Introduction

Thank you for visiting the DSA Ventura County voter guide. The 2026 midterms are here, and we hope this guide will prove useful as you fill out your ballot.

While we have made a number of recommendations, the chapter has not officially endorsed any candidate. A candidate endorsement requires a membership vote and allocation of chapter resources to their campaign. A recommendation indicates that we have researched the candidate and come to the conclusion that they will help uplift the working class if elected. We have included CA DSA Endorsements stand, where applicable.

There are several races where we have not made a recommendation. The reality is that there are a lot of races that do not have a candidate who aligns with DSA values, and our chapter does not endorse or recommend such candidates.

In some cases, we have explicitly recommended voting against certain candidates because we view them as being dangerous and very likely to cause immense harm to the working class. To be clear, this does not indicate that their opponents have our chapter’s recommendation. The purpose is to inform you of the dangers that these candidates represent so you can have more clarity when choosing who to vote for.

Solidarity forever!

STATE

Governor

DSA Ventura County is not recommending either gubernatorial candidates. However, we strongly recommend voting against Steve Hilton. Hilton is a former FOX News host and has received Donald Trump’s endorsement for governor. He opposes sanctuary cities, supports ICE, has stated that he “can’t imagine a single person who doesn’t support what’s been done to close our southern border…” and said that he would not obstruct ICE from operating in California. He is a supporter of Israel and has slammed those who have called what’s happening in Gaza a genocide, calling it “preposterous and offensive.” He opposes single-payer healthcare. Hilton blames the affordability crisis on Democrat climate change policies.

Additional Reading:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd95x25e2nqo

https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/dems-running-to-be-next-california-governor-ignoring-jew-hatred-cancer-within-their-party-steve-hilton-tells-jns

California State Assembly

DSA Ventura County is not recommending any Ventura County candidates for House of Representatives. However, we strongly recommend against voting for a Republican. While it is true that the establishment Democrats have failed us, Donald Trump will have a much harder time pushing through his horrible agenda if the Republicans lose control of the House. There are several DSA members across the country who unseated establishment Democrats in the primaries and are poised to join the House. Their ability to influence policies and fight Trump’s agenda will be far easier with a Democratic majority.

COUNTY

City

Ventura City (San Buenaventura) Council, District 1 – Liz Campos

DSA member Liz Campos is running for reelection to the Ventura City Council, District 1. She has been a strong advocate for the homeless and for tenants’ rights, having firsthand experience of being evicted from her home by a landlord who disagreed with her politics and forced into homelessness while in office. This did not stop her from being a strong, stalwart leader in the community. Campos has dedicated herself to fighting ICE and educating people on what they can do to fight ICE. She is also committed to environmental justice and stopping climate change. Campos has been on the front lines of the battle against building data centers in Ventura. In August of this year, the Ventura Fairgrounds was in talks with Global Stack USA, a development company that wanted to use the premises to build a data center. Campos went to the fairgrounds and joined a large group of protestors to oppose the project, and the Ventura Fairgrounds Board of Directors subsequently voted to terminate discussions with Global Stack USA. In addition, Campos is a stalwart advocate for anti-racism. In April of this year, she attended a Rio School District board meeting to protest the lack of action by the board of trustees on behalf of an 8 year-old black student who had allegedly been the victim of racist attacks.

Liz Campos’ opponent is Crawford Coates. He is the Head of Marketing for FirstWatch, a software company that analyzes data for police departments across the US and Canada. FirstWatch collaborates with the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch Data Center. Coates has written several articles for Police1, a newsletter that has given positive and sympathetic coverage to ICE.

DSA Ventura County encourages you to vote for our comrade Liz Campos!

Additional Reading:

• Fairgrounds board rejects parking garage, vertiport proposal
• Oxnard community demands action from Rio schools over racism reports
• How ICE evolved from America’s earliest customs and immigration agencies

Ventura City Council, District 6 – Karba Eckley

Republican Jim Duran is the incumbent for Ventura City Council, District 6. He is not running for reelection, and there are 6 candidates on the ballot vying for the open seat.

DSA Ventura County recommends Karba Eckley (they/them). They work at The Energy Coalition, a nonprofit organization dedicated to funding and implementing clean energy solutions and policies across California. From 2021-2025, Eckley served on the City of Ventura’s General Plan Advisory Committee, where they worked on policies for affordable housing, preparing for climate change, and investing in overlooked neighborhoods.

Karba Eckley has a track record of working hard to improve the lives of working class families. Vote for them this election!

Additional Reading:

• Meet Karba

School

Right now, the Ventura Unified School District is in crisis. Enrollment has been declining, schools are facing closure, and the education support professionals are prepared to go on strike over unfair pay, inadequate benefits, and other grievances.

It is vital that competent officials who will champion the well being, inclusivity, and fiscal responsibility of Ventura’s educational system be elected this November.

Superintendent of Schools – Dr. Karen Sher

The Superintendent of Schools leads the Ventura County Office of Education (VCOE). The office is responsible for teacher training and administrative support services to all of the school districts and charter schools in the county. The VCOE also operates schools for special needs students and at-promise students.

DSA Ventura County is recommending Dr. Karen Sher for Superintendent of Schools. Sher is the Director of Teacher Recruitment for the California Department of Education. She has 30 years of experience in education and has won multiple awards from the California Teachers Association. Sher is an advocate for the LBGTQ+ community and served on a committee that resulted in the passage of Senate Bill 760, requiring all California schools to have gender-neutral facilities. Sher also cares deeply about the affordable housing crisis and is working with the California School Board Association on a plan “to build over two million units of affordable housing for teachers and staff using surplus land that is currently unused or unoccupied by school districts.” In addition, Sher is a union advocate and has received the endorsement of the Central Coast Labor Council.

Karen Sher’s opponent is Maggie Marschner. She is an Educational Advisor who self-identifies as non-partisan. However, she has been endorsed by the Ventura County Republican Central Committee and follows Republican groups on Facebook, including Westlake Village Republican Women and Channel Islands Republican Women. She stated she was “honored” to receive the endorsement of California State Senator Tony Strickland, who was the California chairman of a Trump super-PAC in 2016 and defended Trump’s decision to send the military to Los Angeles during anti-ICE protests in 2025.

