state federations from supporting Machinists-style legislation. The AFL-CIO affiliate New York Taxi Worker Alliance (NYTWA), as well as grassroots driver group Rideshare Drivers United (RDU), have played a consistent role in opposing the Machinists and their model.

The conflict came to a head perhaps most dramatically right here in Massachusetts, although the drama mostly took place out of sight of the press. After previously supporting the Machinists’ legislation, the Mass AFL-CIO drafted and backed new counter-legislation and developed closer ties with the NYTWA-RDU camp. This conflict was personified in the October 2023 election for Mass AFL-CIO president, with the local Machinists leader challenging heir-apparent Chrissy Lynch for the top union leadership post in the Commonwealth. Lynch, who had previously served as Secretary-Treasurer and Chief of Staff of the Mass AFL-CIO, won unanimously after the Machinists challenger backed out of the race, but only after it was clear that Lynch would win overwhelmingly.

Of course, Uber and Lyft would prefer no union at all, preferring to deny workers collective bargaining rights entirely and avoid paying millions to IDG. But Uber and Lyft long ago funded the IDG company union model as a backup in case they were forced to recognize driver rights to some degree.

Now that the state Attorney General has (reluctantly) forced Uber and Lyft to provide some basic worker rights to their drivers, the time has come to activate the company union model in order to stave off genuine union efforts. In fact, the totally unnecessary settlement which the AG extended to Uber and Lyft, despite being on the verge of winning its case against them, helped to keep the company union model alive. If the AG had found drivers to be employees, the whole company union model would have been irrelevant.

The Democrats have, unsurprisingly, enabled Uber and Lyft’s chicanery time and again. From 2014, former Obama campaign manager and senior advisor David Plouffe led Uber’s initial response to regulatory scrutiny and expansion to new markets. In the Commonwealth, the AG’s office failed to bring a case against Uber and Lyft for misclassification until almost a decade after they began operating in the Commonwealth and only did so after being pressured by the rideshare movement. The case was never pursued aggressively, and this summer the AG gave Uber and Lyft a last-minute sweetheart deal which, despite winning some concessions for drivers, fundamentally left Big Gig’s model intact and allowed the company union model to move forward. Immediately after the settlement was announced, state AG Andrea Campbell immediately endorsed Question 3. Since 2017 Uber’s legal team has been led by Tony West, brother-in-law to Vice President Kamala Harris, who previously served in various legal and fundraising roles in the Dukakis and Obama campaigns, the California Democratic Party, and in the Justice Department during the Clinton and Obama administrations. And the Biden NLRB could have granted Uber and Lyft drivers full NLRA rights with a simple wave of a pen but over four years has chosen not to.

The AFL-CIO, as a junior partner of the corporate Democrats, has played a less than admirable role. Organized labor was slow to break with company unionism and even more delayed in condemning it. Now most of labor is on the right side but is not spending basically any resources or political capital to oppose company unionism. The Mass AFL-CIO is even now neutral on Question 3, even though it has for more than a year supported an alternative model. But at least the drivers’ movement has won over organized labor ideologically.

Misclassification Is the Neoliberal Dream

The importance of the fight against misclassification cannot be overstated and is not at all confined to the rideshare or food-delivery sectors. It has long been a dream of the neoliberal movement, including both its Democratic and Republican wings, to strip worker rights simply by reclassifying workers as independent contractors rather than and in addition to directly by eroding employee rights legislatively.

The scheme has its roots in Taft-Hartley, and was largely spearheaded in the taxi industry where cab unions were broken by reclassifying their workforces. It was then expanded to other industries, including when a younger Ted Cruz helped defend FedEx from a misclassification lawsuit initiated by the Teamsters. Uber and Lyft’s “third way” model, misclassification in general, and even the legalization of company unions received an endorsement this year in Project 2025 (2025 Mandate for Leadership, page 590, 599)

The misclassification model, enabled especially by app-based scheduling, has already begun to spread from its initial beachhead in the transportation sector. Hospitals in California have been expanding the use of app-hired “independent contractor” nurses and an initiative was filed in 2022 to codify the system, although the initiative was later pulled.

This summer the “gig work” misclassification system was enshrined in California by that state’s supreme court, and in Massachusetts by our own AG. Although the system is currently confined to app-based transport, it is now spreading like a cancer and will erode worker rights in industry after industry. It must be stopped.

Next Steps for App Worker Power

In spite of Big Gig’s money, the Democrats’ corruption, company unionists’ trickery, and organized labor’s inaction, the grassroots app worker movement has won considerable, but incomplete, advances for app-based workers.

Now is no time to surrender to those who wish to sell out app workers or to leave the door open for further expansion of the neoliberal misclassification model. But almost certainly Question 3 is going to pass. So what is next for the movement?

First, if a large union like IUE-CWA, UAW, or the Teamsters wanted to, they could hijack the system under Question 3, competing with the Machinists and SEIU at their own game and creating a union which doesn’t deny drivers democratic rights. Such a union could transform the model from a sellout into a stepping stone, funding the fight to win full worker rights for all misclassified workers. This would take substantial resources and require catching up quickly with the Machinists and SEIU, who have now spent years building out their driver networks. But with several million dollars it is achievable and actually the first opportunity to see a return on investment for a genuine organizing effort for app-based workers.

But if the company unionists succeed in winning the driver elections, those who support the democratic driver movement could still find opportunities to organize drivers within and against the company unionists. A pressure campaign to grant drivers full membership rights in these unions would transform the fight from company unionism to regular business unionism. This campaign could also be linked to internal campaigns within the Machinists and SEIU to win grassroots membership support in favor of driver rights.

When I was canvassing for Jovanka Beckles’s State Senate campaign (Senate District 7) in late September, I spoke with a woman in north Oakland who was concerned that rents in her neighborhood might get too high for long-time residents to stay. It was, she said, that mix of new and older neighbors that made the area feel special in Oakland and, for her, like home. My canvassing partner and I assured her that Jovanka has consistently used her political office to fight for working-class tenants like her.     

Many of the East Bay DSA canvassers who went out that afternoon for Jovanka heard the same thing from neighbors:  thanks that we were the first people to knock on their doors to tell them about a statewide race. 

Active Champion

The DSA campaign for Jovanka has reached voters across the East Bay and has activated new members in the process. We’ve spoken to residents’ concerns by talking with them about our chapter’s campaigns, from our demands that local government divest from Israeli apartheid to our advocacy for fair schedules for transit workers. That integration is possible because Jovanka has consistently been an active champion of all these causes as an elected socialist and as a member of our chapter. 

When I spoke with an Oakland resident in July who was concerned about the unfolding genocide in Gaza, I could tell her that Jovanka has been an avowed supporter of the Palestinian cause and that our chapter was collecting signatures for a local divestment campaign, which the voter eagerly signed. For our canvass focused on labor, we could easily transition from talking with a neighbor about Jovanka’s successful effort to raise the minimum wage as a city councilor in Richmond to asking whether they wanted to organize in their workplace. When we talked with voters about her work as a transit board member, we could tell them about our chapter’s campaign to work alongside Jovanka and the transit workers union (ATU 192) to demand fair and humane schedules for bus operators.    

Talking with neighbors works

Talking at the door about how our campaigns align with Jovanka’s vision helps bring our members and new organizers to our events. At our last two canvasses, I partnered with new members who had joined our chapter within the last month. Talking with neighbors about our work also helps those members see the scope of our chapter’s organizing. 

For canvassers and canvass-ees, Jovanka’s corporate-free campaign starts the conversation. It also sharply distinguishes her from her opponent, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín. Arreguín has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from real estate lobbyists, a correctional officers union, PG&E and Uber. Jovanka, on the other hand, helped win millions for the community from Chevron, which has a refinery in Richmond. While Arreguín, who proudly took a pro-Israel lobby trip in 2022, has loudly opposed any ceasefire resolution from Berkeley City Council, Jovanka has stood firm in her support for an end to US complicity in the genocide.

Whether in Gaza or in our own East Bay senate district, Jovanka has consistently supported just causes that align with our chapter’s organizing. We can confidently tell neighbors like that resident in north Oakland that she’ll keep fighting against the root causes of displacement and for social services that empower the working class. 

Bay Area DSA members (and those who aren’t yet members!) can join our next canvass for Jovanka and our other endorsed candidates on the morning of Sunday, November 3.  

You can contribute to Jovanka’s corporate-free campaign here.

