Democratic Left invites DSA members to reflect on the birth of the U.S. by imagining a fully democratized America.

The post Imagining the Next 250 Years appeared first on Democratic Left.

After more than a half century studying, teaching, writing about and participating in the California labor movement, I am completely clear about one simple lesson: when we are united, we win, and when we allow ourselves to be divided, we lose. This is, of course, not an original idea. We might look to Abraham Lincoln’s “A house divided against itself cannot stand” on the eve of the Civil War as one similar observation among many others along the way. But the difficulty, over and over again, is that powerful forces are always working to divide us, and they succeed all too often. And they are doing it again right now.

This year California’s unions have an unprecedented opportunity to tap the well-deserved anger its members are feeling toward the anti-union Trump administration and its ultra-rich supporters in our state. Two ‘tax the rich’ ballot measures, Prop 3 and Prop 40, will be voted on by the state’s electorate on November 3. 

Prop 3 is a currently existing tax on the wealthiest two percent of income earners. Last year it brought over $14 billion into the state treasury to support public education, as well as other public services. But it is temporary. If allowed to expire it will cause devastating reductions in an already-strapped public education system. Prop 3 proposes to make it permanent. 

Prop 40 is a proposed temporary wealth tax on the state’s couple hundred billionaires. It would assess a one-time tax, to be paid over five years, on the billionaires’ collective hoard of two trillion dollars—a sum bloated by their federal tax cuts engineered by Trump and his congressional allies. The amount to be raised—one hundred billion dollars—will prevent cuts in Medi-Cal spending that otherwise will throw millions of the state’s poorest families off of their health care. 

Neither of these taxes will harm in the slightest the well-off people who will pay them and they will benefit all Californians who wish to be educated and healthy. A no-brainer for the labor movement, yes?

The state’s unions are in two camps supporting one or the other. There are only a handful of unions on board both measures. There are reasons for this, as there always are. Some of the reasons are better than others, but what they add up to is trouble for the state’s working families and the entire labor movement if either of the measures fail to pass. 

The obvious direct harm would be to students and patients, but it radiates outward from there to their families and communities. That’s easy to see. How does it harm the state’s unions? In general, unions, when they have their heads screwed on straight, understand the necessity for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. Without that, the responsibility of supporting social services falls on the shoulders of the working class, union members and non-members alike, who generally are willing to take on their fair share, so long as their employers, large corporations and the rest of the capitalist class are doing so too.

The effort by a small cadre of ultra-conservative ultra-rich to divide and confuse the California working class over this issue has been underway since late last year. The sociopathic greed of a dozen or so megalomaniac tech bros have propelled them to spend an astonishing $125 million against the Billionaire Tax. Their arguments are simple and false, but when you have that kind of money to burn we enter the territory of Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels’ infamous advice that a big lie repeated enough times becomes true. Mailers, digital ads, right wing think tank “studies” and now an $87 million television buy are demonstrating two things: that the ideas of our contemporary right wing anti-tax propagandists owe much to fascist thinkers; and that the effectiveness of such a campaign is enhanced when it has largely gone unanswered by the proponents of Prop 40 and Prop 3.

Prop 40 proponents haven’t answered in kind because they don’t have that kind of money at their disposal. But they also haven’t shown that they are building the kind of grassroots union campaign—big coalition, major mobilization of rank and file members in phone banks, canvassing and visible street demonstrations; in other words, the best tools at unions’ disposal—that it will take to defeat the billionaires.

Prop 3 proponents haven’t answered because the attacks—so far—have only been against the billionaire tax, and the Prop 3 coalition leaders do not seem to understand that there is a higher principle involved here than the violations of labor coalition-building protocols committed by SEIU-UHW. The higher principle is, quite simply, the general good of the entire California working class—not to mention understanding the damage that will be done to momentum around the country for tax the rich campaigns (most recently successful in places like Massachusetts and Washington state) should the Billionaire Tax be defeated. A defeat will also hurt the chances of future progressive tax campaigns here in California.

In 1912, during the massive “Bread and Roses” strike of textile workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, Industrial Workers of the World leader Big Bill Haywood spread out his fingers during a speech and told the crowd, “This is how the AFL organizes”, and enumerated the different craft unions organizing separately from one another. He noted that individual fingers could be easily disabled. Combining his fingers into a fist, the miners’ union leader roared, “This is how the IWW organizes”. Acting upon that lesson led the Lawrence workers to victory. But memory within organized labor of that point has been, time after time, victim to a deadly historical amnesia.

The California Federation of Labor Unions meets on August 4 to debate and vote on Prop 3 and Prop 40, among other issues. A vote to endorse both measures is in the interest of every union in the federation and every one of its more than two million members. The delegates to the meeting would do well to heed the words of Haywood and not succumb to narrow trade-conscious interests and the barrage of lies launched by their class enemies. Instead, it’s time for a unified labor movement to lead.

It’s become tradition in Los Angeles that when teachers strike, it rains. At 3 am on April 12th, 2026, the 150-member bargaining team of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) was still negotiating with Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), with only two days before the planned strike of 37,000 teachers in the second largest school district in the nation. They would be joined by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 99, which represents custodians, bus drivers, and maintenance staff; Associated Administrators of Los Angeles (AALA), which represents middle management such as principals; and DSA-LA in solidarity. The three unions striking together would be more than 70,000 workers. 

It is the 26th bargaining session for the 2025-2027 UTLA contract, and it is pitch-black outside in Los Angeles’ Koreatown neighborhood, with thousands awaiting news of whether their daily lives will be upended in just two days. The walkout would have been the union’s third strike in seven years, following a six-day strike in 2019 and a three-day solidarity strike with SEIU Local 99 in 2023. Before those two strikes, UTLA had not struck since 1989.

Just before 4 am on April 12th, the UTLA bargaining team came to a tentative agreement (TA) with the district administration after more than 14 months of negotiations. Later that day AALA followed suit with its own TA, and at 2 am on April 14th, just six hours before the planned three union strike, SEIU Local 99 reached its own TA with the district. By maintaining a credible strike threat, UTLA won a historic contract that fixed broken salary scales for the first time in decades; secured an average salary increase of 13.86%, with a minimum increase of 8%; established paid parental leave for the first time; protected workers against subcontracting; preserved Black Student Achievement Plan (BSAP) funding; and won breakthrough Special Education agreements, among many other gains—all without actually striking.

“We averted a strike. We shot down the district's arguments with figures that backed up what we've been saying all along,” says Gloria Martinez, now UTLA president. (She was UTLA treasurer and a lead officer for the UTLA bargaining team during the 2025-2026 contract negotiations. She was also a DSA member and plans on rejoining, she says; she’s just been busy.) 

What Martinez is speaking of is LAUSD’s narrative of austerity, used during every cycle of contract negotiations for years. Regardless of how good or bad the economics of the district are at the time, such as having over $5 billion dollars in unrestricted reserves as a “rainy day fund” at the end of the 2024-25 fiscal year equaling 35% of total spending, the CFOs of the district sow fear and doubt. They mainly do this through economic projections that in one year, two years, three years, the district will fall off a fiscal cliff, and so they claim their hands are tied. To be fiscally responsible, the district cannot spend another dollar more, if their economic projections are to be believed. 

“When you have a multibillion-dollar organization like LAUSD who can invest in PR machines that use budget figures to scare off folks into believing they can't afford what workers are demanding, I think that it creates confusion and hesitancy and allows for that fear and uncertainty to creep in,” adds Martinez.

The figures UTLA mustered to combat the administration’s scarcity and austerity arguments came chiefly from the UTLA research team, UTLA staff members who were with the UTLA bargaining team during the contract negotiations. LAUSD administration argued it could not spend a dollar more because when it looks toward the future, it expects that it will not have enough money to afford what the union is demanding. The UTLA research team investigated how accurate LAUSD’s past financial predictions were. California school districts are required to do a three-year projection of their budget, and when you consider LAUSD’s projections for where they would be three years out, every year from the 2013-2014 school year through 2024-2025, a pattern emerges. Historically, on average, the difference between what the district projects and what they end up with one year later is off by 57 percent. Two years out they are off by 268 percent and three years out they are off by 888 percent.