Dr. Karen Sher is an experienced educator with a vision that includes affordable housing and ending discrimination against LGBTQ+ students.

Additional Reading:

• School Pride: Educators and officials look to support LGBTQ+ students through campus resources
• Senate Bill No. 760
• Superintendent of Schools Debate: Candidates address enrollment, housing and racism
• Tony Strickland named California chair of new Trump super PAC
• California Republicans hate government ‘overreach.’ Most are quiet on Trump’s military in LA

Ventura Unified School Board Trustee, Trustee Area 4 – Amber Thompson

A School Board Trustee has five responsibilities outlined by the California School Boards Association – setting direction, establishing an effective and efficient structure, providing support, ensuring accountability, and providing community leadership as advocates for children, the school district and public schools.

Amber Thompson is the first transgender woman to appear on a ballot in Ventura County. She has a professional background in commercial banking, audit, and financial controls. Thompson has volunteered her time to involve herself in school-board meetings and help parents with their concerns about their children’s education and the school district as a whole. She has been an LGBTQ+ activist, writing Ventura’s first official flag policy that mandates the Progress Pride Flag be flown over Ventura City Hall each June. Thompson’s dedication to the well-being of Ventura families and her professional background in fiscal responsibility make her a strong candidate for School Board Trustee.

The incumbent is Democrat Jerry Dannenberg and he is running for reelection. Dannenberg has faced scrutiny during his tenure. A petition was created in February to recall him and three other Board members for alleged “fiscal mismanagement and failed oversight.” The petition collected 1,788 verified signatures at time of publication.

The third candidate is Matthew Metcalfe. He previously served in the Army National Guard. One of the priorities on his campaign website at time of publication is preparing students for military service, even as the Trump administration currently engages in illegal warfare.

DSA Ventura County recommends voting for Amber Thompson.

Additional Reading:

• VUSD school closures debate draws hundreds of community members over uncertain futures
• Pride in Place: Local activist helped pave the way for Ventura’s flag policy

Rio School District Trustee Area 1 – Khaled Omar

Felix Eisenhauer is the incumbent for Rio School District school board Trustee in District 1. The entire Rio School District Board of Trustees came under fire in April for failing to address the alleged racist abuse directed at an 8 year-old black student in their district. None of the board members put the matter on their agenda. When a large group of protesters, including DSA member and city councilwoman Liz Campos, attended a school board meeting on April 15 of this year, Eisenhauer finally addressed the matter, making a statement that “the Rio School District does not tolerate discrimination, bullying or hate-motivated behavior of any kind at any time.” However, the VC Star reported that the trustees took no action on it beyond making statements. Eisenhauer’s campaign website emphasizes making schools places where kids are happy, healthy, and learn well. At time of publication, there is only one sentence that explicitly mentions anti-discrimination within his campaign.

Khaled Omar is one of Eisenhauer’s challengers. Omar is a district parent, advocate and coach. He became motivated to run for office while advocating on behalf of a student who was a victim of racism, and a board member responded by telling black and brown parents that the district didn’t have those issues. Omar is the son and grandson of immigrants and is dedicated to fighting against the kidnappings being carried out by the Trump administration. The top issue on his campaign page is “Anti-Racism, Anti-Bullying, Inclusivity, and Mental Health Support.” His endorsements include two teachers unions – the California School Employees Association, which is the largest classified school employee union In the United States, and the Oxford Federation of Teachers and School Employees. In July, Omar wrote a petition and formed a coalition to demand that the Ventura Fairgrounds board of directors reject any proposal to construct a data center on the premises and surrounding areas, and the demand was met.

The third candidate on the ballot is Joe Esquivel. His campaign page is on Facebook and as of time of publication, there have been no new public posts since 2022.

DSA Ventura County recommends voting for Khaled Omar!

PROPS AND MEASURES

= endorsed by CA DSA

Proposition 1: YES

Borrow $11.25 billion for housing

Prop. 1 would allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds to fund various affordable housing programs. Of that total amount, $1.25 billion would go toward veteran housing, while the rest would fund rental homes, homeownership programs, farmworker housing, affordable student housing, tribal housing and more. The bond is expected to help fund up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, while also helping another 40,000 households buy a home.

Proposition 2: YES

Raise limit on rainy day fund deposits

This constitutional amendment would allow the state to deposit up to 20% of its general fund tax revenue in the state’s reserves, up from the current ceiling of 10%. The deposits would not count toward the voter-approved Gann Limit, which caps the amount state lawmakers can spend each year and requires excess funds to be returned to the people. It also authorizes spending some tax revenue to pay down California’s $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt.

Proposition 3: YES

Make income taxes on higher earners permanent to fund education and healthcare

The tax, first enacted in 2012, is set to expire in 2031. Under the measure, income taxes for top earners range from 10.3% (for individual income over $360,000) to 12.3% (for individual income over $721,000), with graduated rates in between. Eighty-nine percent of the money goes to K-12 public schools and 11% goes to community colleges, with any excess going to public healthcare. The tax typically raises $5 billion to $15 billion a year.

Proposition 4: YES

Allow public financing of political campaigns

(From CA DSA) Prop 4 repeals California’s ban on state/local public campaign-finance systems and allows governments to establish programs for qualifying candidates who accept spending limits. It doesn’t itself create a statewide public-financing program.

Electoral politics systematically privileges people who can raise money from wealthy donors, corporations, and professional political networks. In cities and states across the country, public financing of elections has allowed socialists and working people to compete on something at least marginally closer to a level playing field. Many socialist wins across the country, like Zohran Mamdani in New York City, would not have been possible without public financing. This is a clear positive step for working people, and can reduce candidates’ dependence on wealthy private donors and allow working class mass membership organizations like our own to participate in larger and more expensive elections.