As we near the November election, California DSA and our local chapters have been ramping up efforts for our Affordable Rent-Controlled Housing (ARCH) campaign. But we’re not the only ones intensifying our campaign. Over the weekend, deceptive text messages were sent to residents of Los Angeles implying that DSA Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Tenants Union do not support Prop 33. Don’t buy the landlord lies!

The ARCH campaign supports Prop 33, which would overturn a 1995 law that drastically limits local rent control, and Prop 5, which would make it much easier to build public housing and infrastructure for middle to low income tenants. There is less than a month left to organize toward a huge victory for renters and there are several ways you can get involved.

A Digital Day of Action

On Wednesday, October 16th, California DSA and our members across the state will be engaged in a “digital day of action” where we’ll be reposting content from California DSA and our chapters, as well as sharing our own stories and content with hashtags like #YesOnProp33
, #YesOnProp5, #StopLandlordLies, and #TenantsAgreeYesOn33. It’s one of the easiest things that we can do to spread the word to our friends and followers about the importance of these ballot measures and the transformative effects they would have.

Landlords are well aware that passing Prop 33, in particular, is a first step in shifting power away from the owner class and into the hands of the working class so they are spending well over 100 million dollars to stop it. 

Take a moment today to spread the word and join our day of action!

Join in with the toolkit here!

October 1st Virtual Kickoff

California DSA’s ARCH Campaign is doing our part to generate grassroots enthusiasm. Over 60 people participated in an October 1st virtual organizing meeting and heard San Francisco DSA member Dean Preston, a long-time tenant/rent control advocate running for re-election to the Board of Supervisors, speak powerfully about the history of Costa-Hawkins (the law Prop 33 repeals) and why we need Prop 33 now. Everyone attending participated in small groups to organize activities in their areas.

Chapters running canvasses

Building on that momentum, DSA chapters around the state participated in a Day of Action on October 5th to canvass hundreds of doors. Members hit the doors in North Central Valley, San Diego, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Richmond.  Chapters expanded their door-knocking this past weekend. Not surprisingly for an initiative campaign at this stage, the latest group contacted was largely undecided. But voters expressing support far exceeded those currently opposed. That’s significant because of the onslaught of anti-33 ads saturating our screens.

Join the ARCH Campaign!

There’s still timeto help win Justice for Renters. Reach out to your local chapter, send an email to statecommittee@californiadsa.org; or check out the California DSA website for more information about our ballot measure campaign. The entire working class will benefit if you do, and you’ll have bragging rights if Props 5 and 33 pass.

In late September and early October Ysabel Jurado, who is endorsed by DSA Los Angeles for LA city council District 14, hosted two massive canvasses, both heavily attended by rank-and-file union members and DSA activists. Jurado’s campaign for Los Angeles City Council is the first to achieve our chapter’s long-time goal of uniting a progressive grassroots with the political might of labor. If this coalition endures and grows, working class power may become a dominant pole in Los Angeles.

From Rivals to Teammates

DSA-LA endorsed Ysabel Jurado early on in the crowded primary. She had been an active member of DSA and she was running on an unabashedly progressive platform. Very quickly she garnered the support of the grassroots of Los Angeles, generating an encouraging amount of earned media. In a race including three long time Democratic politicians she was always framed as a wild card. DSA-LA helped to build a strong canvassing operation, meeting voters at their door and fostering connections. DSA-LA knocked almost nine thousand doors, while her campaign knocked over eighty thousand.

Labor unions, on the other hand, threw their weight behind Miguel Santiago, a state assembly member with a strong record of supporting organized labor. Rather than a robust field operation, his campaign spent heavily on mailers and advertisements. A week after Election Day, it was clear that Ysabel Jurado had come in first place with incumbent Kevin De Leon coming in second. Miguel Santiago placed third, not qualifying for the runoff. 

With a Kevin De Leon vs Ysabel Jurado match up, it was unclear where union support would land. De Leon obviously had history with the LA Federation of Labor (most recently negative due to the leaked tapes scandal, in which he was caught making racist remarks and plotting to break up working-class voting power in LA) so he was unlikely to garner their support. Jurado on the other hand was a political outsider. Unions might very well have refrained from endorsing if not for Ysabel’s own organizing. 

Following the primary she worked for months meeting union leadership and rank and file members, assuring them that not only would she be supportive of workers’ rights, but a champion for the entire working class. Because of this charm offensive Ysabel has become the first progressive challenger in LA to earn the endorsement of LA Federation of Labor and around 20 local unions including SEIU (2015, 721, CIR and more), UAW Region 6, and Public Defenders Local 148.

A vision for the future

Ysabel’s campaign in CD14 has the potential to be a game changer for DSA-LA and the left more broadly in Los Angeles. A sturdy coalition between the progressive grass roots and organized labor has been the dream of socialist organizers since the 20th century. If we succeed in building a movement that supports not just workers in unions but the entire working class, Los Angeles can be transformed into a city of and for workers. 

Nothing is set in stone, however. Building that coalition will take countless hours of work from DSA members, union staff, and rank and file members. More establishment labor unions will also have to continue to take chances on left candidates, not just against historically corrupt incumbents like Kevin De Leon. Of course, we still need to prove the concept and ensure Ysabel Jurado wins in CD14 again! 

Donate to Ysabel Jurado’s campaign. 

Volunteer to work on her campaign here. 

Silicon Valley DSA is enthusiastically phonebanking and canvassing on weekends for two endorsed candidates in the November 5 election.

Lissette Espinosa Garnica for City Council 

In Redwood City we are working to re-elect Lissette Espinosa Garnica for City Council District 3. They are Redwood city's first open non-binary City Council member and  a former member of the SVDSA chapter committee [WHAT COMMITTEE?]. They have fought for rent control and a Council Gaza ceasefire resolution, and with community organizations to oppose gentrification. Lissette is also the first City Council member to advocate to establish a community land trust for the Ohlone peoples of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Another thing that makes their campaign unique is their position on criminal justice. Noting the disproportionate number of Latine youth in jails, beside doing the usual town hall on the issue Lissette supports the PACE plan (Purposeful, Action, Creation, Engagement) which promotes a “bike life movement” for young people. You may view the other parts of her plan here.

Donate to Lissette Espinosa Garnica.

Volunteer for Lissette Espinosa Garnica

Sally Lieber for Santa Clara County Supervisor

In Santa Clara we have endorsed  Sally Lieber for the District 5 open seat on the County Board of Supervisors. Sally has previously served in the State Assembly, Mountain View City Council, and on the State Board of Equalization. As a badge of honor, she is opposed by the California Apartment Association, which has given her opponent over $170,000. Lieber’s priorities for Supervisor include addressing homelessness and affordable housing, health care and mental health. As housing the unhoused relies on a combined county and city effort, Sally's election would be a great help to us all. Sally is a fierce advocate for renters and tenants and has supported rent control.

One area within District 5, Stanford University, is unique. Here the role of County Supervisor can help shape the university’s use permit. Stanford is the largest landholder in the county, and has an outsized impact on housing, rent and development. One of the community demands addressed to Stanford is that in its $9 billion yearly budget, Stanford provide housing in proportion to the new people that university development will bring in. 

Donate to Sally Lieber

Volunteer for Sally Lieber

I spent three days in early October in Reno, Nevada under the auspices of Seed the Vote, volunteering as a canvasser for the Harris-Walz campaign. Having canvassed in many campaigns over many years my expectations were low. I imagined I’d mostly knock on the doors of empty houses and apartments. That expectation was fulfilled. 

Since our lists were of low-propensity voters, I also guessed when I did find people home I’d encounter large gaps where political knowledge should be. This too proved true.  My personal goal was modest:  stop 2024 in the United States from becoming 1933 in Germany (see my earlier California Red article).  I am less enthusiastic about the people I’m urging everyone to vote for than the historical function they will perform if elected: stopping the ascent of fascism. 

Over seventy-two hours I had about ten actual conversations, including a couple potentially meaningful ones, and one honest-to-god conversion moment.  I’m reporting here on three of the more interesting interactions, which occurred on the first day while trudging in ninety-degree desert heat from place to place in a working class suburb.  

Conversation One:  John, the nice Trumper*

You remember during the first years of the Trump administration when pundits and shellshocked naifs urged us all to reach out to uncles and nieces and former friends on the other side and “just talk” and then we’d find out how much we all really had in common? I found one in a trailer park rental complex, a tall, gaunt white seventy-nine-year-old named John. 