This would be similar to a friend asking to borrow $2,000 from you because, they say, they are $2,000 in debt, only for you to later discover that they actually had $16,000 in the bank. They keep saying this to you every year. For 10 years. Understanding this track record deflated much of the fear and doubt the UTLA bargaining team first experienced when the district’s negotiation team began presenting how badly their finances would deteriorate over the next three years if it agreed to the union’s proposals. 

Though the UTLA research team is essential for countering the administration’s claims of scarcity, it was not the only reason for UTLA’s victories.

“The main reason we were able to win without going on strike this time was that we had a credible strike threat. We've become an organizing and strike-ready union through the efforts of many people who have helped transform UTLA since 2014, including members of the Educators Organizing for Power (EOP) caucus and DSA members,” says Ryan Andrews, a UTLA bargaining team member, EOP member, and DSA member. “We talk with every member of the union, understand the issues they care most deeply about, and involve them in organizing. That's how we built the power to cut through the district's austerity narrative.”A union which for 30 years before 2014 had become a low-participation organization is now a union which is known for winning its contract through being strike-ready, even without actually going on strike. This change began in 2014 when Alex Caputo-Pearl, a DSA member, and the Union Power caucus slate running with him were elected to leadership in UTLA. The new leadership’s years spent rank-and-file caucus organizing with Chicago’s Caucus of Rank-and-File Educators germinated a change in UTLA. Five years later in 2019, under Caputo-Pearl, UTLA would go on strike alone for 6 days in the rain and win pay increases, first-ever enforceable class size caps, more nurses and librarians, an LAUSD call for a moratorium on charter schools, a first-ever Community Schools initiative, and racial justice victories, among other gains. 

Four years later in 2023, this change in the union proved durable as the next UTLA president, Cecily Myart-Cruz, led UTLA to strike in solidarity with SEIU Local 99 while UTLA was in its own negotiations with LAUSD. After striking for three days again in the rain, UTLA and SEIU Local 99 won their contracts, with UTLA winning significant pay raises, further lowering of class sizes, enshrining the Black Student Achievement Plan (BSAP), and an expansion of Community Schools initiatives into the UTLA contract, among other victories.

Three years later, UTLA has won again, and though there was no strike for teachers to march through a downpour, I and others in the bargaining team at 1 am got caught in the rain just hours before the TA, keeping the tradition alive and well. 

“What we can learn from this contract is listening to what is felt throughout the city, the issues that impact the workers and our community,” Martinez says when I ask what lessons the union should carry into 2028, when UTLA and many other unions across the country will again negotiate contracts. “We have a system that is failing them. Standing up for the issues that are deeply felt allows us to consolidate that collective power, it allows us to change the narrative.”

Brief overview

A candidate no one had heard of entered a statewide race no one really knew about and ended up with more than half a million votes. Oliver Ma’s campaign for Lieutenant Governor was California DSA’s first statewide candidate race and will not be the last. 

Across the board, people were excited about Oliver and about his platform, too [see accompanying article with chapter campaign reports]. Affordable housing, free healthcare, abolishing ICE, ending the genocide in Palestine—a platform familiar to us as socialists, but one that many voters are just now warming up to.

This race was a familiar story: we were up against long-serving politicians and candidates with deep pockets; we needed a mass movement of organized people to challenge that. 

With the support of DSA members, DSA chapters, and committed volunteers, this campaign showed that California voters, more than 620,000 of them, are supportive of Democratic Socialism and are ready for change. 

Lessons Learned

Going viral on social media is not enough to win elections, but it can be an extremely valuable tool when used intentionally. 

You may have seen Oliver on TikTok, Instagram, or even on one of your favorite streams talking boldly about Democratic Socialism and the importance of building a government that works for people, not corporations. Nearly every single volunteer I met or leader I trained certainly told me they had seen him online. And, of those people, many told me this was their very first time engaging politically. These volunteers helped us reach out to hundreds of thousands of voters across the state and they might not have ever even known about this race if it wasn’t for social media.

Motivating someone to turn out and vote, especially if they do not usually vote or if they feel abandoned by the current government, is often a more challenging task. It requires more than just seeing a few cool videos on the feed, so you can’t count only on social media if you want to build power (and win). Ultimately it was the conversations we had with voters in their communities, and on their phones, about the issues that matter most to them. Of course, those conversations are much easier if they have seen your candidate on social media before, but that alone is not enou

The things we are fighting for as socialists are broadly popular, even if the term “socialism” is not. We talked to voters all across the state in all different communities, but we so often heard the same issues coming up. Housing costs are rising. Healthcare is unaffordable. Everything is unaffordable. People should be safe in their neighborhoods, at home and abroad. What we have going now really isn’t working for working people. 

This gave us the chance to talk about how corporations and billionaires are often at the root of all these issues—and then about how Oliver was going to use the powers of this office to improve conditions for working people and tackle the issues impacting their daily life.

As socialists, we can diagnose that capitalism is broadly at the crux of nearly every problem, but it’s not always easy to have that conversation.

Running candidates who are Democratic Socialists allows us to talk about these broadly popular ideas. Then electing those candidates to positions of leadership, and power, can fundamentally change the lives of the working people in the communities they serve.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s New York is proof that it is possible, and those wins on the east coast have reverberated across the country. 

When voters saw “DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST”at the top of Oliver’s literature they often asked us, “Like Zohran?”. This easily opened the door for us to have a conversation about DSA and socialism that might have been more challenging or less explicit otherwise. If voters didn’t know Zohran, or even if they were not sure about the whole DSA thing, we were still able to have those important conversations with them about their struggles and our common enemies. 

We might not have ever had these conversations with our community members if we did not show up in their neighborhood to knock on their door and talk about this election and this candidate.

The time to prepare for the next election cycle is now

Building and refining chapter infrastructure and process takes time, but time is always of the essence during an election year. Start having conversations now about your chapter’s endorsement timeline, process, and electoral program. Consider what it would take not only to endorse a candidate, but also to win. Does your chapter have tools you need? Do your members have the skills they need? If not, what can you do now to be prepared for the next electoral cycle? 

Socialism continues to gain momentum. We have the opportunity to build power for working people at the local and federal level; but it will take an organized mass movement to win.

California Red asked several chapters to assess their participation in the Oliver Ma campaign for Lieutenant Governor, California DSA’s first foray into a state constitutional officer race. Their responses give us snapshots of the challenges and gains experienced in emerging chapter electoral structures at a time of rapid membership growth and new leader development. 

Inland Empire

The Inland Empire chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America’s electoral committee had not been active for nearly three years, but the energy and the excitement that brought in a flood of new members eager to reproduce the work done in New York needed to materialize here in our chapter. Thus arose from the collective imagination of our membership a yearning, an ambition, a dream—to build something, as workers have done throughout time immemorial, building a machine… the canvassing machine.

The canvassing machine became a collective project and an inside joke that inspired our membership to think of the endeavor as something we were building and refining through grass roots organizing. In total we knocked over 600 doors in Perris and Riverside. 

Overall, the campaign was a success for our chapter. Although we fell short on Election Day, the campaign gave our relatively new Electoral Committee invaluable experience running a serious electoral effort alongside a strong democratic socialist candidate. Members were highly engaged throughout the campaign, gaining practical organizing experience through canvassing, phone banking, and having meaningful conversations with voters about the issues and our vision for the community. Those experiences strengthened both our members' skills and our chapter's capacity to run future campaigns.

The campaign also highlighted several important areas for growth. We learned the importance of beginning our organizing earlier, establishing clear leadership roles, and building stronger campaign infrastructure from the outset. These are foundational lessons that will make our future electoral work more organized, efficient, and effective.

Perhaps most importantly, the campaign helped grow our chapter. We recruited new members directly at our canvass launch locations, and many people were motivated to get involved after seeing a local DSA chapter actively supporting a viable democratic socialist campaign. While Oliver did not win the election, the campaign was far from a loss. It strengthened our chapter, developed new organizers, expanded our active membership, and left us better prepared to run even stronger campaigns in the future. 

Said one Inland Empire member, Crystal: “Canvassing for Oliver Ma was heartwarming. It was a unique experience in that the candidate we canvassed for actually came out to knock doors with the people! Amidst the backdrop of an otherwise fascistic and suffocating reality, there are people willing to commit their hearts and time for humanity. It’s a beautiful thing to see.”