Prop 4 isn’t a silver bullet: it’s only enabling legislation, not the final reform. Winning Prop 4 creates space for socialists and reformers to fight locally/statewide over what strong public-finance systems actually look like. Public financing also does not eliminate capitalist political power, independent expenditures, lobbying, or wealthy ownership of media, or even come close to leveling the playing field. It is, however, an important and necessary step forward for working class political power.

Proposition 5: YES

Delay replacing recalled state officials

Under current law, after choosing whether to recall an elected official, voters are asked who should replace them. This constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by state lawmakers, would delay the election of a successor until a separate election. The recalled officer would be allowed to run in that election. If the governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor would take over their duties until a new governor is elected.

Fiscal Impact: Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled.

Proposition 37: No Recommendation

Create low-cost mortgages for homebuyers

California’s Housing Finance Agency would be able (but not required) to borrow up to $25 billion to help would-be homebuyers purchase newly constructed houses and condos. These loans could provide up to 17% of a home’s purchase price, leaving buyers with a cash down payment of 3% if paired with a typical mortgage — $24,000 for an $800,000 home. Homebuyers would repay the loan in monthly installments to private lenders. Anyone earning up to twice the area’s median income would be eligible. Private lenders, not taxpayers, would be on the hook if homebuyers default.

Proposition 38: NO

Borrow $8.4 billion for immunology research

Proposition 38 would create an $8.4 billion bond largely to fund research into fighting cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s, plus other diseases that can be treated through immunotherapies. Half the money would go to a research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would be distributed to select public universities and nonprofits. Drugs created through this research would have to be discounted at 20% for Californians and 10% of any revenue from the drugs would go back to the state general fund. Philanthropist and medical inventor Gary Michelson put this measure on the ballot.

Proposition 39: NO

Require identification for voting

This initiative would require voters to show government-issued identification at the polls and order election officials to verify that all registered voters are U.S. citizens. Voters who cast a mail-in ballot would need to give the last four digits of a government ID, such as a driver’s license number. California currently requires residents to provide an identification card and Social Security number to register to vote, but does not request it at polling places. It was placed on the ballot by conservative groups.

Proposition 40: YES

Apply one-time tax to billionaires to fund healthcare and education

Proposition 40 would require the estimated 200 Californians whose net worth exceeded $1 billion at the start of this year to pay a one-time 5% tax. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the group that put the measure on the ballot, projects that it would raise roughly $100 billion over five years. That money would be earmarked primarily for healthcare, with some reserved for food assistance and education. If propositions 41 or 42 earn more votes than Proposition 40, this measure would be nullified.

Proposition 41: NO

Require audits of new tax programs

This proposition would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters. The auditor would assess whether the program that would receive funding could cut spending by at least 10% annually. Any new special tax approved by voters would count toward California’s spending limit, potentially triggering automatic refunds that reduce funding for other state programs. If this proposition receives more votes than Proposition 40 (a wealth tax on billionaires), Proposition 40 is nullified, even if Proposition 40 also passes. It was placed on the ballot by opponents of the proposed billionaire tax.

Proposition 42: NO

Ban new taxes on personal property

Proposition 42 would make it much harder to create a wealth tax in California by prohibiting new taxes on the mere ownership of assets such as investment accounts, business interests and personal property — assets that are typically only taxed when they are sold or generate income. Like Proposition 41, which also attempts to block Proposition 40 (a wealth tax on billionaires), Proposition 42 would nullify Proposition 40 if it receives more votes, even if the billionaire tax also passes. It was placed on the ballot by opponents of the proposed billionaire tax.

Proposition 43: NO

Raise vote threshold for special tax measures

This would make it harder to impose or increase local taxes by raising the threshold for local citizen-driven special tax ballot initiatives to pass from a simple majority to two-thirds. The two-thirds threshold already applies to taxes proposed by local governments but not by individuals. The measure reflects a deal between state lawmakers and the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to keep a more restrictive tax proposal off the ballot.

Proposition 44: YES

Require more clinic spending on patient care

Proposition 44 would require community clinics that serve low-income patients to spend 90% of their annual revenue on patient care. The measure directs the attorney general to publish guidance on what spending qualifies and allows the state to fine clinics that don’t spend the full 90%. The labor union Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West put it on the ballot after  pushing a similar bill last year that failed. Clinics failed to keep the measure off the ballot with a lawsuit earlier this year.

Proposition 45: NO

Speed up environmental reviews for housing and infrastructure

Proposition 45 would limit reviews under the state’s landmark environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act. Placed on the ballot by the California Chamber of Commerce, the measure aims to help developers advance projects they designate as “essential” more quickly and easily. It would impose a 365-day limit on environmental reviews for those projects, including infrastructure like roads and bridges, housing, schools, broadband and wildfire mitigation. It would also require courts to rule within 270 days on lawsuits related to the environmental review law.

MEASURE A: NO

Voters of the City of Simi Valley

General City Funding

MEASURE B: YES

Voters in Rio Elementary School District

School Bond

MEASURE C: YES

Voters of the Santa Paula Unified School District

School Bond

MEASURE D: YES

Voters of the United Water Conservation District

Water Supply, conservation, and water quality assessment bond

MEASURE E: YES

Voters of the City of Oxnard

Retargeting existing sales tax priorities

MEASURE H: YES

Voters of the Allan Hancock Joint Community College District

School Bond

Post-World War II anti-communist hysteria hit Puerto Rico through legal assaults and J. Edgar Hoover’s clandestine tricks. Although the FBI met unexpected resistance, the strategy cemented Puerto Rico’s status as a powerless “commonwealth.”

The post Red Scare in Puerto Rico: A Hidden History appeared first on Democratic Left.

by Greg B.

Many people in Rochester DSA have asked whether the chapter should release a voter guide for the 2026 elections, and we’ve debated it in our Electoral Working Group. Unlike other organizations, DSA’s endorsements are highly selective and usually go to candidates who are members, agree to join, and help grow DSA; members often view a voter guide as a way to guide non-member supporters on our perspective on an election. Others think it’s a waste of time and misleading since people often confuse our “recommendation” for an actual endorsement. After examining the 2026 general election ballot, I’ve decided to recommend the chapter not make a voter guide. The results in Rochester were already decided in the primaries, and most of them weren’t even competitive. No Republican has a realistic chance to win the governorship, attorney general, comptroller, or congressional seat. The question shouldn’t be whether these candidates are better than their Republican opponents; it should be what their records are and what it would take to create conditions for future elections with meaningful stakes.