When I told him I was a volunteer for the Harris campaign he asked if we could “just talk”, and told me he’s going to vote for Trump no matter what, but he wanted to hear what I had to say, because he doesn’t know what’s happened to this country that people can’t just talk with one another, and is that OK? I agreed to his terms. With each point I made (protection of the American Care Act, which Trump tried to repeal; Trump’s tax cuts for the rich, which meant less money in the federal budget for the needs of everyone else; his declaration that on Day One he’d be a dictator, etc.) John had a ready answer, none of which corresponded with any known reality, and a bottom line—“I trust him to do the right thing.”

When I left he said we’d given each other something to think about and politely thanked me for the discussion. This reception sharply contrasted with ones I received from other Trump supporters, the most civil of which was another old white guy who told me to leave so that he wouldn’t have to insult me. (On the opposite extreme, one of my canvassing partners was told through a smart doorbell to “get the fuck off my property and take your sacks of shit with you.”)

Conversation Two:  The anarchists

In front of many homes in this neighborhood motorcycle, bicycle and car parts decorated the dusty yard; this was no exception.  When I told Aurora, a thirty something Latina, I was there to ask for her vote for Harris she stepped out from behind the screen door onto the wooden porch and engaged. She said she couldn’t vote for Harris because she hadn’t distinguished her policy from Biden’s on Palestine, where United States bombs have been involved in an ongoing genocide. I surprised her by agreeing with the need for a ceasefire and withdrawing US military aid to Israel until that happens. But, I said, Trump would be no better on the issue and probably worse. Just as she was expanding her voting prohibition from Harris to all Democrats a voice said, “Behind you.” 

A man about the same age as Aurora walked up with a machine part in his hand. We introduced ourselves and continued the conversation. Trevor repeated what Aurora had said, adding that he could no longer vote for Democrats after the way the party had treated Bernie; they’re as corrupt as the Republicans. I said I was a Bernie supporter too and a DSA member, and while the corruption characterization is true of the neoliberal half of the Democratic Party, the other half is made up of labor, women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights and environmental groups and sometimes it’s possible to get some progressive things done; meanwhile that’s completely impossible with the Republicans. 

I said that what we’ve been talking about is only part of the picture; every US president is imperialist-in-chief internationally and it’s a mistake to think they can easily be persuaded to act differently. But there’s also the national side of the job, which involves important functions like appointments—to the courts and lesser-known agencies like the National Labor Relations Board, which can have an enormous impact on the working class, our rights, and daily life in the country. They listened but seemed unmoved.

I pulled out my trump card (sorry); under a Democratic administration there’s at least the room to move to protest destructive policies like Israel and Gaza. If Trump gets into office along with a Republican Congress, it’s going to be a police state this time around; things could look like Nazi Germany and much harder to mount any resistance. Aurora and Trevor nodded, like they had thought about this before, but didn’t comment on it.

Then Trevor said, “This is off to the side from what we’re talking about, but what do you think about no parties? Parties are how we have these problems.” Putting on my labor history hat, I said, “That’s what the Industrial Workers of the World wanted over a hundred years ago. Society would be run by workers’ committees, elected in each workplace. Their representatives would go to assemblies where decisions would be made.” He nodded.  I said, “But unless you can tell me how we do that before November fifth….” He laughed. 

Then he said that he knew of things that were going on that might “take Trump out” before Election Day. I asked what he meant. He said he couldn’t talk about it, but when that happened he hoped Kennedy could get back into the race and win. At this point I decided the conversation had achieved all its potential. We parted on friendly if inconclusive terms.

When I reported on this event with one of my canvassing partners she said, “Hunh, that’s different. Usually they kill the Kennedy and then someone else gets elected.” 

Conversation Three: The truck driver

There’s no telling beforehand what issue might resonate with someone. Social Security typically works best for older people. But not always.  At first, the twenty-seven year old man, Juan, who came out to the porch after my canvassing partner Ralph and I knocked told us he had no intention to vote; politics didn’t matter; it’s all the same no matter who’s elected. 

I said, “I assume you work for a living?” He said yes. What do you do? I’m a truck driver. You pay into Social Security? He nodded. I said, I’m retired, and I’m on Social Security. You’ve heard that they say Social Security might run out of money at some point down the road? He nodded again. I’m guessing you’d like to collect that money back that you’ve been putting into it?  I had his attention. 

I spoke about how Social Security is funded:  payroll taxes. Workers pay in on their wages, and employers pay in a matching amount. But only up to $170,000 a year; anything over that is no longer subject to Social Security taxes. This is what puts Social Security in danger down the road: the many ways rich people have to get around paying their fair share of taxes, including this one. All we have to do is raise the cap so that rich people continue to pay in after $170,000 on all the money they make and Social Security will continue to be here for you, I said. 

So who is better on this, and does it make a difference? We know that Trump won’t do that. In his first term he didn’t raise, he cut taxes for the rich. Kamala Harris wants to return taxes on the rich and corporations to higher levels. If you want to keep Social Security vote for Harris. So what do you think?, asked my partner Ralph. Juan smiled slightly: “You convinced me,” he said, and I could tell he meant it.

An encouraging sign

The three days in the hot sun were exhausting, but we were well-supported by our Seed the Vote organizers, who met with us each morning, gave us our lists, supplied us with water, phone batteries and snacks, and met again at the end of the day to debrief. One recurrent story gave some anecdotal hope for a victory margin in one cohort against Trump—and that’s what it was, less a vote for Harris and more an anti-Trump vote. 

We heard this from people on the second day. One, a flight attendant in a more middle class suburb, told me she and her husband had been lifelong Republicans. But the craziness of MAGA plus persuasion from their two daughters, who had gone off to universities and come home politically transformed, put them over the edge. Now she was going to canvass for Harris, despite “some disagreements” that we didn’t get into. 

The other, a retired architect in a very upscale neighborhood, spoke with my wife about his disenchantment with the Republican Party under Trump. He was an educated and cultured man, and couldn’t stand the lies and the vulgarities. He was going to vote the straight Democratic ticket.  The seven people in our pod of canvassers had a number of similar stories from anti-MAGA ex-Republicans.

I haven’t seen any polling numbers among the old country club Republican ruling class set. Historically, ascendent fascism initially repels, and then reels in this demographic. It seems, however, from these encounters, and the growing number of Cheney types opposed to Trump, that the historic pattern might be abrogated here. We can hope. 

*All the names are changed.

Intro/Disclaimer

As socialists, we believe that it’s important to contextualize the choices on our election ballots. Who are these candidates and how did they build power? What are the dynamics of the races they’re running in? Will their priorities build socialism, or at least help California’s working class? Now you may have noticed we’ve written a lot for some of these races. That’s by design. We hope this guide will function as an educational tool to understand what it takes to bring working class power to the state, as well as help you fill out your ballot.

DSA’s endorsements are special. They require a chapter’s whole membership to vote to endorse a candidate, and an endorsement includes a commitment for the chapter to devote time and resources to that campaign. Otherwise, candidates named in the guide are simply recommendations. The candidate might not call themself or be a socialist, but there are planks of their platform we believe will materially benefit the working class – especially in comparison to other candidates in their race.

We’ve chosen not to make recommendations in races where no candidates are progressive. We’ve got to keep building power to take on these forces of capitalism, and we must keep on organizing to make sure these candidates have viable challengers in the future. That being said, there are some races with candidates extremely worth voting for, and in many down ballot contests, your vote and the votes of your friends and family can make a big difference in our collective lives.

We’ve also chosen to focus only on Democrat vs Democrat races (as well as statewide propositions). Where Democrats are running only against Republicans, there’s no need to issue recommendations, as we would never consider recommending a Republican. Intraparty contests are where distinctions between the left and the center come to the forefront.