Long Beach

DSA-LB is proud to have endorsed Oliver Ma for Lieutenant Governor and campaigned for his candidacy in Long Beach. The June 2026 primary marked our chapter's first statewide endorsement, first Voter Guide, and our Electoral Politics Committee's first significant experience with electoral campaigning, canvassing and phone banking. Although Oliver's election outcome wasn't what we had hoped for, campaigning for Oliver significantly boosted our chapter's electoral politics skills, which we are carrying forward into the November election. DSA-LB is now campaigning for the Billionaire Tax initiative; we have built a Billionaire Tax Now ("BTN") Working Group and are putting the skills we honed for Oliver into action for BTN and future campaigns. We're grateful to Oliver for running and can't wait to see what all of us in California DSA do next. 

Orange County

Oliver Ma’s campaign came at a time when our chapter was rebuilding our electoral committee from the ground up. When we held the candidate endorsement forum for Oliver, we saw new faces excited to ask questions of a candidate they completely aligned with. One of the campaign’s strengths that we really benefited from was its goal to recruit new DSA members and engage them in electoral work. Through the campaign, we not only grew our electoral committee, but the chapter as a whole and new leaders began to emerge. The campaign provided the tools for many of us to learn how to canvass and phone bank and many members who had never knocked on doors for a candidate before participated in canvassing. Oliver’s mission and his platform made it easy to talk to voters in our community, and we started to have hope that California could be a place where massive change could take place.

Kern County

One of our biggest lessons from this election was simple: be early.

If possible, avoid entering an election cycle while still in Organizing Status. By the time we were ready to engage seriously, other organizations had already endorsed candidates, including candidates we believed offered less to the working class than Oliver. Many of our members and the broader activist community were also already committed to other campaigns. 

Kern County also needed to start earlier and organize more intentionally around the campaign. As campaign captain, I did not do enough to build internal enthusiasm, recruit volunteers, and turn an endorsement into sustained member participation.

At the same time, we were trying to bootstrap an electoral operation while still building the chapter itself. We were developing structures, relationships, and organizing capacity in real time.

Those are growing pains, but they are also lessons. Endorse early. Organize early. Assign clear responsibility. 

For us, an endorsement is not an aspirational checking a box, but a mandate to put momentum behind what we believe in.

Contributors:

Odeh G. and Lawrence C. are members of Inland Empire DSA. Odeh is chapter co-chair.

Sidra G. is a member of DSA Long Beach Electoral Politics Committee and serves as Communications Coordinator of the Chapter.

Kathryn M. is an At-Large member of the Orange County DSA Steering Committee.

Robert F. is on the Kern chapter Steering Committee.

Jack R. provided editorial support.

Before Mamdani, There Was A “Red Mayor” Named Bernie

Forty-five years ago, a socialist, who previously couldn’t get elected dog catcher in Vermont, walked into his state’s largest city hall and claimed the office of mayor by a landslide margin of ten votes.

Dan Chiasson’s Bernie for Burlington: The Rise of the People’s Politician (Knopf) focuses on the eight years after Sanders ran, as an independent, against incumbent Burlington mayor Gordon Paquette. Despite being a college town and new address for a few 60s-influenced “flatlanders,” the city’s politics were very old school in 1981. Just a few months before Sanders won his mayoral squeaker, GOP presidential candidate Ronald Reagan carried Vermont with 44% of the vote, in a three-way race.

For a long time, there weren’t many other lefties following in the footsteps of now U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders, the longest serving independent and socialist in Congress. But Sanders’ 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns helped change the landscape of the U.S. left.

Tens of thousands of Bernie supporters swelled the ranks of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that previously claimed few elected officials as members. Local DSA chapters have since developed the capacity to recruit and run credible candidates for municipal office in cities and towns across the country, inspired by Sander’s personal example.

Nationwide, about half the 250 elected officials affiliated with DSA are members of city councils or commissions. Seven are mayors, including Emma Mulvaney-Stanek, the former teachers’ union organizer who today occupies Sanders’ old office on Church Street in Burlington (population: 44,000). Another recent mayoral campaign winner is Zohran Mamdani, an out-of-state mentee of Bernie who now occupies Gracie Mansion in New York City (population: eight million).

Newly elected DSA members like these have gained historical perspective on the challenges facing them in public office by consulting Claiming the City: A Global History of Workers’ Fight for Municipal Socialism (Verso). Shelton Stromquist’s book describes the experience of more than 1,200 municipal officials elected as candidates of the Socialist Party during its early 20th century heyday. It includes many still relevant case studies of struggles to improve city services, raise labor standards, make housing affordable, and place local utilities under public ownership—in the face of business-backed opposition from Democrats and Republicans alike.

A Newer Blueprint

Thanks to Burlington native Dan Chiasson, a poet and literary critic who teaches at Wellesley College, DSA “electeds” now have a shorter and more recent blue-print for “municipal socialism” to study. It includes much practical advice about to how avoid being undermined, discredited, and defeated by that same “duopoly” a century later.

Back then, Burlington was a “dowdy, backward” blue dot in a rural state long dominated by Republicans. Municipal affairs were much influenced by French-Canadian, Irish-American, and Italian-American clans, with close ties to the local business community. As Chiasson recalls Mayor Paquette, “Gordy was a jolly Chamber of Commerce type,” who often sat in a pew behind his own equally observant Catholic family at Sunday Mass. A ten-year incumbent, Paquette tightly controlled the city’s elected Board of Aldermen and its appointed commissions, by stacking the latter with friends and relatives.

Sanders’s resume included being Jewish from Brooklyn, then a civil rights activist at the University of Chicago, and then a back-to-land carpenter and video maker in Vermont. He was also a four-time loser as a Liberty Union Party (LUP) candidate for statewide office. (In the interests of full disclosure, I was a volunteer helper of Bernie’s 1976 campaign for governor, which drew 6.1 percent of the vote.)

Like California’s Peace and Freedom Party, then and now, Liberty Union was a product of Sixties’ radicalism. In his own patriotic Burlington family, Chiasson grew up “being told that Liberty Union was the party of the communes, the draft dodgers, and the strung-out runaways.” This was not true of several brave working-class Vermonters who ran for office under its banner initially.  But the performative politics of others, plus their “lifestyle left” orientation, was not a big draw for blue collar voters, even in a state where the United Electrical Workers (UE), a left- wing critic of the AFL-CIO, was its then largest industrial union. Sanders believed that UE members and other workers could be won over by his own more effective class-based appeals.

Going Local

As the Reagan era dawned nationally, Bernie decided to go local. He re-invented himself as a champion of low-income tenants, of whom he was one. At the time, two-thirds of Burlington residents rented their housing, which meant that its “mainly Catholic, culturally conservative working poor” often lived “in badly maintained properties” whose owners “were unscrupulous, if not exploitative.”

When renters sought help from city government, its building inspectors sided with landlords, actually “abetting the eviction process” rather than fixing code violations. To further private re-development plans, Paquette also allowed neighborhoods to deteriorate, because “blighted homes and buildings were much cheaper for the city to acquire and raze.”

Sanders started door knocking, heard such complaints, and fine-tuned his pitch that city hall could actually serve the people. At Chiasson’s house, his grandfather, a brooding World War 11 vet named Milford Delorme, told his wife not to open the door if Sanders was outside. But Bernie’s longshot mayoral bid did gain street cred when influential working class-voices like former mill worker Sadie White, a neighbor of Chiasson’s in Burlington’s Old North End, backed his campaign.

Sanders’ surprise victory gave the local political establishment a huge shock. The local Democratic Party machine, backed by the business community, tried to render the new mayor “completely ineffective so voters would turn him out after his two-year tenure.”

Over four terms, Sanders would eventually increase his city council allies from one to a near majority, helping to lay the groundwork not just for a local Progressive third party, but a statewide one. However, any initial implementation of his pro-worker, pro-tenant agenda required the creation of a volunteer-driven “shadow government,” which got things done “outside the official administrative circuitry of city hall.”