Even though these races are uncompetitive, I will still vote out of an odd sense of obligation or ritual. I’ll still vote for State Senator Samra Brouk and Assemblymember Harry Bronson even though they’re not socialists and don’t currently co-sponsor several pieces of legislation from the Democratic Socialists in Office Committee. They’re progressive on many issues, and I’d like to talk with them when there are things we absolutely need to push for. The only politicians I could not vote for, however, are Governor Kathy Hochul, Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, and Congressman Joe Morelle.

Kathy Hochul – Governor
Kathy Hochul stepped into the governorship after Andrew Cuomo was chased out by scandal, and has largely operated in a similar manner, as a defender of the rich, the well-connected, and specifically, the fossil fuel industry. Governor Cuomo was the biggest obstacle to progressive legislation, but when Democrats overcame Republican majorities and the Independent Democratic Conference, Cuomo gave in, signing multiple pieces of progressive legislation he previously opposed while claiming credit for their passage. Similarly, the NY Senate and Assembly recently passed a Data Center moratorium bill that would have stopped the construction of environmentally destructive data centers, but Hochul refused to sign it, instead issued a weakened Data Center Moratorium executive order, and has received national credit for doing so.

Hochul’s issues are wide and far-reaching, but her rollbacks of climate action this year have been particularly destructive. It’s also been personally infuriating to me as someone who previously worked on NY state climate issues in 2022-2023.

To start, Hochul rolled back the All-Electric Buildings Act, which she signed in 2023, that requires new buildings to use electric heat instead of gas. Her administration previously spent two years defending it in court, and told a judge that delaying it would cause New Yorkers irreparable harm. A month later, she agreed to delay it anyway. She also shelved the carbon pricing program she had promised, and after talks with Trump, she approved an underwater gas pipeline that state regulators had previously rejected. Also, in this year’s budget, she pushed through changes to the state’s landmark climate law, the CLCPA, including changes to how emissions are counted so methane appears less harmful on paper as a handout to climate polluters. It doesn’t matter if Hochul is doing this as a favor to the fossil fuel industry or because she’s under pressure from Trump. She has followed the Cuomo model of defending the rich and powerful, and posing as a progressive when she’s forced to give in to pressure from the left.

Tom DiNapoli – Comptroller
I imagine most of us don’t know what a comptroller is, but Tom DiNapoli wields enormous power as the sole trustee of the NY State Common Retirement Fund worth billions of dollars. With that power, DiNapoli has purchased over $100 million more worth of Israeli bonds since October 7th. The state owns over $340 million in Israeli bonds. That’s more than the NY State Common Retirement Fund holds in all other foreign government bonds combined. This is extremely odd considering Israeli bonds are not the most reliable or high-return investments. To be clear, the main issue is not how good or bad of an investment these are, but the fact that it’s helping support a state that has committed genocide according to the UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and many other human rights organizations.

DiNapoli’s insistence on purchasing and holding Israeli bonds is only one issue. According to his primary challengers, the state fund also owns $430 million worth of Palantir stock, a company that serves ICE and the military-industrial complex in more efficiently kidnapping and assaulting our neighbors, and killing families overseas. DiNapoli says the stocks are held passively through index funds, but he said he will make no effort to divest from them. DiNapoli is little talked about, but tremendously powerful and has used his position to protect Israel and US imperial interests.

Joe Morelle – Congressman
Joe Morelle is seeking his fifth term after easily defeating progressive candidate Robin Wilt in June’s primary, her third challenge against him. Like Hochul and DiNapoli, Morelle will criticize Trump and espouse progressive values, but he is far more conservative than this district’s politics. On January 22, 2025, he was one of 46 House Democrats who voted with Republicans to pass the Laken Riley Act, which empowered ICE to kidnap and detain people with no conviction required. He opposes the construction of a federal ICE facility in Rochester’s federal building, which is odd, since he voted to allow masked ICE agents to take people off our streets.

He was also a cheerleader for Israel’s genocide, refusing to cosponsor a simple humanitarian aid resolution for Gaza, and refusing to sign a letter saying he opposed Israel’s use of starvation tactics. On July 15th, 2026, after there was no more denying what Israel had done, 104 Congress members voted for the Massie Amendment, which would have eliminated $3.3 billion in aid to Israel. Joe Morelle was one of the 98 Democrats who wanted to continue giving military aid to Israel, despite the pleas of his constituents.

How Should We Vote
ROC DSA will likely not make a voter guide for the 2026 general election. If you asked me who you should vote for, these politicians or their Republican opponents, I’d say we’re asking the wrong question. It doesn’t matter if you vote for them or withhold it. They’ve already won. The political reality is that they had the election locked down before the primary.

I’m not saying to despair, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t vote. Instead, I am saying we need to do more. The stakes are so high. The climate crisis is deadly and will accelerate at an alarming rate in our lifetime. Israel will never stop until it is forced to stop. Instead of waiting for elections and weighing our options, we need to act now. We are too weak to defeat Joe Morelle, who raised over $1,580,000 for his re-election and had a Silicon Valley billionaire-funded Super PAC spend $624,734 on his behalf. Instead, we need to develop a serious strategy, organize now, with what we have, and build victory upon victory so we can win real power that will stop Israel’s actions and build a sustainable energy future, with public healthcare for all, a good jobs guarantee, housing for all, and more.

The post Can We Continue to Vote Blue No Matter Who? first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Slot wagering at the Wynn Resorts (NASDAQ: WYNN) property fell more than 20%, while gaming revenue at Massachusetts’ two other casinos held steady.

UNITE HERE Local 26 released this statement as a press release on October 20, 2026.