While this voter guide only focuses on federal- and state-level races and ballot measures, we’d like to plug local candidates endorsed by DSA chapters in California:

DSA Los Angeles:
Jillian Burgos for Los Angeles City Council D2
Ysabel Jurado for Los Angeles City Council D14
Karla Griego for LAUSD Board D5
Konstantine Anthony for Burbank City Council
Mike Van Gorder for Burbank City Council

East Bay DSA:
Jovanka Beckles for State Senate D7
Melvin Willis for Richmond City Council D1
Claudia Jimenez for Richmond City Council D6
Sasha Ritzie-Hernandez for Oakland School Board D5
Right to Housing Slate for Berkeley Rent Board

DSA San Francisco:
Dean Preston for San Francisco Board of Supervisors D5
Jackie Fielder for San Francisco Board of Supervisors D9

San Diego DSA:
Erin Evans for San Diego County Board of Education D4
Yes on San Diego County Measure G

Silicon Valley DSA:
Lissette Espinoza-Garnica for Redwood City Council D3
Sally Lieber for Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors D5

Sacramento DSA:
Dr. Flo Cofer for Sacramento Mayor

Cheat Sheet

Ballot Measures

Proposition 2 – Yes

Proposition 3 – Yes

Proposition 4 – Yes

Proposition 5 – Yes

Proposition 6 – Yes

Proposition 32 – Yes

Proposition 33 – Yes

Proposition 34 – No

Proposition 35 – No recommendation

Proposition 36 – No

Congress

House District 12 – Lateefah Simon

House District 16 – No recommendation

House District 34 – David Kim

House District 37 – No recommendation

State Senate

Senate District 7 – Jovanka Beckles

Senate District 9 – Marisol Rubio

Senate District 35 – No recommendation

State Assembly

Assembly District 14 – Margot Smith

Assembly District 19 – David Lee

Assembly District 23 – No recommendation

Assembly District 26 – Tara Sreekrishnan

Assembly District 50 – Robert Garcia

Assembly District 52 – No recommendation

Assembly District 54 – John Yi

Assembly District 57 – Sade Elhawary

---

Ballot Initiatives

Proposition 2 – Yes

Background:

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits.

Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond.

Supporters include California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers AssociationCalifornia Labor Federation, Alameda County Office of Education, Association of California School Administrators, California Builders Alliance, California Chamber of Commerce, California Retired Teachers Association, Community College League of California, League of Women Voters of California, Los Angeles Unified School District

Opponents listed are Brian Jones, Assembly member and former candidate for CA governor, who opposes the cost of repayment and the additional costs incurred by local school districts as they fund their required 50% share of costs.

The bonds can cover the costs of new and past projects. In addition to the benefits listed in the above ballot summary, the primary beneficiaries of bond-financed construction are investors who earn interest on the bonds, construction companies and construction workers.

CTA and California Building Industry Association are the major funders.

Polling currently shows strong majority support, with a recent California Elections & Public Policy poll showing 54% support. 

Analysis:

Although bond financing (as opposed to allocating tax-based general fund revenues) is not the ideal way to fund public needs programs due to the interest costs that accrue to finance capital, this initiative raises substantial monies for educational facilities that are essential public goods of benefit to the working class, so we recommend support. 

Proposition 3 – Yes

Background:

Amends the California Constitution to recognize a fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race, removing language stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

This is the second attempt to repeal the notorious Proposition 8, originally passed in 2008, which placed a prohibition on LGBTQ marriage in the California state Constitution that was nullified by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could be subject to reconsideration.

A variety of liberal elected officials, LGBTQ and civil rights organizations support Prop 3, including the California Democratic Party, and ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, California Chamber of Commerce, Equality California, Human Rights Campaign, League of Women Voters of California, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and Trans Latina Coalition.

The opponents are right-wing, homophobic elected officials and organizations including California Capitol Connection, California Family Council, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, Freedom in Action, Real Impact. 

A California Public Policy Institute (PPIC) poll September 11th had the initiative leading with 68% of the vote.

Analysis:

Prop 8, narrowly passed in 2008, made gay marriage illegal in California. Although it was later ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, the California Constitution technically still says same-sex couples cannot marry, and if the conservative U.S. Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, LGBTQ+ Californians could be in trouble. Prop 3 would overturn Prop 8 and strike the state constitution’s gay marriage ban. There isn’t much else we need to say about this; vote yes.

Proposition 4 – Yes

Background:

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits.

The bond measure has been endorsed by the California Labor Federation, IBEW Local 569, Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council. Katelyn Roedner Sutter, state director of the California Environmental Defense Fund.

Proposition 4 is opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which said, "These bonds will be paid by people decades from now that didn’t even get to vote for their authorization."[5]

Proposition 4 would require that 40% of the bond revenue be used to fund activities that benefit communities with lower incomes or that are affected by environmental changes or disasters. It would also require the secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to publish a list of programs and projects on the agency's public website, and would require the report to list the project's location, objective, status, anticipated outcomes, total cost, amount of bond funding, and any matching funds. The costs to publish the report would be covered by the bond revenue.

The PPIC poll shows 65% support.

Analysis:

Like Proposition 2, this infrastructure bond will incur interest costs and accrue profits to finance capital. Nevertheless, we recommend support since the spending would provide significant revenue for environmental infrastructure targeted in significant part to benefit the working class.

Proposition 5 – Yes (Endorsed by CA DSA)

Background:

Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements.

The amount of bonds would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes.

Passing Prop 5 will make it easier for California cities and counties to invest in local housing and infrastructure by lowering the voting requirements to raise property taxes and by publicly funding new housing. Prop 5 will empower working Californians to find solutions for their housing needs without having to wait for corporate landlords to decide that new buildings will be profitable enough.

Proposition 5 is part of CA DSA’s priority campaign - ARCH. CA DSA chapters are organizing canvasses, tabling and digital communications in support of Prop 5. The campaign toolkit is here.

Supporters include the California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, ACLU of Southern California, California State Association of Counties, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California YIMBY, League of Women Voters of California.

The California Public Policy Institute poll had Prop 5 at 49%.

Analysis:

One of the many onerous constitutional provisions that serves as a barrier to progress in California, affordable housing bond measures currently require two-thirds of the vote in order to pass. Prop 5, one of two ballot measures endorsed by California DSA this election as part of our ARCH campaign, would lower this threshold to 55%.

While of course in an ideal world we’d like to see even less stand in the way of affordable housing projects, passing this constitutional amendment would be a much-needed step toward seriously tackling the housing crisis that permeates California and affects Californians across the state. Vote yes and help your chapter organize for ARCH. Check out our campaign toolkit to get started!

Proposition 6 – Yes

Background:

Eliminates constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude for incarcerated persons. Legislative constitutional amendment.

Per the Anti-Recidivism Coalition: “More than 94,000 Californians are currently enslaved in state prison. African Americans account for 28% of the prison population despite making up less than 6% of California's overall population. Although no courts explicitly order forced labor as a part of criminal sentencing, it's standard practice to force incarcerated people to perform labor."

Supporters include the California Labor Federation, ACLU of California, ACLU of Southern California, Abolish Slavery National Network, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, California Legislative Black Caucus, League of Women Voters of California.

The CA PPIC poll had Prop 6 with 46% support.

Analysis:

Despite what many may think, slavery is still legal in the United States. The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery for all except those who have committed a crime. As a result, we see incarcerated Californians forced into labor, often placed in dangerous situations like fighting fires while making only a few dollars a day. This of course disproportionately impacts working-class and Black Californians. Slavery is never justified, no matter what crime one has committed. Vote yes to put slavery in California where it belongs, in the dustbin of history.

Proposition 32 – Yes

Background:

Raises the California minimum wage to $18/hour.

Existing law requires annual increases to California’s minimum wage until it has reached $15.00 per hour for all businesses on January 1, 2023. This measure extends these annual increases ($1.00 per year) until minimum wage — currently, $15.00 per hour for businesses with 26 or more employees, and $14.00 per hour for smaller businesses — reaches $18.00 per hour. Thereafter, as existing law requires, the minimum wage will annually adjust for inflation. In periods of decreased economic activity, or general fund deficit, the governor may suspend annual increases up to two times, thereby extending the timeline for reaching $18.00 per hour.

The official fiscal impact study is vague to the point of questionable utility: Unclear change in annual state and local tax revenues, likely between a loss of a couple of billion dollars and a gain of a few hundred million dollars. Increase in annual state and local government costs likely between half a billion dollars and a few billion dollars.

Supporters include the California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, California Teachers Association, ACLU of Southern California, League of Women Voters of California.

The PPIC poll shows 50% support.

Analysis:

At $16 per hour, California boasts the third-highest minimum wage in the country, behind only Washington, D.C. and Washington state. But this still isn’t a living wage in most places. Many cities in California have already raised their minimum wages higher, but we can do better at a statewide level. Prop 32 would increase the California minimum wage to $18 per hour, effective January 2025 for large businesses and January 2026 for small businesses. Vote yes on Prop 32, but let’s keep pushing for an even higher minimum wage beyond this.