The best parts of Bernie for Burlington—the ones worth closest study by embattled municipal reformers today—describe the creative solutions that Sanders, his staff, and supporters developed to address the need for affordable housing, property tax reform, better parks and cultural programs, youth jobs and public service provision, like snow plowing. To meet that seasonal challenge in a new way, Bernie made sure that streets and sidewalks in poor and working-class neighborhoods, with more pedestrians, got cleared first, rather than wealthier sections of town, while a volunteer network also pitched in to help the elderly shovel out.

As Chiasson noted in a recent interview, Burlington also “set up the first community land trust of its kind in the country.” Under Bernie, the city bought up distressed properties, put residents in job training programs to work fixing them up, and then, through their sweat equity, enabled them to own the “four walls,” while the city retained ownership of the land. Homes rebuilt this way could only be sold back to the land trust with any individual profit capped at 25 percent. According to the author, as city owned properties—selling below market value—proliferated, greater affordability was achieved by “establishing a new market value.”

By the time Sanders was ready to move up and beyond Burlington city hall, he was, like Chiasson, waxing poetic. In one of his final speeches as mayor, Bernie cited the many accomplishments of his administration as proof that, in a better civic environment, “men, women, and children can come together in relationships that are not based on greed, exploitation, and domination — but on love, cooperation, and mutual respect.” That’s a vision for “re-claiming the city” still worth aspiring to, four decades later in two, three, many Burlingtons.

[Reprinted from Beyond Chron]

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) recently passed 100,000 members across the country, reaching levels of socialist organizing not seen in a century and closing in on the largest socialist organization in United States history. (N.B. Since this article was drafted, DSA surpassed the peak of the Socialist Party of America by reaching more than 120,000 members, although we still need to grow by three to four times to reach the proportion of the US population organized by SPA). California DSA (CA-DSA) is a unique entity within our organization. Most members know DSA through their local chapter, and most of our on the ground organizing is housed within them. Despite being the lifeblood of our organization, chapters also develop unevenly and interchapter coordination is sporadic (some have called DSA two hundred chapters in a trench coat). CA-DSA is an effort to build connective tissue and increased coordination among chapters in the most populous state in the nation, a necessity if we are ever to take power. I am excited about the potential for CA-DSA to accelerate socialist organizing in our state, but we must overhaul structure and practice if we are to succeed. 

CA-DSA operates as a vehicle for chapters to share with and learn from each other rather than primarily doing organizing on its own. It consists of delegates who represent their chapter in meetings every other month, so it lacks the mass membership base that powers the engine of chapter organizing. Delegates share organizing experiences, report back from campaigns, and introduce resolutions for deliberation by the body. If any chapters have organizing work they want to expand beyond their territory, their delegates can bring a resolution for CA-DSA to adopt in support of the efforts. In turn, members inspired by resolutions from CA-DSA can bring a version back to their own chapter for deliberation. I served as a delegate from Silicon Valley DSA (SV-DSA) last term (’25 - ’26). An issue with the previous year's voter guide put out by CA-DSA motivated my decision to run. The body recommended a candidate for State Assembly that our chapter had a fractious relationship with after they worked against a chapter priority to outlaw caste-based discrimination and co-sponsored a bill to legalize facial recognition technology. In this piece I share reflections on the interplay between CA-DSA and SV-DSA. In some cases the statewide organization has been a model and inspiration for chapter organizing, whereas in other cases our local conditions could help improve statewide efforts.

Communications

A place where CA-DSA shines is in the bimonthly statewide newsletter, California Red. This publication is a venue where comrades across the state can share stories of chapter development or ongoing campaigns. By contrast, in SV-DSA our newsletters were sporadic until the newly revamped Communications Committee took over and made them a structured monthly endeavor. Even as our internal newsletter has become a strength of the chapter, it fills a different role than California Red. Updates on our organizing over the past month and upcoming events support local work rather than raise class consciousness across the state. California Red is helped by economies of scale—with so many comrades organizing across the state, there are consistently relevant stories to share, and the administrative burden of editing and publishing the work is streamlined by having a single statewide newsletter. We can rapidly report on local conditions as we develop ties with and help organize workers throughout the state. Similar arguments were made by Lenin in What is to be Done?extolling the value of an integrated press organ rather than myriad individual efforts.

On the other hand, SV-DSA has a much more robust internal communication structure. In our chapter, we have a Slack digital workspace where we communicate in between meetings. That is our main space for sharing updates, reminders about meetings, and member-to-member communication. CA-DSA lacked such a platform for delegate-to-delegate communication until halfway through our term last year. Noting the barriers to organizing and statewide coordination the absence of such a platform raised, I wrote a resolution mandating the body create such a space. After initially trying to dissuade me from bringing the resolution forward, the Steering Committee adopted it and eventually rolled out a Discord open to all DSA members in California. Unfortunately, there has been limited uptake—Steering rarely posts meeting reminders in the shared digital communication space. As CA-DSA moves forward, delegates can improve its functioning by regularly engaging with the statewide Discord and inviting comrades from their chapter to share perspectives of rank-and-file members across the state.

Meeting Logistics

Scheduling Meetings

Scheduling meetings is another area where CA-DSA can look to SV-DSA for improved practice. For planning our 2026 Chapter Convention, an active chapter member introduced a resolution at our January Membership Meeting to create a Planning Committee and set the date for our Convention as March 28. Shortly after membership approved that timeline, No Kings 3 was announced as targeting the same date. Our chapter had previously passed a resolution endorsing mobilization to those events, which have been good opportunities to meet people where they are and have organizing conversations. Recognizing the conflict between membership desire to attend the mass protest and a Convention date set by resolution, we introduced a new resolution in February to allow the Convention Planning Committee discretion in setting a new date. Members approved the change from the previously adopted timeline.

In contrast, meeting scheduling from CA-DSA lacked robust engagement with delegates. Our last meeting of 2025 was suddenly moved from December 6 to December 13 to accommodate an external event that had never been discussed by delegates as CA-DSA. A few of the largest California chapters, disproportionately represented on Steering, had endorsed the external action and decided to move our meeting with one week’s notice. Despite having received a suggestion to poll delegates to determine our desire to move the meeting, Steering unilaterally moved the date with only limited delegate engagement. At least that meeting still occurred, however. 

More egregious was the decision to cancel the final meeting of the 2025-2026 State Council. First the date was shifted from April to May for not having hit noticing deadlines within our bylaws. Then, Steering canceled the meeting with 24 hours notice, claiming the ongoing election of delegates for the next term raised confusion about who would have authority within the meeting. This action removed the lame duck session of last year’s body, undemocratically disempowering the duly elected representatives from participating chapters. Moving forward, CA-DSA must have a robust process of delegate engagement and a democratic means to determine meeting timing. Participating in the body becomes unnecessarily difficult if previously scheduled meetings are changed on short notice at the whim of Steering. 

Tech Tools

One area of meeting logistics where CA-DSA is an effective model for chapters statewide is in the utilization of tech tools to run our meetings. CA-DSA utilizes OpenSlides, a tool created and maintained by comrades in the National Tech Committee. Steering deserves recognition for their ability in showcasing OpenSlides and effectively using it to coordinate our meetings. While we have an active Tech Committee in SV-DSA, we have not yet brought OpenSlides to our monthly meetings. CA-DSA shows how our meetings can be effectively facilitated leveraging homespun tools. Seeing OpenSlides in action makes it easier to see the utility in bringing it back to our home chapters as attendees of the 2023 National Convention can attest, venue-specific internet difficulties in 2025 notwithstanding.

Bringing Resolutions Forward

Introducing resolutions for democratic consideration is another area where CA-DSA could improve practice. In SV-DSA, anyone can bring a resolution forward if five members in good standing sign in support and authors share the resolution with general membership in line with noticing requirements outlined in our bylaws. For the 2025-2026 CA-DSA State Council, standing meeting rules required at least ten delegate signatures and had no requirement for representation of multiple chapters. Only two chapters are allocated ten or more delegates - LA and East Bay get 49% of delegates - with the majority having far fewer. Fully half of chapters (10) have a single delegate. 