EVERETT, MA – Gross gaming revenue at Encore Boston Harbor, owned by Wynn Resorts, Limited (NASDAQ: WYNN), fell 22.1 percent in September 2026 from September 2025, according to data released today by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. More than 1,300 Encore workers represented by UNITE HERE Local 26 and Teamsters Local 25 have been on strike since September 4.

Key figures, September 2026 vs. September 2025:

• Gross gaming revenue: $46.1 million, down 22.1% from $59.1 million.
• Slot coin-in, the total amount customers wagered on slot machines: $354.4 million, down 20.3% from $444.4 million.
• MGM Springfield and Plainridge Park Casino, the state’s other two casinos: gross gaming revenue fell 1.2% and rose 2.4%, respectively, while slot coin-in rose 4.7% and 4.2%.
• Encore’s lowest monthly gross gaming revenue since February 2021, when COVID-19 restrictions were still in effect.

Slot coin-in measures how much customers wagered, not how much the casino won, so it is much less affected by month-to-month swings in hold than gross gaming revenue. From July 2024 through August 2026, Encore’s slot coin-in never fell more than 9.7 percent year over year, and in all but one of those 26 months it declined no more than 3.5 percent. September’s 20.3 percent decline was more than twice the largest drop in that period. Over the same period, Encore’s largest year-over-year decline in total gross gaming revenue in any month was 10.5 percent, in March 2025.

Encore Boston Harbor reported operating revenues of $209.3 million and Adjusted Property EBITDAR of $56.1 million in the second quarter of 2026, about 11 percent of Wynn Resorts’ total operating revenues and 10 percent of its Adjusted Property EBITDAR. Wynn Resorts is expected to report third-quarter results, which include September, in early November.

In a statement published October 1, a Wynn Resorts spokesperson told Casino.org that Encore was “open, operational and welcoming guests.”

Casino	Sept. 2025	Sept. 2026	Change
Encore Boston Harbor (gross gaming revenue)	$59,130,761	$46,064,209	−22.1%
Encore Boston Harbor (slot coin-in)	$444,443,158	$354,422,016	−20.3%
MGM Springfield (gross gaming revenue)	$22,256,083	$21,978,915	−1.2%
Plainridge Park Casino (slot gross gaming revenue)	$14,307,010	$14,648,619	+2.4%

Methodology

September 2026 is compared with September 2025 to account for seasonality. MGM Springfield and Plainridge Park Casino are included as a comparison group for statewide market conditions. All casino figures are as reported by licensees to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which notes that operators may revise prior months.

UNITE HERE Local 26 represents more than 14,000 hospitality workers across Massachusetts and Rhode Island, in hotels, airports, universities, school cafeterias, and casinos. Contact Seth Ogilvie, UNITE HERE Local 26.

The post Encore Boston Harbor Gaming Revenue Falls 22% in First Month of Strike, State Data Shows appeared first on Working Mass.

Many countries recognize rights to housing, healthcare, and other components of a dignified life in their governing documents. The U.S. should follow suit.

The post Positive Rights and the Worldwide Working Class appeared first on Democratic Left.

by Douglas Dollinger

Marx argues this case in his discussion of colonization (Chapter 33, Kapital, Volume 1). According to Marx, Wakefield, a prominent 19th-century writer on colonization, had discovered that capital is not just a thing but a social relation. Wakefield stumbles upon this revelation by accident. It is not a theme that features prominently in the political economy of Marx’s time or ours. It is, however, a central theme in Kapital and is pivotal to his notion of human emancipation. I want to explain what Marx means by this in simple terms. Students of Marx might find this note a bit too basic for Socialism 101, so maybe it is best to see it as a contribution to Socialism 100.

Suppose you are a capitalist and that you show up with your capital – machines, factories, patents, etc. – in a land called Manuland. A bit about Manuland. In Manuland income earners work for themselves either in small manufactories or on small farms. A small manufactory is a one-person or several-person shop of some kind, a shoe shop, say. The people in the shop make the shoes, hence the “manufactory”. Let assume, too, that they own the means of production. We have here a small, self-sufficient college of cobblers. Suppose similar colleges of clothiers. Etc. Now assume the farmers in Manuland are one-family farms and that they own their own means of production. Let us finally assume that the cobblers and farmers are all getting by; sure, there are some bad years but, barring bad accident or ill health, they all get by. Both can afford to exchange a bit of their produce, should they enjoy a surplus, but neither can amass the surplus that drives capital accumulation. You show up now as a proud and ambitious capitalist in Manuland, but just before putting the shovel to the ground to build an industrial facility of scale, you discover something troubling: Manuland has no proletariat. Capital therefore has no place in Manuland. Why? Workers in Manuland do not have to depend on the capitalist for work; they have their own work and their own means of production.

The political economy of capitalism, unlike the political economy of Manuland, necessitates a class of dependents; the dependency of this class moreover is a direct function of its having no ownership over the means of production. It is the limited privilege of ownership, and specifically ownership of the means of production, that separates the dependency class from the capitalist. Manuland has no capitalist conception of private property; capital as yet has no social significance in Manuland. In other words, capitalism cannot work if the laborerlabourer is free of capitalist dependency. The point deserving emphasis here is that capital itself is a social relation in the simple sense that it establishes a relation of dependency between those who own and those who do not. Those who do not own must work for those who do; given the reality of surplus value (Mehrwert) – workers create much more value than they get paid for – it is virtually guaranteed that their level of pay will not free them from the dependency. Nor of course is it designed to. On the contrary.

Capitalism produces a proletariat of necessity; and dependency becomes a permanent feature of capitalist society. Most of us are aware of this dependency; we live it day by day; economists of a capitalistic bent, however, seldom mention it. If it registers at all in the thinking of these economists, it tends to be seen as simply rooted in the nature of human society itself. Capitalism requires that private property in the means of production be restricted to the few; workers by contrast are expected to sacrifice any claim to owning the means of production, an outcome that perpetuates the condition of dependency that constitutes and defines the proletariat.