Proposition 33 – Yes (Endorsed by CA DSA)

Background:

This is the The Justice for Renters Act. Passing this act will allow local governments to protect residents by strengthening rent control. It would repeal a 1995 law (known as “Costa-Hawkins”) that forbids rent control on new buildings AND incentivizes evictions. It permits landlords to raise the rent an unlimited amount when a tenant leaves (or is forced out). Voting YES on Prop 33 would allow local governments to strengthen rent control, reduce inflation in housing prices, and keep tenants in their homes and off the streets.

Prop 33 is the centerpiece of CA DSA’s ARCH campaign, as chapters organize canvases, work with DSA endorsed candidate campaigns, conduct tabling and digital communications. 

Supporters include Senator Bernie Sanders, California Democratic Party, California Nurses Association, ACLU of Southern California, Americans for Democratic Action - Southern California, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Housing is a Human Right, Pomona United Stable Housing Coalition, Social Security Works - California, Veterans' Voices. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is the sponsor.

The opposition is led by the California Apartment Association, the landlord lobby, which is spending tens of millions of dollars in mailers, digital and TV ads lying about the impact of Prop 33. 

Other opponents include the California Republican Party, some Democratic officials such as state Senator Tony Atkins and Assembly member Buffy Wicks, California YIMBY, California Chamber of Commerce, and California Business Roundtable.

This initiative fight is a clear class struggle campaign between renters and landlords, between workers and capitalists.

The PPIC poll shows 51% support.

Analysis:

Prop 33 is the other ballot measure endorsed by California DSA as part of our ARCH campaign. It’s the third attempt, following Prop 10 in 2018 and Prop 21 in 2020, to overturn the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a 1995 law that imposed strict restrictions on rent control ordinances and outright banned vacancy control. It will take a multi-pronged approach to solve California’s housing crisis, including building more affordable housing and protecting tenants. Prop 5 helps address the former, while Prop 33 helps address the latter. We must put a stop to egregious rent increases if we want to prevent displacement, especially in a state like California where 30% of renters spend more than half their income on rent. Prop 33 would also put a stake through the heart of private equity firms’ attempts to financialize single-family homes. Vote yes and help your chapter organize for ARCH. Check out our campaign toolkit to get started!

Proposition 34 – No

Background:

In retaliation for Prop 33 and other efforts to expand rent control by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the California Apartment Association (landlords) has spent $30 million dollars to prevent the foundation from being able to spend money in the future on initiative campaigns.

Opponents include the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Housing is a Human Right, and League of Women Voters of California. Even some media editorials have opposed this revenge effort.

The PPIC poll shows 53% support.

Analysis:

Prop 34 centers around the controversial AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit that provides HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and advocacy services but has also spent significant amounts of money to fund rent control ballot measures across the state. For example, AHF has spent $34m thus far in support of Prop 33, making up 87% of the measure’s funding. Still, this is much less than the $68m spent against Prop 33, primarily by the California Apartment Association (i.e. landlords) and Association of Realtors, and it’s a relative drop in the bucket of AHF’s nearly $2 billion in annual revenue. But landlords and real estate aren’t satisfied with merely outspending AHF; they also want to restrict its ability to fund these measures at all, especially as it has scored some local victories.

We should be clear that AHF has its issues. While we appreciate its support for rent control, its own housing practices have been controversial, leading some to label it a slumlord. But we reject this attempt to single out AHF among other healthcare nonprofits, especially given the clear motives behind the measure — 99% of Prop 34’s funding comes from the California Apartment Association, and the measure is endorsed by the California Republican Party. Vote no.

Proposition 35 – No recommendation

Background:

Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, currently set to expire in 2026, which the state uses to pay for health care services for low-income families with children, seniors, people with disabilities, and other groups covered by the Medi-Cal program. Requires revenues to be used only for specified Medi-Cal services, including primary and specialty care, emergency care, family planning, mental health, and prescription drugs. Prohibits revenues from being used to replace other existing Medi-Cal funding. Caps administrative expenses and requires independent audits of programs receiving funding.

Supporters include California Dental Association, California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Opponents include California Alliance of Retired Americans, Healthy California Now, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, League of Women Voters of California.

Supporters are mostly representatives of the healthcare industry in California and benefit from how the spending would be mandated under prop 35.

Opponents argue that Prop 35 would lock in funding allocations that favor doctors and hospitals over children, seniors and community health workers. It would also tie the hands of lawmakers who must already contend with balancing budget priorities each year. 

The PPIC poll shows 63% support.

Analysis:

Healthcare advocates are somewhat split on this initiative. On the one hand, Prop 35 locks in essential funding for health services by guaranteeing that money raised through a tax on managed care organizations (HMO health plans) cannot be diverted to other purposes by the Legislature. Yet some community health programs, services for seniors, and other currently funded services are excluded from that guarantee. Major healthcare industry institutions that wrote the initiative and are funding the campaign have earmarked the revenues to go primarily to their programs. Given the need to ensure well-funded health services and the concerns over how this initiative allocates the funding, we are unable to come to a decisive recommendation. 

Proposition 36 – No

Background:

This initiative exploits voters’ fear of crime and the pandemic-related spike in retail theft to re-institute onerous provisions of the carceral state that Prop 47 sought to reform.

• Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs, including fentanyl, and for thefts under $950—both currently chargeable only as misdemeanors—with two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, as applicable. Defendants who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete treatment can have charges dismissed.

• Increases sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes.

• Increased prison sentences may reduce savings that currently fund mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims; any remaining savings may be used for new felony treatment programs.

Vera Institute of Justice, which opposes Proposition 36, said, "First, Prop 36 would reverse the state’s gains in reducing the dangerous, racially unequal, and unconstitutionally crowded prison population (since 2014, California’s prison population has dropped 28 percent with reduced racial disparities). Second, it would dry up funding for much-needed services, including employment assistance for those coming out of jail, victims’ services, and housing. Finally, it risks making California less safe, as programs funded by Prop 47 have reduced recidivism without increasing violent crime.

Supporters include a bi-partisan group of elected officials, the Republican Party, Home Depot, Target, Walgreens, Walmart, Inc., California District Attorneys Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Retailers Association, California State Sheriffs' Association, American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association, California Business Roundtable, California Chamber of Commerce, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Grocers Association, California NAIOP, California State Association of Counties, Crime Victims United of California, howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the League of California Cities.

The PPIC poll shows 71% support for Prop 36.

Analysis:

As media and police work hand-in-hand to raise fear mongering about crime to new highs, despite what the data actually show about crime rates in California, right-wing interests have capitalized on this mania by introducing Prop 36, which would overturn criminal justice reforms passed in 2014 with Prop 47 that aimed to reduce California’s bloated prison population. While the measure is mainly pushed by Republicans and opposed by the California Democratic Party and most Democratic officials, including Gavin Newsom, a number of Democrats, including the mayors of San Francisco (London Breed), San Diego (Todd Gloria), and San Jose (Matt Mahan) support it. Polls also show widespread support for this initiative. Still, we must do our best to fight against these reactionary forces and their attempts to roll back years of progress and return to the failed policies of the past. Vote no.

---

U.S. House of Representatives

CD-12 – Lateefah Simon

District 12 and its predecessors, representing the heart of the East Bay stretching from Berkeley through Oakland to San Leandro, have a storied history of representation from some of California’s strongest progressives. Barbara Lee has been the incumbent since 1998 and was preceded by Ron Dellums, a founding member and former vice chair of DSA, who was the first non-incumbent socialist elected to Congress in the postwar era. BART Director Lateefah Simon is Lee’s anointed successor; other prominent potential candidates, who are generally to Simon’s right, thankfully declined to run and cleared the way for her.

In line with expectations, Simon easily crushed her opposition in the primary. She earned 56% of the vote, with her general election opponent, Jennifer Tran, receiving only 15%. Tran, a professor and president of the Oakland Vietnamese Chamber of Commerce, is running decidedly to Simon’s right. Tran is also dirtying her hands in local politics, accusing Oakland mayor Sheng Thao of corruption over her ties to the locally powerful Duong family and attempting to tie Thao to Simon, despite the fact that the Duongs donated over $13k to Tran’s campaign this year and have close ties to her father. Tran is clearly bad news but thankfully will be rewarded with a landslide loss in November.