In practice, this meant that a single chapter could dominate what was introduced for consideration, while the barrier for smaller chapters was insurmountable. For the coming year’s term, the threshold has been lowered to five delegates but with no requirement for collaboration across chapters. For CA-DSA to effectively fill the role of statewide coordination of efforts, it would be best served to structurally bake that cross-chapter coordination into bringing resolutions forward by requiring delegates representing multiple chapters signal support for a resolution to be considered. Ideally those resolutions would reflect local organizing already occurring in two or more chapters that would benefit from statewide collaboration.

Supporting New Organizing and Increased Coordination

A major purpose of CA-DSA is to enhance coordination of chapters across the state. Beyond coordination in electoral campaigns (more on that below), CA-DSA has made strides in building cross-chapter ties and organizational capacity statewide. One particular strength is in helping new organizing committees and chapters form. Steering members occasionally provided brief updates of outreach and organizing support at our bimonthly meetings. For At Large DSA members without a home chapter, it can be difficult to know how to start organizing and contributing to our mass movement. CA-DSA meetings are a place where fresh organizers can connect with comrades and get ideas for organizing projects to kickstart work in their local area. In the past year we have seen new Organizing Committees form and existing OCs move towards chapterhood. The only way to build power statewide is if we have a presence everywhere, and Steering deserves commendation for its work in fostering new organizing. California Red helped elevate the story of Sonoma County as it developed into a political force, and socialist organizing is blooming in Shasta County DSA and Humboldt County DSA. Any contribution towards those developments are valuable. And delegates and rank-and-file members can now talk across chapters on the CA-DSA Discord.

Another positive development in CA-DSA is the creation of a monthly housing organizers call introduced by resolution at what turned out to be our final meeting of the previous term. The purpose of the call is to convene comrades organizing around housing from chapters across the state. The calls are open to all DSA members in California working on housing issues, expanding capacity by not needing to rely on the limited pool of delegates to the body. The first call had high participation, with even DSA members in chapters that did not elect delegates to CA-DSA joining. The promise of sharing with and learning from each other is attractive and capacity building; SV-DSA members are excited to learn from our comrades as we seek to build up the Silicon Valley Tenants Union. 

The housing calls are a model for building the connective tissue between chapters doing local organizing through formal and informal ties that we will need to be a serious political force statewide. Similarly in SV-DSA, we are working to build better connections across our various issue-based working groups for more coordinated collective action as part of this year’s Chapter Strategic Plan. At the first delegate meeting for the CA-DSA ‘26-’27 term, delegates approved endorsing a CalSTRS divestment campaign to amplify East Bay organizing and connect comrades across the state fighting against the genocide in Gaza. This is a marked improvement from an earlier CA-DSA delegation that rejected an anti-Zionist resolution in 2024. Connecting organizing around the same topic statewide is the major potential of CA-DSA. 

Electoral endorsements

Although DSA organizes to build working class power in myriad ways, including organizing workers as a class through the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee or renters as a class with the Emergency Tenant Organizing Committee, we are perhaps best known for our electoral work as we march down the democratic road to socialism. The DSA Difference comes from our ability to mobilize dedicated members in force to support our democratically decided campaign priorities. Whether it is rightwing fear mongering or progressives trying to “find the next Zohran”, there is no denying the popularity of our mass movement for socialism. DSA members can competitively fight and win anywhere and at any level, from Mayor of DC to Atlanta City Council to statewide races in Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon, or New York to Congressional seats in New York or Pennsylvania or Colorado to fighting for Governor of Wisconsin. Meaningful differences exist in the local chapter-level and California statewide approaches to electoral organizing as detailed below with a description of our different endorsement processes and specific case studies.

Endorsement Process

At the chapter level in SV-DSA, we have a very high three-quarters threshold for a ballot endorsement (including individual candidates for office). This threshold is in recognition that an endorsement from our chapter involves significant mobilization of resources and member energy. We abstain from paper endorsements where our main intervention is adding our logo along with a sea of other organizations on candidate campaign literature. This approach is part of our strategy adopted at our recent Chapter Convention to lay the foundation for a strong electoral program where we can run and win with cadre candidates. We will turn out members for deep neighborhood canvassing and phonebanks of voters. Such actions also represent membership development opportunities as newly involved members can build organizing skills and begin to step into leadership roles like shift lead as the campaign continues. If membership does not think the chapter has capacity to dedicate the necessary attention to a campaign, we will refrain from endorsing. 

For measures that membership supports but does not have capacity for a full fledged endorsement, we can approve a recommendation by simple majority at a chapter meeting. A recommended measure can go into a voter guide created by the electoral working group and approved by general membership but cannot receive allocation of chapter resources beyond that.

In contrast, CA-DSA has a more convoluted framework for ballot endorsements given that it lacks the mass membership base that drives turnout for the DSA Difference. There are multiple tiers of endorsement, from a Priority Campaign to No Recommendation. A Tier 2 Endorsement is most akin to a traditional chapter endorsement—something that is voted on and approved by delegates to the CA-DSA State Council by simple majority vote. Ballot measure campaigns are supposed to adhere to the body’s electoral vision by building class consciousness and organization, rooting socialists in the multiracial working class, strengthening DSA, and having winnable and transformative objectives. Beneath that are simple recommendations or analyses without recommendations to be included in the voter guide. The next step above, a Priority Campaign, is adopted when at least two independent chapters also endorse a measure that has reached Tier 2 approval by CA-DSA. 

In other words, the most impactful intervention, coordination of turnout across chapters, is not something that is within the control of CA-DSA itself. Without the mass membership base of chapters, a simple Tier 2 endorsement can have only limited impact from the involvement of CA-DSA in a race. When multiple chapters get on board, we can support each other to amplify impact beyond what we’d be able to achieve individually. Specific case studies from the past year are analyzed below.

Prop 50 Redistricting

CA-DSA passed a resolution endorsing Prop 50, the California redistricting measure, in August 2025. That meeting was the second gathering of the term's State Council and the first after delegates were seated in June and elected a new Steering Committee. The endorsement decision was not without controversy, as members penned articles in California Red forand against the decision. The open debate is a good sign of organizational health as members argue for their position within the big tent of DSA. On its own, the resolution was rather modest: it called for CA-DSA to host a webinar with union partners and empowered the body to make campaign literature chapters could utilize. CA-DSA cannot do much by itself even if it passes a Tier 2 Endorsement. It is only upon uptake of resolutions by multiple chapters that a statewide campaign can see success.

In SV-DSA, we had already endorsed a local Measure A designed to support the Santa Clara County hospital system, including the only burn unit in the Bay Area. One reason members passed the endorsement was due to its alignment with a goal in our chapter’s Strategic Plan to develop closer ties with local labor unions. We endorsed Measure A and started canvassing and turning out for phone banks organized by the South Bay Labor Council, which had endorsed the measure. Labor was also canvassing for Prop 50, and the decision by CA-DSA gave enough impetus for a chapter member to introduce an endorsement resolution to SV-DSA, which also passed. 

Suddenly we could canvass for both Measure A and Prop 50, which increased trust between our members and local labor unions. We could also use the Prop 50 canvassing to talk to people about Ranked Choice Voting, a previously existing chapter priority. Members did not make any efforts to endorse a candidate for a local special election despite labor canvassing for them, showing our decision was strategic rather than opportunistic. In the last weekend before the election, we carried campaign literature provided by CA-DSA. Our labor allies respected us bringing our own Prop 50 literature, something we would not have had the capacity to do on our own in SV-DSA without the support of CA-DSA. 

Once the celebrations of victory died down after election night, we learned that our chapter of fewer than 1,000 members had the second most volunteers canvassing and phone banking during election season, second only to the lead union behind the campaign that has more than 10,000 members. We punched above our weight and gained the respect of our labor allies, and part of that was due to CA-DSA. Our ties to local labor have grown from that seed, with the South Bay Labor Council endorsing and inviting members to attend our Labor Movie Night in June where we showed Pride (2014) in honor of Pride month.

Billionaire Tax Proposal

At our end of year meeting in 2025, CA-DSA voted to endorse the California Billionaire Tax initiative, resolving to create materials chapters could use canvassing or tabling and to host a webinar with labor partners. Once again, the body on its own is not really able to have the impact associated with DSA involvement in a race unless multiple chapters opt in and campaign themselves. During debate, at least one delegate raised concerns about the limited list of coalition partners involved in the effort to date. Nonetheless, the resolution passed even as proponents acknowledged the challenges with limited buy-in from many labor unions at the start of the year. It is an easy political argument that billionaires need to give back to the common good after they’ve spent decades robbing us blind, most recently with HR1.

