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

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

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

Conversation One:  John, the nice Trumper*

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

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

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

Conversation Two:  The anarchists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conversation Three: The truck driver

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

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

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

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

An encouraging sign

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

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

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

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

*All the names are changed.

Intro/Disclaimer

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

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

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

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

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

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

East Bay DSA:
Jovanka Beckles for State Senate D7
Melvin Willis for Richmond City Council D1
Claudia Jimenez for Richmond City Council D6
Sasha Ritzie-Hernandez for Oakland School Board D5
Right to Housing Slate for Berkeley Rent Board
Jenny Guarino for Berkeley City Council D2
Carroll Fife for Oakland City Council D3

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

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

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

Sacramento DSA:
Dr. Flo Cofer for Sacramento Mayor

Cheat Sheet

Ballot Measures

Proposition 2 – Yes

Proposition 3 – Yes

Proposition 4 – Yes

Proposition 5 – Yes

Proposition 6 – Yes

Proposition 32 – Yes

Proposition 33 – Yes

Proposition 34 – No

Proposition 35 – No recommendation

Proposition 36 – No

Congress

House District 12 – Lateefah Simon

House District 16 – No recommendation

House District 34 – David Kim

House District 37 – No recommendation

State Senate

Senate District 7 – Jovanka Beckles

Senate District 9 – Marisol Rubio

Senate District 35 – No recommendation

State Assembly

Assembly District 14 – Margot Smith

Assembly District 19 – David Lee

Assembly District 23 – No recommendation

Assembly District 26 – Tara Sreekrishnan

Assembly District 50 – Robert Garcia

Assembly District 52 – No recommendation

Assembly District 54 – John Yi

Assembly District 57 – Sade Elhawary

---

Ballot Initiatives

Proposition 2 – Yes

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

CTA and California Building Industry Association are the major funders.

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

Analysis:

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

Proposition 3 – Yes

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

Proposition 4 – Yes

Background:

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

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

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

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

The PPIC poll shows 65% support.

Analysis:

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

Proposition 5 – Yes (Endorsed by CA DSA)

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

Proposition 6 – Yes

Background:

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

Proposition 32 – Yes

Background:

Raises the California minimum wage to $18/hour.

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

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

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

The PPIC poll shows 50% support.

Analysis:

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

Proposition 33 – Yes (Endorsed by CA DSA)

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PPIC poll shows 51% support.

Analysis:

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

Proposition 34 – No

Background:

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

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

The PPIC poll shows 53% support.

Analysis:

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

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

Proposition 35 – No recommendation

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

The PPIC poll shows 63% support.

Analysis:

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

Proposition 36 – No

Background:

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

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

• Increases sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes.

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

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

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

The PPIC poll shows 71% support for Prop 36.

Analysis:

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

---

U.S. House of Representatives

CD-12 – Lateefah Simon

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

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

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

CD-16 – No recommendation

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

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

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

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

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

CD-34 – David Kim

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

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

CD-37 – No recommendation

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

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

---

State Senate

SD 07 – Jovanka Beckles

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

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

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

SD 09 – Marisol Rubio

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

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

SD 35 – No recommendation

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

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

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

---

State Assembly

AD 14 – Margot Smith

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

AD 19 – David Lee

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

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

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

AD 23 – No recommendation

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

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

AD 26 – Tara Sreekrishnan

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

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

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

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

AD 50 – Robert Garcia

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

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

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

AD 52 – No recommendation

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

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

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

AD 54 – John Yi

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

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

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

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

AD 57 – Sade Elhawary

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

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

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

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

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

Endorsed Ballot Measures

California

Proposition 5

• YES on Proposition 5

Proposition 33

• YES on Proposition 33

County of San Diego

Measure G

• YES on Measure G

Endorsed Candidates

County of San Diego

San Diego County Board of Education – District 4

• Erin Evans is our endorsed candidate

[…]

Read More...

After trying to quash small-donor financing in 2016, The Oregonian editorial board refuses to interview top recipients of small-donor funds

Readers likely received The Oregonian’s recent endorsements of employer-friendly, corporate-backed City Council candidates with little surprise.

After all, the newspaper’s editorial board has, over its 175-year existence, endorsed a KKK-backed gubernatorial winner, greenlit Chamber of Commerce-led mobs trying to (unsuccessfully) break the great 1934 Longshore strike, lauded federal incarceration of people of Japanese descent — and endorsed a Republican presidential candidate every election until 1992.