While unlikely to match the Squad’s voting record, Simon will probably lie somewhere around the next tier below, carrying on Lee’s legacy and certainly making her worth voting for. Still, though, with this district being home to over a thousand DSA members, the most in California, we hope for an opportunity to elect a socialist again in the future.

CD-16 – No recommendation

The clown-car race District 16 saw in the primary was one of the most entertaining – for political junkies. At the same time, with no progressive candidate having a shot of reaching the top two, it was a depressing watch for socialists and progressives, though this certainly also made it less stressful than it would otherwise be. Of the whopping 11 candidates, three were seen as clear frontrunners from the start: former mayor of San Jose Sam Liccardo, Assemblymember Evan Low and Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian. So strong was these candidates’ frontrunner status that the race almost produced an extremely rare three-way general election. Initial results had Low and Simitian tied at exactly 30,249 votes each (17% of the vote, behind Liccardo’s 21%), which according to state law would see both progress to the general election in addition to Liccardo. But the Liccardo camp, believing their chances were better in a two-way contest, filed for a recount, which produced a five-vote lead for Low over Simitian, eliminating the latter.

Liccardo is decidedly aligned with local political moderates. He won his first election for mayor by a devastatingly close 1.5-point margin over now-state Senator Dave Cortese, who was the labor and progressive candidate in that election in the face of then-incumbent Chuck Reed’s pension reforms and Liccardo’s support for them. Liccardo has remained aligned with Silicon Valley business interests.

On the surface, Low might seem like a more progressive candidate by comparison, given he has the backing of the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC and the California Labor Federation. But closer inspection reveals he is in no way a friend of the left. He’s a staunch ally of big tech and has leaned into the pro-police lane; he’s endorsed by local and statewide police unions.

He’s also fervently pro-Israel and even once tweeted “🖕 @DemSocialists” in response to DSA’s statement on the October 7th attacks. By comparison, Liccardo, while obviously no anti-Zionist, struck a more tempered tone on the conflict, expressing “very serious concerns about how the war has been conducted” in a March forum. Low’s strange assertion that his “position on Israel is progressive and is based on the lived experiences I’ve observed and share in solidarity” and, per Jewish Insider, “argued that perspective as an openly gay Asian American will make him a unique ally at the federal level”, suggest he’d be a Ritchie Torres clone if elected to Congress; indeed, Torres is one of the top endorsements he touts on his website.

It’s clear that neither candidate here deserves the support of socialists and progressives, which is why we’ve issued no recommendation. If you’re a District 16 resident, we don’t envy the decision you’ll have to make.

CD-34 – David Kim

Third time’s the charm? This Los Angeles district, covering Downtown LA, Koreatown, Chinatown, Northeast LA, and East Los Angeles, is among the most progressive congressional districts in the country. For the past four years, it has hosted a battle between David Kim, a grassroots leftist Korean-American attorney, and Jimmy Gomez, a staunch ally of organized labor in Los Angeles. After surprising Gomez in 2020 with a shoestring Andrew-Yang inspired left, universal basic income campaign that came within single digits, Kim ran again in 2022 and lost by a mere 1.5 points. Kim is a DSA member and regular in the LA grassroots progressive protest scene, describing himself as a democratic socialist and having sought DSA-LA’s endorsement in 2022, and has built a coalition of outsider leftist voters, Asian-Americans, and others dissatisfied with the Democratic establishment.

Since his initial scare in 2020, Gomez has scrambled to shore up his left credentials, going out of his way to align himself with the Squad, authoring and co-sponsoring left congressional priorities like Medicare for All, Green New Deal, eviction moratoriums, and legislation to tax the rich, even voting against the most recent proposed military budget and immigration enforcement. But he continues to take real estate, banking and healthcare industry money, and resisted cosponsoring Cori Bush’s ceasefire resolution, although he did eventually call for a ceasefire himself. Gomez is okay, but he’s not good enough, and you have a great alternative to vote for in David Kim.

CD-37 – No recommendation

This is the only race on this list that isn’t a Democrat vs Democrat contest — it’s actually a Democrat vs independent contest. Facing no major primary opposition, one-term incumbent Sydney Kamlager-Dove cruised to the general election with 72% of the vote, while three candidates battled for the second spot: conservative Democrat Adam Carmichael, Workers World Party leader John Parker, and independent Trotskyist Juan Rey. Rey, a Metro train mechanic who’s affiliated with the Working Class Party (which doesn’t have ballot access in California), itself a project of Spark, a Trotskyist group, beat out the other two with 10% of the vote, likely aided by the small population of Republicans in the district seeing no Republican on the ballot and logically opting for the candidate with no party by their name.

Kamlager-Dove is one of the better members of Congress; she co-sponsors progressive priorities such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, and her voting record places her just inside the top 20. Still, she could do better. Her record on Palestine is more lacking, and she didn’t sign on to Cori Bush’s ceasefire resolution. She takes corporate money and did beat out a DSA member, former Culver City mayor Daniel Lee, to win her seat in 2022. As a result, casting a protest vote for Rey is an entirely valid decision here. Still, with limited information available about Rey, and wanting to be wary of sect-affiliated candidates, we feel it’s most prudent to make no recommendation. You’re well within your rights to vote either way.

---

State Senate

SD 07 – Jovanka Beckles

District 7, stretching along the coastal East Bay from Rodeo to Oakland, is one of the most progressive in the state, and with incumbent Nancy Skinner term-limited, it’s one of the left’s best pickup opportunities. East Bay DSA has endorsed AC Transit Board director and former Richmond City Council member Jovanka Beckles. She’s received the rare endorsement of Bernie Sanders, as well as a number of labor unions, including the California Teachers Association, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, Teamsters Joint Council 7 (she herself is a Teamster), and a number of progressive elected officials and organizations such as the California Working Families Party and Our Revolution.

Having eked out a spot in the general election with 18% of the vote amid a competitive primary race for second that included Oakland City Council member Dan Kalb, California Labor Federation president Kathryn Lybarger, and former Assembly member Sandré Swanson (whose endorsement she’s since earned), Beckles faces a strong opponent in Berkeley mayor Jesse Arreguín, who won 32% of the vote in the primary. Though initially elected as a progressive in 2016, Arreguín has shifted significantly to the right during his tenure as mayor, for which he’s been rewarded with independent expenditures supporting him from corporate and landlord interests such as Uber, PG&E, and the California Apartment Association. He’s also endorsed by the California Democratic Party, Sierra Club, unions such as the Building Trades Council and United Farm Workers, and a slew of elected officials, including incumbent Senator Nancy Skinner and Vetoer-In-Chief Gavin Newsom.

Arreguín has tried to portray the race as one between two progressives, painting himself as the progressive who can deliver results. In reality, the election is illustrative of the progressive-moderate divide that permeates East Bay politics. This is demonstrated not least by the difference between Beckles’s base of grassroots contributions and Arreguín’s corporate cash, as well as issues such as Israel’s genocide in Gaza, amid which Arreguín has worked successfully to block a ceasefire resolution on the Berkeley City Council while Beckles is outspoken in favor of the Palestinian cause.

SD 09 – Marisol Rubio

The most heartening thing about this race is that no matter the outcome, term-limited Steve Glazer, one of California’s most notoriously conservative Democrats, will no longer be a state senator. But while anyone would be better than Glazer, Assembly member Tim Grayson, the favorite to win this seat, unfortunately won’t be that much better. Despite representing a safely blue (albeit suburban) district, Grayson is one of the more centrist members of the state legislature. He finished first in the primary with 59% to San Ramon City Council member Marisol Rubio’s 40%; no Republicans were on the ballot but a couple received a handful of write-in votes.

Rubio, who challenged Glazer in 2020 and narrowly missed a spot in the general, therefore faces an uphill battle, and disappointingly, she narrowly missed out on an endorsement from the California Democratic Party (which requires 60% of delegates’ votes), though her first-place finish there is nevertheless impressive. Rubio does have the endorsement of a number of unions, including the California Teachers Association and SEIU California, climate and progressive organizations such as the Sierra Club and the California Working Families Party, and local Democratic clubs as well as the California Young Democrats. With hope that a general election environment favors her more than the low-turnout primary, you should cast your vote for Rubio.