In SV-DSA, the debate surrounding the Billionaire Tax took a much different tone. When an endorsement resolution was introduced at our February chapter meeting, members voted to extend debate to continue hearing respective arguments. Everyone agreed with the politics of taxing billionaires, but many of our most active members rose to speak against endorsing. The reasoning was simple: a question of chapter capacity to meaningfully intervene in the race. The Electoral Working Group was already supporting a local Rent Control measure in Redwood City. 

Seeing that membership may not hit the high threshold for endorsement, one experienced member moved to postpone the resolution until the next meeting so questions of capacity and campaign leadership could be addressed. That same member also wrote a resolution to put in place endorsement expectations including identifying campaign leads and volunteers to address capacity concerns. With that model, a new member stepped up to be a campaign lead and the endorsement measure sailed through when it was certain there were comrades who could bottom line the work. Our chapter was also strengthened by building in expectations that members will address capacity concerns when bringing an endorsement forward.

With comrades and allies across the state participating, the Billionaire Tax got nearly twice the number of signatures required to make it on the ballot in November. With billionaires using their limitless cash to oppose the measure, supporters will need to use our people power to reach voters and perform political education to counter oligarchs’ talking points. CA-DSA also endorsed a separate ballot measure to permanently extend an existing tax on high earners as part of a unified Tax the Rich campaign that can support our different organizing threads if successful. Part of the goal of that campaign is to bridge the gap between different arms of labor each supporting one but not the other measure for a coordinated effort. 

This campaign is a good structure test for our ability to unite Labor and the Left as we gear up towards a planned presidential run in 2028. Unfortunately we are a few months behind where we could be if the final meeting of the previous term was not cancelled. Process issues negatively impact our organizing.

Oliver Ma for Lt. Governor

For the June primary, CA-DSA made its first endorsement of a statewide candidate in choosing to support Oliver Ma. Oliver is a DSA member who ran for Lt. Governor as a democratic socialist with an endorsement from his home chapter in DSA Kern County announced in January. Days later when delegates received notice of our standard bimonthly meeting at the end of February, there was also an announcement of an endorsement forum followed by online vote for CA-DSA to consider endorsing Oliver in just eight days. (Incidentally, it was at this same off-cycle meeting and online vote where the second measure in the Tax the Rich Campaign mentioned above was unanimously endorsed). CA-DSA endorsed with 61% of voting delegates supporting, recording votes in a way that chapter representation required for quorum calculations was unknowable. Oliver also picked up endorsements from Inland Empire DSA, DSA Ventura County, and the YDSA chapters of UC Davis, UC San Diego, and UCLA, showing a real base of support across multiple DSA chapters.

In SV-DSA, Oliver Ma for Lt. Governor was one of several endorsement petitions for statewide office members brought forward at our Chapter Convention. The other potential endorsements introduced by members were for Peace & Freedom Party candidates Ramsey Robinson for Governor and Lalo Vargas for Insurance Commissioner, socialist candidates supported by PSL. Each of these endorsements were brought forward by members tired of being told to vote for the lesser of two evils and who wanted to canvas our neighbors to talk about socialism. 

However, none of the petitioners introduced a campaign plan identifying leads and volunteers in line with the resolution mentioned above that we had passed the previous month. Added to concerns about capacity and project ownership were members' questions about the viability of any of the candidates and the impact SV-DSA would be able to have so late in the race, with about six weeks until the election. Although each candidate was considered in turn, the result was the same: members at our largest meeting of the year overwhelmingly voted against endorsing any statewide candidates. Unlike the PSL candidates, Oliver Ma did get a recommendation in our voter guide.

The outcome of the Lt. Governor race holds some lessons. Before the June 2 primary, Oliver was not counted among the five “major” candidates according to CalMatters. In the end, he broke that barrier with a distant fifth place finish, the first candidate with fewer than one million votes. Although Oliver overperformed relative to pre-election expectations, there were missed opportunities: he did not include a statement in the voter guide that every California voter receives. The campaign did help strengthen OC DSA, including by spurring them to create new guidelines and expectations for their endorsement process.

National DSA lets members request trainings on many topics, and the National Electoral Committee has many resources for comrades to learn from successful efforts across the country. One piece of advice from the trainings is that endorsements should be happening months in advance of an election date; the next time CA-DSA considers getting involved in statewide campaigns we should start the process much earlier. With a March primary in the 2028 presidential election year, the issue of timing is even more salient.

Primary Voter Guide

One activity taken on by the Electoral Working Group in SV-DSA is to research and assemble a voter guide for upcoming elections pending approval by general membership at a monthly meeting. There are local working class people that make up our base but are currently politically disengaged who look to our voter guide and share with their friends and family when deciding how to vote. For the June primary, comrades researched local elections and analyzed candidates based on the limited available information. The working meetings were regularly advertised on the chapter Slack, posted on our calendar, and discussed at monthly meetings with brief reports back so interested members could help shape our collective analysis. 

During our Chapter Convention, the voter guide became a source of raucous but comradely debate. Members rose to amend recommendations for individual seats based on their personal knowledge and politics. One normally reserved member gave a fiery speech that I did not know they had within them. Ultimately, the only change membership approved was to modify the Governor’s race from no recommended candidate to an anti-recommendation opposing San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, the Tech Bro billionaire puppet that wanted to extend his reign of mayhem from the South Bay to the whole state. 

After the voter guide was published, some members noticed we did not include a recommendation for a race that had minor overlap with our chapter territory. Since one candidate was endorsed by a neighboring DSA chapter and there was a membership base that wanted to include a recommendation in that race, members introduced an amendment to the voter guide at the next chapter meeting, following our standard democratic practice.

In contrast to the democratically approved and robustly debated SV-DSA voter guide, the CA-DSA voter guide was rife with issues. Although the Electoral Committee posted its biweekly meetings on the CA-DSA calendar, it never advertised its meetings nor provided reports back on the statewide Discord in contrast to past practice where the full State Council got updates during a synchronous meeting. At a meeting with only four members in attendance, the Steering Committee broached but ultimately rejected the idea of getting the full CA-DSA delegate body to approve, amend, or reject the voter guide. 

The lack of widespread engagement and democratic oversight led to an analysis of the race for Governor that all but recommended a billionaire. Despite an official “no recommendation” stance, the plain text of the guide calling Tom Steyer the most progressive viable candidate led to reports tying DSA to supporting billionaires, a confused stance contrary to our shared politics. The betrayal of our values led to no material gain since the top two candidates ended up being a corporate stooge Democrat with support from the Chamber of Commerce and a MAGA Republican. Moving forward, CA-DSA must reserve the ability to approve the voter guide for the full body of delegates and not allow it to go out with only Steering Committee approval.

Organizational structure

Like chapters across the country, SV-DSA is in the midst of an organizational overhaul in response to the Democracy Commission reforms approved at the 2025 National Convention. Although the chapter already utilizes many of the best practices required in the Democracy Commission reform package, we are undergoing a structured and deliberate review of our governing documents and internal democracy. Membership adopted a resolution to create a Bylaws Committee open to all members tasked with introducing any necessary changes for debate and voting at a monthly chapter meeting. 

Although we could move faster if one or two Steering Committee members introduced the changes by resolution, we would miss important opportunities for membership development. By inviting general membership to participate, we can synthesize multiple viewpoints in the final resolution(s) and help socialize the baseline standards of democracy that all DSA members should expect regardless of their home chapter. We can also address structural topics that are not required by Democracy Commission reforms, like simplifying our quorum requirement which is currently unwieldy and non-trivial to calculate.

By contrast, CA-DSA has not taken a measured approach to organizational reform that generates buy-in and consensus from members statewide. With multiple chapters not participating in CA-DSA for various reasons, reaching quorum on any individual decision faced difficulty in our term. In order to speak with authority on statewide organizing, the body must have a minimum level of buy-in from chapters across the state. If there are fewer chapters participating, a higher degree of consensus within the body is required to move forward. At the same time, it is prima facie ridiculous to include chapters that no longer exist in quorum calculation requirements. The balance between a functioning body and a proper democratic mandate to act was a consistent topic of discussion in the previous CA-DSA term.