It’s more intriguing to see a gap open up between the Editorial Board’s hardline support for ruling-class priorities and reporting by the paper’s own news staff.

Oddly, the editorial bosses refused to even interview the top recipients of small-donor contributions in District 3 and 4 (Tiffany Koyama Lane and Mitch Green, both backed by Portland DSA).

Koyama Lane is also the top overall recipient of small-donor funds across the entire city — putting her ahead of all 78 city council/mayoral candidates participating in the small-donor program.

The Oregonian’s contempt for working-class political action isn’t new here, either. The Editorial Board opposed both the 2016 small-donor campaign finance resolution and the 2023 voter-led government charter reform measure. Respectively, these bills launched the small-donor financing program and overhauled Portland’s Jim Crow-era city government. The Oregonian also lobbied against passage of ranked-choice voting, which threatens to upend the corporate-backed status quo in City Hall.

In contrast, the newspaper’s journalists apparently see something different brewing in city politics. The paper’s October 9 edition featured a front-page article overviewing the 30+ candidates running in District 3.

Koyama Lane was above-the-fold:

“People are sick of finger pointing,” said Tiffany Koyama Lane, a third grade teacher and union organizer who currently leads the citywide field in money raised by a prospective city councilor. “They really want the government to get it together.”

Portland DSA’s backing was noted as well:

“Koyama Lane has been endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America — one of two Portland City Council candidates to get that nod. She said that while it was hard to participate with two elementary age kids at home, the 2023 teacher strike showed her the power of collective action.”

Similarly, an October 1 X.com (formerly Twitter) post by staff reporter Shane Dixon Kavanaugh heralded Portland DSA’s unprecedented canvassing operation on behalf of Koyama Lane and Green, at a time when most other candidates are struggling to get doors knocked:

It is no surprise to us that our candidates would uniquely attract regular people to back their campaigns. After all, both Tiffany and Mitch demonstrate a strong commitment to our vision of a city run by the working class, not bosses, landlords, and big corporations.

Portlanders are worked to the bone just to keep a roof over their heads, and that won’t change with tepid “reforms” drawn up in consultants’ board rooms. Tiffany and Mitch will bring the power of our movement to fight for what we all deserve: guaranteed quality housing, plentiful public services, and a beautiful, livable environment.

Reliable as they are, we can expect the Portland Business Alliance-affiliated Oregonian to advocate for its interests. But it’s clear working-class Portlanders, over-represented among the small-donor rolls, want something different.

Contribute $10 or more (split between Tiffany and Mitch) to have your money matched 9:1

Portland’s silence tarnishes its progressive reputation

As the Israeli violence in Gaza escalates to horrifying levels, the human death toll continues to mount. More than 50% of those killed in Gaza are children. Israel has dropped thousands of tons of American-supplied explosives, with nearly 18,000 bombs and missiles raining down on the densely populated region. International organizations condemn the excessive use of force, war crimes, the targeting of civilian infrastructure, and the violation of human rights.

Portland City Hall remains silent. Portland DSA, and our boycott divestment and sanctions working group, call on City Council candidates — and current incumbents — to back a ceasefire resolution & arms embargo within their first 100 days in office. This is not just a moral imperative but also a reflection of the values we claim to uphold: peace, justice, and the dignity of all human beings.

In March 2024, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese, said that there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. In its July 2024 ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its advisory opinion that, “all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” (No. 2024/57, 19 July 2024).

Calls to end this genocide are ringing out across civil society, including from universities, labor unions, and cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Madison and San Francisco. Many of these statements recognize the interconnectedness of global justice movements. The labor movement, for example, has pointed out the parallels between the exploitation of workers in places like the Congo — where resources are extracted through violence — and the oppression faced by Palestinians. These struggles against imperialism, capitalism, and oppression are deeply intertwined.

Ceasefire resolutions were passed by Multnomah County, the city of Eugene, the Oregon Food Bank, and the Klamath Tribe. Salem, embedded in a more conservative context than Portland, passed a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire, calling for accountability for all parties, and condemning attacks on civilians. Cities calling for a ceasefire are a part of a meaningful, longstanding tradition of grassroots activism that sends strong signals to the Federal Government. As we head into the next election cycle, it is imperative that we demand concrete action from those seeking our votes. Candidates running for office — whether at the local, state, or federal level — must take a stand.