SD 35 – No recommendation

Two candidates emerged from the eight-candidate primary race to succeed term-limited incumbent Steven Bradford, and we have reason enough to be uncomfortable about both candidates that we’ve made no recommendation here. Coming in first with 28% of the vote, former Representative Laura Richardson mounted a strong start to her comeback attempt, having left Congress over a decade ago. Richardson was double-bunked with fellow Representative Janice Hahn in 2012 and lost to Hahn in a landslide in the wake of numerous ethics controversies, for which she was “found guilty on seven counts of violating House rules by improperly pressuring her staff to campaign for her, destroying evidence and tampering with witness testimony.”

Initially, it seemed logical to support whoever was running against her, in this case former Compton City Council member Michelle Chambers, who finished just behind Richardson in the primary with 25%. That is, until allegations that Chambers called a Latino colleague’s son a racial slur resurfaced last month. An investigation cleared Chambers of wrongdoing, but two other colleagues have recanted their original claims that they did not hear her say the slur and called the investigation a “scam.”

With both sides hurling accusations of malfeasance at each other, this is a fight we’d rather stay out of, especially as neither candidate is running a particularly progressive campaign. That being said, going by politics alone, Richardson seems to be running to Chambers’ right; Chambers’ endorsements are indicative of a typical party- and labor-backed candidate, while Richardson touts the endorsements of several police unions, an obvious red flag. Still, despite indications that one candidate is politically worse than another, we have enough reason to formally keep out of this race and issue no recommendation.

---

State Assembly

AD 14 – Margot Smith

East Bay socialists who have been around for several years will no doubt remember the hotly contested 2018 race in this district’s predecessor between DSA-endorsed candidate Jovanka Beckles and Obama alum Buffy Wicks, in which Wicks ran a nasty campaign against Beckles and emerge narrowly victorious, helped by millions in funds from conservative and billionaire interests. Though Wicks has been among the better votes in the state Legislature, most haven’t forgiven her, and we can certainly expect better in this district, perhaps the most left-wing district in the state. She’ll coast to victory, having received 74% of the vote in the primary. But Margot Smith, who’s running a protest campaign on a progressive platform, including support for single-payer healthcare, tenants’ rights, and police reform, and who easily beat out a Republican with 17% of the vote to reach the top-two general election, certainly deserves your vote.

AD 19 – David Lee

Incumbent Phil Ting is term-limited in this district that covers the western, more suburban portions of San Francisco as well as Daly City. The frontrunner is Catherine Stefani, a landlord and former prosecutor who now sits on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, where she sits solidly on the pro-police “moderate” bloc—a 2021 analysis from the SF Chronicle identified her as by far the furthest right of the body, and she often cast lone votes against progressive legislation such as the city’s eviction moratorium. She’s endorsed by a large number of elected officials at the state and local elected officials, including notorious enemies of the left such as Mayor London Breed and reactionary DA Brooke Jenkins, as well as a number of labor unions and the California Labor Federation.

Having topped the primary field with 57% of the vote, Stefani is very likely to win the general election. Her opponent, who received 29% in the primary, is educator and non-profit leader David Lee. We’re inclined to believe that anyone is probably better than Stefani, and it does indeed appear that Lee is attempting to position himself to Stefani’s left. His endorsements include local progressives such as Jane Kim, Dean Preston, Mark Leno, San Francisco Rising, and the San Francisco Tenants Union, as well as a wide array of Asian-American political organizations, community leaders, and elected officials, including the incumbent, Ting. Assembling such a coalition among voters will be key if he hopes to defeat Stefani. But his political history is concerning — he previously ran as a moderate against progressive former Supervisor Eric Mar; it’s not clear how genuine his potential shift to the left might be.

We have reason to be wary of Lee and the extent of his commitment to progressive values. But given the primary results, it’s unlikely we’ll have the opportunity to find out. Still, given the clear gulf between the politics of his and Stefani’s candidacies, we recommend voting for Lee.

AD 23 – No recommendation

Incumbent Assembly member Marc Berman is facing an intra-party challenge in the form of Palo Alto Mayor Lydia Kou. Unlike your typical Democratic challenger, though, Kou is running a decidedly conservative campaign. Specifically, her campaign seems to revolve entirely around grievances over housing legislation that allows for more housing to be built in cities such as Palo Alto. In other words, she’s upset that her wealthy, exclusionary suburb might become a bit less exclusionary and see some slightly less wealthy people move in. If that’s not enough, her website also contains complaints about taxes and homeless people in true suburban conservative form.

It’s clear that Berman, a fairly standard Democrat, is the far more normal choice. But he also doesn’t have much in the way of progressive bona fides, and we’re concerned by things like his outspokenness in condemning pro-Palestine protesters at last year’s California Democratic Party convention. What’s more, given the large gulf in the two candidates’ primary performances — Berman won 57% of the vote to Kou’s 20% — the general election isn’t going to be competitive, so there isn’t much at stake here. Definitely don’t vote for Kou, but given this context, we aren’t issuing a recommendation in the race.

AD 26 – Tara Sreekrishnan

The open seat vacated by Evan Low attracted three Democrats, of which two advanced to the general election. Low’s handpicked successor, Patrick Ahrens, who currently serves as his district director, emerged from the primary in first with 34% of the vote. Ahrens is also more broadly the establishment favorite, having won the endorsements of the California Democratic Party and numerous elected officials. His general election opponent is Santa Clara County Board of Education member Tara Sreekrishnan, who received 27% of the primary vote. Her endorsements include a number of climate organizations like the Sierra Club, progressive state Senator Dave Cortese, and civil rights figure Dolores Huerta. Labor has hedged their bets in this race; both candidates were endorsed by the California Labor Federation and the South Bay Labor Council. Sreekrishnan has the California Federation of Teachers, California Nurses Association, and SEIU on her side, while Ahrens’s backers include the California Teachers Association, police unions, and firefighters’ unions, indicating something of a political divide.

A look at who’s spent on each candidate’s behalf is further illuminating. In the primary, Ahrens was the beneficiary of nearly half a million dollars in outside spending from Uber, the California Apartment Association (landlords), and PG&E. The $200k spent to support Sreekrishnan, on the other hand, mostly came from labor and Fund Her PAC, an organization supporting women running for office. A small portion of that spending also came from charter school interests, which is concerning but also confusing given that she received even more from educators’ unions and is endorsed by several educators’ unions.

The biggest red flag on Sreekrishnan’s end is her abstention on a ceasefire resolution passed in February by the Santa Clara County Board of Education. She did later apologize for this and announced her support for a ceasefire.

On the other hand, Ahrens is endorsed by the Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area, a pro-Israel group. He also touts the endorsement of Hindus for America; it’s notable that such a group is endorsing against a Hindu candidate and reflects the power of the Hindu nationalist lobby in the South Bay, a lobby Ahrens seemingly has ties to. With hesitation over some of the aforementioned concerns, we suggest you vote for Sreekrishnan over Ahrens.

AD 50 – Robert Garcia

This is the only race on the list where we recommended a candidate who didn’t finish in the top two. Progressive DeJonaé Shaw was on the losing end of a three-way primary battle among Democrats, narrowly coming in third with 28% of the vote. Educator and Etiwanda School Board member Robert Garcia, who comfortably finished in first with 42%, is the choice of the California Democratic Party, most labor unions, and prominent Democratic elected officials, including incumbent Assembly member Eloise Gómez Reyes, a progressive who’s now running for state Senate. With little in the way of issues listed on his website, it’s safe to assume he’ll probably be a reliable liberal vote in the state Legislature if elected. His endorsement from the California Legislative Progressive Caucus PAC is a promising sign.

Like Garcia, Fontana Unified School Board member Adam Perez, who edged out Shaw with 29% of the vote, doesn’t have a fleshed-out issues section on his website, but his list of endorsers also tells a story. His top backers include multiple statewide police unions, as well as other unions that lean more conservative such as building trades and firefighters, and elected officials such as conservative Dem stalwart Blanca Rubio. Interestingly, Shaw has also endorsed Perez; without knowing more about the background here, one might speculate there are personal political factors at play.

We never want to see a police-backed, conservative Democrat win and potentially lock down a seat for over a decade. Given this race’s potential to be close in the general election, we recommend you vote for Robert Garcia.

AD 52 – No recommendation

District 52 covers all the way from Eagle Rock to its east, to East Hollywood to its west (confusing, we know), Glendale to its north and East Los Angeles to its south (even more confusing). The area is currently represented by Wendy Carillo, who gave up her seat to get beat by DSA-LA endorsed candidate Ysabel Jurado in the Los Angeles City Council primary.