To address the possibility of non-extant chapters needlessly raising the threshold for action by CA-DSA, a fellow delegate from SV-DSA wrote a bylaws amendment that would allow for excluding dormant chapters from quorum calculations. Shortly afterwards, Steering Committee wrote their own bylaws amendment that did not incorporate any of the ideas from my comrade’s resolution. When I pointed out that the text as written could theoretically allow a single chapter to claim to speak with statewide authority, one of the authors conceded that it was a well-made point and the language could be changed to provide a minimum threshold of chapters before voting. 

Unfortunately, those changes never materialized. The unmodified language from the Steering Committee was introduced, but the February meeting failed to reach quorum under any interpretation of the bylaws. Perhaps the low attendance was due to the off-cycle candidate endorsement forum earlier in the month. Steering then decided to hold an online vote to change the bylaws in contravention to the process laid out for changes in the bylaws themselves. Despite the process being out of order, CA-DSA is now operating as if that vote was valid.

Given that chapters across the country are undergoing reforms to improve our internal deliberations in response to the Convention-approved Democracy Commission reforms, this term of CA-DSA is an ideal time to reconsider its structure. The National Democracy Commission is still seated to help chapters adopt required reforms and could be a resource for statewide delegates. Delegates from last term who expressed interest in a Bylaws Committee for structured reform were not engaged, a state of affairs that current delegates could alter. Having a few years experience, CA-DSA could decide what has worked and what needs to change. 

Many chapters require a two-thirds threshold for endorsements rather than a simple majority, which CA-DSA may want to consider. Quorum and allocation of delegates is another area for possible change. It is hard to claim to speak for DSA statewide when a limited number of chapters participate in decision making, but we also don’t want to recreate the undemocratic Senate by over-counting sparsely populated areas. At the same time, capping the body size at 85 delegates risks recapitulating the Permanent Apportionment Act that limits the size of the House and fails to account for chapter growth. SV-DSA increased from 473 to 745 members between our 2025 and 2026 Chapter Conventions, a 58% increase, but we were allocated one fewer delegate to CA-DSA. Artificially capping total delegate number limits the full spectrum of member views from being represented, collapsing entire chapters to their single delegate. Delegates should be elected by membership using STV for proportional representation similar to the requirement for delegates to the National Convention rather than allowing for appointment by chapter steering committees. Thoughtful deliberation from as many viewpoints as possible under the big tent serves our movement far better than rushing through changes that align with one approach within DSA.

Conclusions and Future Directions

If you've read this far, you are as invested in the success of our collective political project as I am. If we want a better offering of national politicians and policies from California than Gavin Newsom or Xavier Becerra, DSA will need to expand our power and reach. We can't do that without statewide coordination among chapters. CA-DSA is a first of its kind experiment for statewide cross-chapter collaboration, differing from single state chapters like Maine or Connecticut. Comrades across the country can learn from our story in California. The three New Jersey chapters have made their own decision to remain separate rather than merging or forming a statewide body like CA-DSA. Since its founding, there has been a consistent practice of critical analysis to determine successes, failures, and next steps for the CA-DSA. This article is meant to carry on that tradition.

CA-DSA currently only has limited capacity. Some argue that problem would be solved if only the organization got a share of dues and could hire staff. My alternative analysis is that we could expand capacity by connecting existing organizing across chapters rather than trying to create new projects for chapters to take on. The organic energy within each chapter can bloom through cross-pollination of ideas and tactics, strengthening our project. That would work better than creating projects from scratch and trying to herd cats to make chapters collaborate on topics that aren't already priorities. 

We can't take power in California without being able to coordinate to take collective action everywhere, including within smaller chapters and in areas that don't yet have chapters. Unfortunately, CA-DSA has alienated some chapters with its current approach, despite some successes. Although the participation by DSA-LA in the Healthy California Now Coalition led to the mass exodus of its Healthcare Justice Committee due to perceived tactics delaying single payer health care in California, CA-DSA also decided to join the coalition. Several chapters reported on the National Forum that the CA-DSA voter guide all but recommending a billionaire for the 2026 Governor primary harmed their local organizing. We won't always agree under the big tent, but we do need to substantively engage with each other to navigate those differences. We can’t win without a means to coordinate statewide in California, but the current instantiation of CA-DSA needs to change to effectively fill that role.

Mai Vang joins a growing group of progressive candidates rising in popularity to challenge the Democratic Party establishment. Running for the House of Representatives, District CA-07, she has generated excitement not only through her advocacy on Sacramento City Council but also through her populist message and refusal to accept corporate PAC money. Her policy platform aligns strongly with DSA which helped her receive a unanimous recommendation for endorsement from our Electoral Committee.

Mai has a history of organizing and advocacy within the immigrant and refugee communities. Her advocacy shows her stance is more than a play for votes. As a daughter of Hmong refugees, the immigrant community is more than just political, it is personal. While she was on the Sacramento City Unified School District Board, she passed a safe haven resolution, making schools a safe space for students, regardless of their immigration status. As a city councilwoman, Mai worked to designate Sacramento as a sanctuary city and has a strong stance against ICE, not only to abolish ICE but prosecute ICE for their actions against our immigrant communities.

Motivated to support a candidate actually aligning with progressive values rather than picking the "lesser of two evils", Sacramento DSA had some of the highest turnout to canvasses out of any other organizations in the area, and we members took on roles as field canvass leads for her campaign. In addition to the campaign specific canvasses, our Electoral Committee held DSA specific canvasses leading up to the primary.

As the polls showed Mai gaining ground in this race, the Democrat incumbent, Doris Matsui, started to boost the Republican candidate knowing she would have an easier time against a conservative rather than a progressive. The week of the primary election was a rollercoaster for most of us. Election night results favored Doris with Mai Vang and the Republican frontrunner fighting for the number two spot. After a few days and the mail in vote count, Mai jumped ahead of Doris and sealed her spot in the general election.

Mai's surge in popularity has rattled Doris Matsui and pushed Doris Matsui into showing up to more public events, holding town halls for the first time in years, and voting in a more "progressive" manner. (She was one of the 104 House members who recently voted to cut aid to Israel, going against her previous votes to continue aiding the genocide.) Unfortunately for Doris Matsui, we believe this is too little too late. While canvassing for Mai, people have expressed support for her because of refusal to take corporate PAC money, her advocacy for the immigrant community, and a desire for change within the Democratic Party. Even previous Doris Matsui supporters I've spoken with have expressed a desire for change. Mai's strong performance along with Sacramento DSA's endorsement has increased DSA's name recognition locally, and new members have joined DSA in part because of our endorsement and seeing the success of DSA backed candidates in recent primaries.

If elected, Mai would be the first Hmong elected to Congress and would add to the growing number of progressive elected officials. We will continue to work to make that a reality.

If you would like to donate to Mai Vang’s campaign, please do so here.

June was a great month for socialists and progressives across the country. Congratulations to all the candidates who won their elections and to all the people who worked to build support for them. The victory of the socialist candidates further demonstrates that the word “socialism” is no longer as politically unacceptable as it once was, as people are continually worried about their economic future.

People are frustrated with the Democrats. Why are people frustrated? Because Democrats have not been able to enact more progressive policies and defend the things, like Obamacare, they have won. And why have they not been able to win more? Because the Republican Party has too much power and they prevent more significant wins. 

Would we blame the socialists for not winning more? Democrats and Republicans have power and prevent us from winning more. Should we be frustrated with socialists? Should we give up on socialism because it has not been more successful?

In most circumstances across the United States, establishment Democrats are the best option for the people to choose. The Republican Party is the main enemy of progress toward freedom and equality and is a dangerous threat to socialism. So in those cases where an establishment Democrat is the best option, we should support them. 

We—socialists, Marxists, leaders of the working class—must be able to determine the main enemy at any particular time. Now, that enemy is the fascist movement within the right wing and the lackey Republican Party that enables it. The fascists threaten the progressive movement's existence and ability to make people's lives better and gain political influence. We should be part of a popular front that is in the process of forming, opposing the fascist movement.