Understanding this notion of dependency opens the door to Marx’s conception of emancipation. Marx was of course keenly aware of the fundamental antagonism between capitalist dependency and the reality of human emancipation. How is it exactly that we can regard people as free who are in fact dependent for survival on a privileged few? Note, again, this few cannot become the many. A world of capitalists is a world without workers. Someone has to do the work, and it is best that this individual be compelled to do it; a free individual may opt not to do it. For capitalism to work, then, a large majority of people must be placed in a condition of dependency and kept there. Abe Lincoln called it wage slavery. Note here that unions can modify the conditions of such dependency and render them less onerous for workers, but they cannot eliminate the basic social relation of dependency that characterizes capitalism. This will require an organized political effort to overcome the exclusive privileges of ownership of private property in the means of production. Human emancipation in its fullest sense awaits the completion of this task.

The post A Brief Note on Marx: Capital as a Social Relation first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

Alejandro González Iñárritu’s controversial new film "Digger" implicates us all in the climate crisis.

The post A Call to Action in a World of Inaction appeared first on Democratic Left.

By: Jonathan Cohn

The most dangerous words in the English language are: “we’re from private equity, and we’re here to help.” 

When private equity swoops in to “help” a struggling business, that typically means worsening labor conditions and worsening product quality—but increasing the money of those private equity executives. That’s exactly what private equity executives are trying to do with democracy in Massachusetts with this year’s Question 3, making it a place where they can more easily buy candidates and forestall progressive victories at the state and federal level. These donors are seeking to curb the rise of more populist messaging and policy that centers working people rather than the rich and large corporations. The fact that jungle primaries are detrimental to workers’ interests is why labor unions and progressive groups across Massachusetts are united in urging you to vote NO on Question 3. 

Question 3 would change MA’s electoral system to a jungle primary system like California and Washington. Proponents have been saying that this is about democracy, accountability, choice, competition, but a quick look at where the money comes from says otherwise. 

According to campaign finance disclosures, 70% of the money raised for Question 3 comes from private equity, with most of that from Bain Capital or Berkshire Partners. Indeed, just six private equity executives account for half of all the money raised by the campaign. These are overwhelmingly donors to conservative Democrats (like MA’s Jake Auchincloss and Seth Moulton) and Republicans (like Susan Collins and Bill Cassidy) who are friendly to the corporate centrism that the financial industry loves.

These donors have a long history of funding education privatization ballot questions, and not a lot of history caring about democracy. 

What is Q3?

Question 3 makes several noteworthy changes to Massachusetts elections. It’s important to understand the risks of all of them. 

The marquis part of Question 3 is the all-party primary system, often called a jungle primary, in which all candidates run on the same ballot and the top two candidates of any party advance to the general election. More on that in a moment. 

Question 3 also changes how MA elects Lieutenant Governors. Currently, MA has a system with the perhaps inartful moniker of “shotgun marriage”: Governor and Lt. Governor candidates run separately in the primary, and then are paired together in the general election. Under Question 3, gubernatorial candidates would pick their running mates upon formally filing as a candidate with the Secretary of State. Vetting possible running mates is a major hurdle for grassroots and less institutionally connected candidates, and if people don’t think you can win (grassroots candidates often peak late), why would anyone want to bet a year of their time on your campaign? It’s a very clear way to limit the possibility of who can consider running. 

Question 3 also changes ballot design in Massachusetts. In a bastardized version of fusion voting, it allows multiple minor parties to endorse the same candidate on the ballot. Fusion voting in states like New York strengthens democracy by enabling voters to choose minor parties’ ballot lines and help them to build a base. They earn that ballot line by having actual voters. By contrast, in Massachusetts, you can get minor party status with only 50 people petitioning the secretary of state. With such a low threshold, any slumlord can create a minor party (say, “Massachusetts Housing for All”), and start endorsing candidates on the ballot with deceptive names. The SuperPACs that flood your mailboxes in election season have to disclose their donors, but imagine if they can just get their endorsements printed directly on your ballot.

A Warning From California

California’s recent gubernatorial primary should be a warning to anyone thinking about voting YES on Question 3 this November. 

This year, given the diverse Democratic field and narrow Republican field in the gubernatorial race, polling consistently showed that two conservative Republicans would advance to the general election, denying voters real choice. 

Out of fear of such a lockout, the CA Democratic Party started pressuring candidates to drop out of the race, and the two dominant candidates became a self-funding billionaire and the candidate backed by every corporate PAC in the state. Actual policy debate was sidelined, and party elites and big money donors were empowered.

Whenever there is a push for consolidation, those with power, money, and privilege will always claim a right to stay in a race, regardless of whether they have the best ideas (often, they don’t). 

One of the biggest advocates for California’s jungle primary system has been the California Chamber of Commerce. They have touted its ability to help them get more corporate-aligned Democrats elected on the basis of lots of outside special interest money, conservative crossover votes in Democrat vs. Democrat general elections, and the loss of cues through which people typically understand the differences between candidates. And they are right, with the emergence of a new bloc of corporate-backed Democrats more loyal to Uber, Chevron, Meta, and crypto than to any constituencies or values.

That’s not a solution to any problem we have in Massachusetts; it will make the ability to pass policies to help working people even harder.

Getting Diverse, Working-Class Candidates to Run

I have worked for many years to try to recruit more candidates to run for office and support them when they do. When I talk with prospective candidates, the two biggest barriers for them when considering running for office are time and money. Running for office takes up a lot of time. It might require you to take an extended leave from work, or balance a full-time campaign and a full-time job. 

It also costs a lot of money to run for office, and most people don’t start out with a readymade list of high-net-worth donor prospects. 

If we want to see more working people run for office, then we need to find ways to rein in the time and financial burdens of running for office. 

Question 3 makes both of them worse, increasing both the time and money involved in running for office–benefiting incumbents and wealthy candidates for whom neither poses a true obstacle. 

Ranked Choice Voting vs. Jungle Primaries 

Although Massachusetts voters unfortunately rejected Ranked Choice Voting in 2020, there has been a robust and inspiring push on the local level to adopt Ranked Choice Voting on the local level. The push for a top-two primary system takes the wind out of those sails. 