But how is it that there hasn’t been a resolution passed calling for a ceasefire in our city? Portland, known for its progressive stances on many fronts including trans- and LGBTQ+ rights, has yet to make a robust demand for a ceasefire and arms embargo.

As Israel’s aggression escalates, we’re seeing alarming developments in Lebanon as well, where Israeli forces have begun their bombardment of civilian areas. This broader regional escalation threatens to engulf the entire Middle East in further violence, with civilians bearing the brunt of the destruction. These attacks are not isolated but part of a broader strategy of expansion and domination, which the international community must urgently address.

Our organization, DSA, stands firmly in solidarity with the people of Gaza and Lebanon, against Zionism, and with all oppressed peoples across the world. The time for silence has long passed. Now is the moment to demand an end to the killing, an end to the bombing, and a real, lasting peace that addresses the root causes of the conflict. It’s time to call for an uncompromising ceasefire and Israeli arms embargo — our complicity must end.

It has been an honor to have been able to serve this past year on the 2023-2024 Steering Committee of our chapter. It was a successful convention season, with a new chapter priorities process bearing a renewed focus for our chapter and elected leadership containing both incumbents and a slate of new chapter leadership. Furthermore, […]

Deb K R Hi, comrades. For those of you who don’t know me, I am Debra Keefer Ramage or Debs (she/her pronouns.) I was one of the first co-chairs elected in 2016 under our then-new constitution and bylaws (which I also had a major hand in writing, so please forgive me if some of them […]

Thorn West: Issue No. 217

State Politics

• AB X2 – 1, which requires oil companies to maintain higher reserves with the goal of preventing gasoline price spikes, was approved by the State Senate today in a special legislative session. All that remains now is for the Assembly to approve the Senate’s amendments. Governor Newsom promoted the legislation and called for the special session.

City Politics

• DSA-LA has released its voter guide for this November! Read and share!

• Across California, ballots are in the mail. Here is how to register to vote.

• A quarter of the way through the current fiscal year, the city has already spent the entire $100 million budgeted to settle liability claims against the city. The Controller’s office had previously broken down which city departments are most responsible, with the LAPD responsible for over half of the city’s liability.

• Following the latest round of settlement payouts, the city’s reserve fund is now below 4% of the total general fund, and is likely to dip further. Per the Controller’s office, dropping below 2.75% triggers an official “fiscal emergency.”

Police Violence and Community Resistance

• Amid a budget crisis, Charter Amendment FF would spend 23 million to give certain police officers and park rangers better pensions. The LA Times (and DSA-LA) endorses a no vote.

• Non-stop fear-mongering from media, politicians, and law enforcement about a non-existent crime wave appears to have made an impact on voters. Nathan Hochman, considered the most right-wing primary challenger of incumbent LA County District Attorney George Gascón, leads him in the general by high double digits, according to a recent poll. Similarly, Prop 36, which rolls back criminal justice reforms voters approved in 2014, also shows broad support in polls.

Labor

• 2,400 Kaiser Permanente behavioral health workers in Southern California, represented by the National Union of Healthcare Workers, have announced that they will go on indefinite strike beginning on October 21 if their demands are not met. At issue are several concessions won by a similar strike of Kaiser workers in Northern California, in 2022.

Transportation

• AB 761, which further enables California municipalities to take advantage of federal loans to fund critical infrastructure projects, has officially passed. The new funding opportunity has been suggested as a way to expedite the planned extension of the Metro K Line from LAX to West Hollywood.
• This Sunday from 9am – 4pm, CicLAvia will hold one of its biggest car-free open streets events of the year, closing a route sprawling from Echo Park to East LA to all auto traffic.

Climate Justice

• The California Air Resource Board will soon consider whether to amend the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to require that gasoline manufactured in California produce less carbon-intense emissions. Meanwhile, the media has focused on the likelihood that this would likely raise the price of gas.

The post DSA-LA Voter Guide is Here + LA Over Budget On Liability Claims appeared first on The Thorn West.

North Carolina chapters of the DSA are currently organizing mutual aide relief to address the impact of Hurricane Helene. Here is one NC member's reflection.