Being part of a popular front means that we unite with forces to our right against our primary and shared enemy, the far-right. Participating in a popular front demonstrates our commitment to working on winning what's realistically possible and best for the people.

By participating in a popular front against the Republican Party we can make gains for socialism. We will meet people and explain socialist ideas and policies and hear what will win them over to our ideas. They will get to know us and talk to us and hear us out because we are working with them and doing what's best for the people.

I've written before about the critical importance of defeating Republicans in the competitive districts in California. Since then, the primaries were held. Here are the Democratic Party candidates that won and who we should support:

- CA-13 (Lean-Dem): Adam Gray

- CA-22 (Toss-Up): Randy Villegas

- CA-45 (Lean-Dem): Derek Tran

- CA-48 (Toss-Up): Marni von Wilpert

Some of these candidates may be more or less progressive, none of them call themselves socialists, but they are our allies in the struggle against our main enemy and that is why we should support them. And just like when our preferred candidates win primaries and we want the whole Democratic Party to unite behind them, the same goes for when our not preferred candidates win, we should still lend our support. That's what it means to be part of a popular front to fight the far-right. 

We live in a very conservative country, and the more successful socialism is, the more it will face dangerous and violent backlash. We have a long road ahead of us and we should not rush. Let's not be naive about the political conditions. 

It will be some time before socialists are one of the major political forces in the United States and that will depend on the expansion of the socialist movement's ability to communicate clear ideas and win people over to these ideas. And as we develop those ideas the Republican Party will continue to be the main political force opposed to us. So let's be honest and humble and join forces with our allies against the dangerous far-right. 

Finally, a poem, for what we want to avoid.

A Poem for the Year 2026

(A few years before the Democratic Socialists of America was declared a Domestic Terrorist Organization)

The anarchist asked the left-socialist

how can you participate in electoral politics?

The government is fascist

just a tool of the bourgeoisie to oppress the people.

The left-socialist asked the socialists of the popular front

how can you support the establishment Democrats?

They are fascists

nearly as bad as the Republicans.

Not many years later the fascist wing

of the Republican Party consolidated power.

The anarchist, left-socialist and popular front socialist

(if they were foolish enough to raise their voices)

were picked up from their homes

and brought to a detention center

where finally they all sat

organized, side-by-side

------

Fortunately for us,

We haven't reached this yet.

We can set down our dogmas

We can work together.

We can make wise decisions

And apply them with our hearts.

The fascist movement

will be stopped

by the left

united.

I want to hear what you all think. Please reach out to me at lealfaro@protonmail.com with any comments and if you want to work together.

This spring, DSA San Diego engaged in its largest electoral mobilization to date in an effort to pass Measure A, a tax on the over 5,000 vacant second homes in the City of San Diego, that the City Council placed on the ballot. The measure, which would have levied an $8,000 tax in the first year and $10,000 per year thereafter (plus a surcharge for corporate-owned vacant homes of $4,000 the first year and $5,000 per year thereafter), was proposed by City Councilman (and recently joined DSA comrade) Sean Elo-Rivera, and was inspired in part by the pied-à-terre tax on high-value non-primary residences in New York City that Mayor Zohran Mamdani championed and New York enacted, effective July 1, 2026.

Uphill climb

From the outset, Measure A faced an uphill climb. Initially, it was intended as an “Empty Homes and Short-Term Rentals tax,” but after Airbnb literally paid busloads of protesters from Los Angeles to flood a City Council committee hearing in January, the effort died in committee, despite vocal support for the measure from organized labor and community groups. The idea was subsequently resuscitated as simply an “Empty Homes Tax” (letting Airbnb and VRBO off the hook) and the Council placed it on the June primary ballot at the last possible date in March. However, making the ballot at such a late date and after a false start meant that there was no campaign already up and running to get Measure A passed, and time was fleeting to stand up such an effort. Enter DSA San Diego.

First, though, a detour is in order to review the recent growth in DSA San Diego’s electoral capacity. Over the years, our chapter had on multiple occasions chartered an Electoral Working Group, only to see it collapse or go dormant without engaging in much, if any, actual electoral activity. Starting in 2024, however, this began to change. That year, our chapter participated in California DSA’s “Affordable Rent-Controlled Housing (ARCH)” campaign, with 16 comrades filling 38 canvassing shifts and knocking on 1,112 doors in support of Propositions 5 and 33 on the November 2024 ballot. 

The following year, our chapter made a deliberate choice to lean into California DSA’s campaign for Prop 50 as a vehicle to channel the visceral hatred of MAGA rule into effective electoral activism. We organized 69 canvassing shifts across eight different canvasses over four weeks, knocking on 1,906 doors with California DSA’s “Fight Fascism! Yes on 50!” doorhangers – representing a nearly 100% increase in our electoral strength from the year before. 

Subsequently, at our chapter’s 2026 convention in February, our members voted to make electoral activity one of two chapter-wide priorities in 2026. We then voted to launch a “Tax the Rich” campaign centered around the Billionaire Tax and the measure to permanently extend Prop. 55, and our chapter once more mobilized to fill 66 signature-gathering shifts which collected 520 signatures to place the Billionaire Tax on the ballot. A modest contribution to the overall effort, but an important step forward for our electoral capacity.

Measure A endorsement and mobilization

It was in this context that, in April, DSA San Diego voted to endorse Measure A and mobilize for its passage. Partnering with the Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund (ASDMF), which ran the Yes on A campaign, we organized 100 canvassing shifts across three separate canvasses and knocked on 2,831 doors (nearly tripling our electoral capacity from the ARCH campaign in 2024). Our chapter, by itself, was responsible for 15% of the doors knocked for Measure A, and 17% of the Yes IDs.

Unfortunately, though, Measure A did not pass. Once all the votes were counted, it narrowly failed, receiving 47% of the vote. Why did Measure A fail? There are a number of factors. First and foremost: capitalism. Real estate interests spent over $1.5 million dollars to scare voters against Measure A, whereas the Yes on A campaign was able to raise $300,000 in the ten weeks available to run a campaign.

The second factor was clearly timing. Not only did the truncated campaign period make it hard to build a sufficient head of steam to win this measure and counter the effects of capital arrayed against us, but placing a tax measure on a primary ballot of a midterm election, during a time of economic uncertainty, created too many headwinds to overcome. Despite that, the closeness of the election demonstrates that, even in the least favorable terrain possible, there was a mass audience for this message. In addition, the fact that the late votes broke so heavily in favor of Measure A (every batch of votes released after election date had Measure A either tied or passing, with the eighth batch of votes counted on June 10 favoring Measure A 64%-36%) shows that, with a longer period in which to campaign, Measure A might well have passed.

Unfortunately, there was also clearly a third factor at play – too few organizations prioritized campaigning for (not just endorsing) Measure A. DSA may have accounted for 15% of the doors knocked for Measure A, but we accounted for a full 96% of the doors knocked by volunteers (the remainder were knocked as part of a paid field program by ASDMF). Had there been more left-of-center organizations committed to knocking doors for Measure A, it could have passed, despite all the odds.

Credibility among allies

Despite these obstacles, we in DSA San Diego threw ourselves into the breach. In the process, we gained considerable credibility among community allies and grew our chapter’s membership and electoral capacity. Our campaign in support of Measure A demonstrated to the community the value of having DSA on your side, and it demonstrated to us the urgency of building our electoral capacity so that we may effectively contend for power, because this moment demands it.

As DSA San Diego said in a statement on election night:

Moneyed interests spent over a million dollars fighting against us, spreading lies and fear before Measure A even made it on the ballot. As we wait for every vote to be counted, it is clear that Measure A’s performance is proof of a seismic shift in San Diego. Working people are tired of a status quo that offers austerity instead of bold solutions while the wealthy hoard resources. Win or lose tonight, San Diegans have shown that they’re ready to fight for an economy that works for all of us, to ensure that all of our neighbors can live in dignity in housing they can afford, and to make the rich pay their fair share.

Measure A is just the beginning. Across the country, from New York City to San Diego, DSA is proving that not only are democratic socialist policies popular, but democratic socialists should govern. Join us in the fight, we have a world to win!