After a crowded primary, we have a faceoff between women’s rights advocate Jessica Caloza and justice advocate Franky Carrillo. Despite how wide open the field was, there seems to be very little room between the platforms of these two candidates, so we’re digging really deep into them and looking at their endorsers and their money. We’ve got Jessica Caloza who is coming from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office and has received huge chunks of change from the California Real Estate PAC, SoCal Edison, and other corporate donors amongst a share of unions and sitting California legislators. While her policy positions seem unimaginative to fine on paper, the donations seem to signal a continuation of our political status quo in Sacramento.

Carrillo’s personal story is extremely harrowing, having been framed for murder by a Los Angeles County sheriff and forced to spend 20 years in prison. He is a fierce advocate for criminal justice reform that is desperately needed locally and statewide, as a senior policy adviser for the LA Innocence Project. He cites endorsements from a variety of Los Angeles elected officials, including DSA-LA endorsed City Council member Eunisses Hernandez, Council member Marqueece Harris-Dawson, and LA County District Attorney George Gascón, as well as a smaller share of labor unions, which includes UNITE HERE 11. While we recommended Franky Carrillo in the primary election voter guide, since then some troubling details from sworn testimony within divorce court documents detail animal abuse and potential reckless management of firearms, as well as questions about whether he lives within AD 52. With these concerns, we’re issuing no recommendation.

AD 54 – John Yi

This is a classic race illustrating the politics of deep-blue Los Angeles’ status quo coalition. Looked at one way, it pits Mark Gonzalez, current LA County Democratic Party chair and thus machine-anointed successor to (as well as senior staffer for) outgoing seatholder Miguel Santiago, against a progressive, grassroots community organizer and environmentalist John Yi. Vote for the upstart organizer and throw a wrench in the Dem Party machine, open and shut, right?

Well to be honest, that probably gets you most of the way there. It’s worth digging a little bit deeper. Gonzalez, the CDP-anointed candidate certainly takes plenty of random business interest money – max donations from DoorDash, Cruise, “Fox Corporate Services” and the like. His career as LACDP chair is littered with complaints by progressive activists and accusations of maybe-not-quite-illegal-but-certainly-shady machine corruption. On the flip side, his biggest source of funding is from the many organized labor unions that have, along with the California Labor Federation, endorsed him – because his boss, and by extension Mark in office, have been among the most steadfast supporters of LA County organized labor.

John Yi’s website and platform seem to be a left dream - he explicitly called for repealing the Costa Hawkins and Ellis acts to protect renters, for massive investment in public transportation, and for statewide single payer healthcare. But digging a little deeper, Yi’s left grassroots history looks a little bit more like a different part of the status quo coalition – the nonprofit industrial complex. From 2012 to 2015, John Yi was interim national director of Parent Revolution, a pro-charter policy non-profit, which launched his career deeper into Los Angeles social justice nonprofits. 

Ultimately, we come down in favor of opposing the status quo labor-business machine and recommend voting for John Yi for his willingness to explicit champion the policy priorities of single payer healthcare, rent control, and mass transit, but socialists should always remember to dig a bit deeper into how these machines work, and think critically about why organized labor may be willing to stick with the candidates that may otherwise seem to us to be uninspiring Democratic Party hatchetmen.

AD 57 – Sade Elhawary

This race is to replace Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer who termed out and unsuccessfully sought election to LA City Council. This South and Southeast LA seat is open, and brings strong prospects from both the Black and Latino communities. 

We have realtor-and-police-endorsed Huntington Park City Councilmember Efren Martinez, who competed in this same race in 2020 and earned 42% while running on his pro-cop, reactionary platform against a relatively progressive incumbent. On top of loving cops, Efren was named with school board candidate Graciela Ortiz as defendants in a civil lawsuit that they were liable for the sexual misconduct of a campaign worker with a high school volunteer on Efren’s campaign to the local Democratic Party executive committee. 

Running against Martinez we have Community Coalition cadre Sade Elhawary. Sade has fundraising and support from labor unions, leftward organizations like WFP. Her platform indicates supporting a services oriented approach to addressing homelessness, while building more housing and strengthening renter protections. A progressive option to Efren’s reactionary platform, we recommend Sade Elhawary for Assembly District 57.

Upcoming Events

Wednesday, October 16 (5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Phonebank for Extreme Dean(In person at 1630 Haight)

Thursday, October 17 (5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Phonebank for Extreme Dean(In person at 1630 Haight)

Thursday, October 17 (6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.): Palestine Solidarity and Anti-Imperialist Working Group (Zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister)

Thursday, October 17 (7:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.): Labor Movie Night: Underground (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Friday, October 18 (12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.): Office Hours (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Friday, October 18 (3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.): No Appetite for Apartheid Canvass (24th St. and Bryant St.)

Saturday, October 19 (10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.): Extreme Dean Door Knock Mobilization (Meet in person at Raymond Kimbell Playground at 1901 Geary)

Sunday, October 20 (10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.): Extreme Dean Door Knock Mobilization (Meet at Boeddeker Park & Clubhouse Meeting Room at 246 Eddy)

Monday, October 21 (7:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.): Labor Board Meeting (Zoom)

Tuesday, October 22 (6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.): What is DSA? (In person at 518 Valencia)

Wednesday, October 23 (6:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.): Ecosocialist Monthly Meeting (Zoom and in person at 1916 McAllister)

Saturday, October 26 (11:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.): GOTV Unity Rally – Turn Out for Prop L, Prop 5, Jackie, and Dean! (In person at Duboce Park)

Saturday, October 26 (1:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.): Homelessness Working Group Outreach Training + Outreach (In person at 1916 McAllister)

Check out https://dsasf.org/events for more events and updates.

Events & Actions

Come Door Knock and Get Out the Vote with the Jackie Team!

We have just THREE WEEKS LEFT until election day! Now is a great time to jump in and help get Jackie Fielder elected!

•  Join one of our Get Out the Vote phone bank sessions Monday through Thursday at Jackie’s campaign office at 3389 26th St. from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
• Help out at our weekday mobilization this Thursday! We’ll be meeting at the campaign office at 3389 26th St. and heading out from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to knock on doors!
• Meet up with us at Garfield Square at 3100 26th St. from 10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. this Saturday to canvass for Jackie! You can RSVP for the Saturday mobilization here.

Volunteer with the Dean Team and Stack Votes in D5!

There are a TON of opportunities to get out the good word about Dean Preston’s re-election campaign this week!

• Come by our office at 1630 Haight Street any day of the week from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to chat and work on the campaign!
• Mobilize with the Dean Team in the Tenderloin this Sunday at Boeddeker Park at Taylor and Eddy from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. to do some door-knocking!

No Appetite for Apartheid in SF!

Inspired by long-standing Palestinian boycott tactics and the BDS call, the Palestine Solidarity Anti-Imperialist Working Group are canvassing local stores and asking them to pledge to become Apartheid-Free by dropping products from companies complicit in the genocide of Palestinians and colonization of Palestine. It’s time to turn up the heat on this apartheid regime and take apartheid off our plates!

Want to show your support? Sign our Apartheid-Free Pledge so business owners know how popular this movement is with their local customers. After signing the pledge, we would love to see you at any of our upcoming campaign strategy sessions and canvassing days. Check dsasf.org/events for updates.

Behind the Scenes

The Chapter Coordination Committee (CCC) regularly rotates duties among chapter members. This allows us to train new members in key duties that help keep the chapter running like organizing chapter meetings, keeping records updated, office cleanup, updating the DSA SF website and newsletter, etc. Members can view current CCC rotations.

To help with the day-to-day tasks that keep the chapter running, fill out the CCC help form.

DSA San Diego’s endorsements require the approval of our membership body. Electoral candidates must seek our endorsement and complete our Endorsement Questionnaire.

We see endorsements as more than simply support, but a commitment by our members to organize for candidates and ballot measures that align strongly with our values as Socialists, and ultimately to help them win. Our members are actively campaigning or coordinating as volunteers with these campaigns to ensure these pass!

Endorsed Ballot Measures

California

Proposition 5

• YES on Proposition 5

Proposition 33

• YES on Proposition 33

County of San Diego

Measure G

• YES on Measure G

Endorsed Candidates

County of San Diego

San Diego County Board of Education – District 4

• Erin Evans is our endorsed candidate

[…]

Read More...