New York City’s mayoral race last year showed us the wide-ranging benefits of ranked choice voting. Zohran Mamdani’s Democratic primary was due to an amazing field operation and a compelling message, for sure, but NYC’s Ranked Choice Voting system was essential to how the campaign played out. 

When voters can pick multiple candidates and register their preferences accordingly, progressive candidates aren’t in a fight to the death: they want each other’s voters to also rank them. We saw that dynamic in 2025’s greatest bromance: the cross-endorsement between Zohran Mamdani and former Comptroller and current Congressman-elect Brad Lander and the positivity and goodwill surrounding it. When progressive candidates lift each other up, the ideas and the movement benefit. 

In a ranked choice system, voters also don’t need to be afraid that voting for their top choice could lead to their least favorite choice getting elected. If you were a voter who did not want to see Andrew Cuomo become governor, you didn’t need to spend hours agonizing about how others might vote: you just vote for multiple progressive candidates and leave Cuomo off your ballot. 

A jungle primary, by contrast, is what Andrew Cuomo wanted to jerry-rig New York’s election system into. After losing the primary, he insisted on staying in the election, and he wanted to force out other candidates in order to form a cross-party conservative coalition, backed by a lot of money and a lot of racism. Cuomo was able to strong-arm Mayor Eric Adams out of the general election, but failed to convince Republican candidate Curtis Silwa out. Nonetheless, Cuomo still got 73% of Republican voters to vote for him, according to exit polls. With Mamdani pulling 50.78% of the vote in the general election, one can easily see how Cuomo’s theory of the election could have worked if he bullied his way into a two-party race. Democracy and the City of New York would have been worse for it. 

Just Say No

Question 3 is shaping up to be a “Whose side are you on?” question. On the yes side: private equity, venture capitalists, and investment bankers. On the no side: every major labor union and progressive group in the state. 

The yes side, bankrolled by those who have been fighting for years to make working people’s lives worse, and the no side, backed by those who have been fighting to make working people’s lives better. The choice is clear: NO on Question 3. 

Jonathan Cohn is a member of Boston DSA and Policy Director for Progressive Massachusetts, a multi-issue grassroots organization that advocates for state level policy. He has been active in campaigns to expand voting rights, strengthen immigrants’ rights, increase education funding, and make a fairer tax code, among many more. He has also been a volunteer, neighborhood team leader, regional coordinator, or campaign manager for various candidate campaigns and ballot initiatives at the city, state, county, and national level.

The post OPINION: No on Q3 – Jungle Primaries are Bad for Working People’s Interests appeared first on Working Mass.

California is the fourth largest economy in the world, with a growing number of billionaires, and an expanding crisis of poverty due to concentration of wealth and divestment from public goods like education and healthcare. This has been exacerbated by the Trump administration’s HR1 (“the big beautiful bill”), which cut $1 trillion from Medicaid nationally, resulting in a $100 billion cut to Medi-Cal, and a $20 billion cut to Calfresh, public programs that support our most vulnerable neighbors.

After the California Federation of Labor Unions, led by Lorena Gonzalez, voted at its August 4 convention to endorse two ballot measures to tax the rich – Propositions 3 and 40 – California DSA took the opportunity to reach out with a proposal: a California “Tax the Rich Day” on October 10. Gonzalez liked the idea, and the Labor Fed entered into a partnership with California DSA and SEIU-UHW (the proponent of Prop 40). 

In 2012, the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) and a progressive tax coalition organized across the state in an effort that culminated in the passage of a measure that put a tax on the top 2% of income earners in California in order to fund public education and healthcare. This year, voters will decide on whether to make that tax permanent via Prop 3. It currently generates between $5 to $15 billion annually. If it does not pass, the tax will sunset in 2030, and 1 in 6 public school teachers will be facing layoffs.

In response to HR1’s cuts to Medi-Cal, Service Employees International Union - United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), a labor union of over 120,000 healthcare workers across California, advanced a ballot measure, Prop 40, to create a one time 5% tax on the wealth of billionaires, payable either all at once, or via 1% increments over 5 years. This is anticipated to raise about $100 billion and to provide adequate funding to cover the gap in Medi-Cal’s budget wrought by HR1. This tax applies to any billionaires who were residents of the state at the start of 2026, or who will pay state income taxes for the year (at the start of 2026, around 216 billionaires lived in the state; presently, there are around 240).

California DSA endorsed both measures earlier this year, and has been coordinating canvasses, phonebanks, and communications in the run up to election day as we work to build a stronger left-labor pole capable of taking on the billionaires. 

Coming just a week after Bernie Sanders held rallies in San Francisco and Los Angeles to promote Prop 40, the day of action featured multiple local rallies and canvasses in which DSA members joined their local labor councils and union members to spread the class-struggle message that it was high time for the working class to take on the ultra-rich. In the lead up to Tax the Rich Day, Gonzalez blasted out an email, titled “It's time to Tax The Rich!,” in which she promoted events on California DSA’s landing page, and wrote: 

“I think we can all agree: billionaires have too much damn money. … No matter where you are in California, there is a protest or a canvass event near you this Saturday, October 10, where you can join our fight to tax the rich and pass Prop 3 and Prop 40, and to defeat Prop 41 and Prop 42!”

Actions took place that day across 8 cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, the Inland Empire, and the East Bay. The Labor Federation promoted and celebrated them on social media

https://bsky.app/profile/californialabor.bsky.social/post/3mxkcazz6422v

https://bsky.app/profile/californialabor.bsky.social/post/3mxkco3ub422v

https://bsky.app/profile/californialabor.bsky.social/post/3mxkd5m24vk2v

https://bsky.app/profile/californialabor.bsky.social/post/3mxmvzfrkbs2v

In Hayward, an East Bay city south of Oakland, East Bay DSA joined forces with the Alameda Labor Council for a tax the rich rally and canvass. The Labor Fed posted that “the East Bay did not come to play!” East Bay DSA, since August, has been partnering with the Labor Council to provide volunteers for phone banks and canvasses of the labor council’s 130,000 union members in Alameda County, focused on passing Props 3 and 40 and re-electing DSA-endorsed school board candidates in Oakland.

East Bay DSA’s posters, signs and banners, designed by David Solnit and fashioned at an EBDSA art build, have been featured at canvasses, like this one on September 19.

Inland Empire DSA heard the call from CA DSA for a Tax the Rich Day on October 10th, and put together a rally in collaboration with SEIU-UHW and PSL at City Hall in downtown Riverside. Over fifty volunteers from Inland Empire DSA, SEIU-UHW, PFP, PSL and Teamsters 1932 as well as Riverside City Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes showed up in support of taxing the state’s billionaires. Volunteer organizers led a march around City Hall and the surrounding area and held a tabling event in front of City Hall to speak to passers-by about how vital passing Proposition 40 (and defeating Propositions 41 and 42!) is to save our healthcare system and provide necessary funding to education and food assistance in the state. Immediately afterward, volunteers headed down to the SEIU-UHW headquarters in downtown Riverside to phone bank for Proposition 40, and IE DSA will be hosting joint phonebanks with SEIU-UHW weekly from now until the election. 

Angelenos turned out to canvasses in South Central and the Eastside to talk about LA City Council District 9 candidate Estuardo Mazariegos and Congressional District 34 candidate Angela Gonzales Torres alongside the need to pass Prop 40 to redistribute power from billionaires to working people. Later that day, a comedy and karaoke fundraiser capped the night off in support of efforts to tax the rich.

California DSA’s statewide working group will be meeting Tuesday, October 20th, at 6pm in order to continue planning and coordinating efforts in support of Props 3 and 40. You can RSVP here: https://www.californiadsa.org/calendar/tax-the-rich-wg-2026oct20 

The California Federation of Labor Unions Prop 40 will be hosting a phonebank in support of Prop 40 on October 21st and 5:30pm: https://www.mobilize.us/caaflcio/event/1056391/

“You can sleep when you’re dead.”

—Benjamin Franklin

There are just two weeks to go before one of the most consequential elections in the history of California. Driving the existential nature of this election is the onset and growth of the fascist cancer within American capitalism, pushed into metastatic overdrive by the election of Donald Trump to his second term in 2024. 

In the two years since, he has checked every box in any rational person’s understanding of what the word “fascism” means. As a result we are facing End Times Fascism— the term (and the title of their new book) coined by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor—meaning that this time around, fascists are sucking us down the chutes of climate destruction, democratic devolution, and rapidly eroding institutional means to reverse the tide. 

While all of DSA’s endorsed election campaigns throughout the state are important and contribute in various ways to the anti-fascist cause, I will go out on a limb to suggest that the campaign that can best serve the anti-fascist struggle is the dual effort to tax the rich via Props 3 and 40.  Why? 

Here we find an unprecedented opportunity—not one, but two tax the rich ballot measures up for a vote in one election. Each is essential to the wellbeing of the working class—one for education, the other for health care. Loss of either would be a disaster and a boon to billionaires.

Conversely, passage of both would send an urgently needed message:  that the wealth of the rich is not invincible, because an organized working class can be the greater force. 

Money shores up the power and power shores up the money 

You recall those two photos of Elon Musk early in 2025: wielding with sick glee a chain saw to demonstrate what his DOGE project was doing to the helping services of the federal government, and his Nazi salute at a MAGA rally? These were accurate signals of an emboldened and newly unified far right sector of capital, melding the formerly antagonistic interests of fossil fuel and big tech, brought together by Trump to supercharge the development of AI and its evil twin, data centers, under the control of corporations. 

The combined resources of these two capital sectors united in support of the fascist program is the reason why political spending hit record levels in the 2024 elections, and why it is on track to break the record again this year.

As Klein and Taylor make clear, mix hitherto undreamed of quantities of capital with Christian nationalism, perpetual war in the Middle East fanning the flames of religious fantasy along with the climate crisis, reckless investment in AI, the Trump administration’s removal of all federal regulatory controls, and you have the perfect cocktail for apocalypse. The richest people in the world think they can escape the dystopia they are consciously unleashing—to island bunkers, to the Rapture, to outer space—as they run the rest of us over the cliff and the earth to the end of its tether.

Here in California the billionaires’ push to defeat Prop 40 will set new spending records for ballot initiatives. That’s pocket change from their bloated portfolios. The campaign to pass Props 3 and 40 directly challenges the fascist program, valuing human need over uncontrolled profitmaking, saying yes to life and to the earth, and reducing the purses of the superrich and thus their power. If we win, we demonstrate that the power of people can outweigh the power of money.  

Time to Overdo it

I’m asking everyone who reads these words to add just a bit of work—something, anything— to election work you are already doing in the next two weeks to help get Props 3 and 40 passed. 

I’m not arguing that anyone should stop their campaigning for a local city council candidate or US congressional seat and replace that work with the Prop 3 and 40 tax the rich campaign between now and November 3. I’m saying something else, and I admit it runs against the grain of the advice that a lifetime of activist labor and socialist politics has led me to consistently offer comrades and other activists, which is, “Don’t overdo it.” Passion for political causes can easily tip over into burnout, which is not helpful for the long run. But we are up against an enemy that is literally attempting to destroy the long run. And so I make an exception this time so that it’s not the last time. 

In other words, for the next two weeks, let’s overdo it. 

Our final California DSA Tax the Rich Working Group meeting of the campaign is this Tuesday night at 6 pm; join us to hear what we’re planning. You could also join the Prop 40 phone bank on 10/21 at 5:30. Here is tonight’s Prop 3 phone bank link. 

It can also be simpler. You can grab a posterboard from an art supply store and make your own sign for Yes on 3, Yes on 40, Tax the Rich and stand on a street corner with a friend or two. You can put a sign up in your window. You can call your friends and tell them to vote yes on 3 and 40 and no on 41, 42, and 43. You can download flyers and pass them out in your workplace. 

With your help taxing the rich is possible. Once we’ve done that we can rest (contra Franklin, we don’t have to wait til we’re dead) recover from burnout, and breathe the air of a world slightly less imperiled by fascism.