9th Assembly District

Not in 9th Assembly District? Click here to choose your customized guide.

RETURN BALLOTS BY TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3RD

The Courage California Voter Guide compiles the information that allows you to make informed decisions about the races on your ballot, based on your values. Vote in every race on your ballot! It's our right and our responsibility. Please share this guide with your friends and family.

Voting has changed in Sacramento County this year. The Voter’s Choice Act was enacted in the county to make voting more convenient. Changes include an expanded period of in-person early voting, every registered voter in the county will receive a vote-by-mail ballot, and every registered voter in the county is able to vote in-person at any Vote Center in their county. Have questions about the changes to voting in Sacramento County? Find out how to vote in Sacramento County.

Federal

President and Vice President

  • Elect Vice President Joseph Biden as President of the United States to get America back on track. 

    About the Position

    The President of the United States is the head of the Executive branch of the federal government, and the Commander-in-Chief for all branches of the armed forces. A president has the power to make diplomatic, executive, and judicial appointments, and can sign into law or veto legislation. Presidential administrations are responsible for both foreign and domestic policy priorities. Presidents are limited to serving two four-year terms in office.

    About the Race

    As of October 12th, Democratic challenger Vice President Joe Biden is leading Republican incumbent President Donald Trump in the polls by an average national margin of 9.2% (as of 10/24/20). Ten days before Election Day in 2016, Secretary Hillary Clinton held an average 4.9% polling lead over Donald Trump. Vice President Biden’s campaign has raised $952 million (as of 10/14/20) and is not funded by fossil fuel money. While his platform commits to establishing meaningful campaign finance reform, his 2020 campaign has received donations from special interest, corporate PAC, and lobbyist organizations. President Donald Trump has raised $601 million (as of 10/14/20) and has not taken any fundraising pledges. President Trump is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Citizens United, Proud Boys, and a variety of law enforcement organizations.

    About the Candidate

    Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is from Scranton, PA, and moved to Claymont, DE with his family when he was 10 years old. He has been a resident of Wilmington, DE, for most of his adult life. Vice President Biden came of age during the 1960s Civil Rights movement, which he cites as his inspiration for majoring in political science at the University of Delaware before earning his law degree at Syracuse University. His political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the New Castle County Council. Just two years later, at age 29, Vice President Biden ran for the Delaware Senate seat, and became one of the youngest people ever elected to the United States Senate. A few weeks after his election, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and his two sons were badly injured. This personal tragedy shaped Vice President Biden’s public image as an empathetic leader and committed family man. 

    Vice President Biden spent 36 years representing Delaware in the Senate. He is often critiqued as being an unremarkable, status quo Democrat, and mid-career votes in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, anti-drug legislation, and the Iraq War reaffirm that characterization. In 1991, Vice President Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and presided over the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas, who had been credibly accused of sexual harassment by a former colleague, Anita Hill. Vice President Biden’s mismanagement of the hearing resulted in a targeted and unfair character assassination of Anita Hill, and remains a reminder of his complicity in the patriarchal and racist systems on which American government is built. 

    Vice President Biden has also been directly accused of unwanted contact by several women over the course of his career. Most of the accusations came to light as part of the #MeToo movement, and related to invasions of personal space that included the touching of shoulders, caressing of hair, and close whispering. He has apologized publicly for this behavior, and stated an understanding of his responsibility to conform to more modern social norms in his interactions with women. 

    Vice President Biden launched two unsuccessful campaigns for President during his time in the Senate, in 1988 and 2008. After ending his 2008 campaign, he was chosen by President Barack Obama to join his ticket as Vice President, and they served together for two terms. As Vice President, he was responsible for managing the 2009 economic recovery, helping to expand health care through the Affordable Care Act, and acting as the administration’s liaison to the Senate. In 2015, his oldest son, Beau Biden, lost his battle with brain cancer at the age of 46. Since leaving office in 2016, Vice President Biden has dedicated substantial resources to cancer research.

    Although he was rarely a trailblazer, Vice President Biden’s record does demonstrate a consistent liberal evolution on many issues throughout his career. After voting in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, he was the first member of the Obama Administration to advocate for marriage equality in 2012. After presiding over the Anita Hill hearings in 1991, he was the architect of the Violence Against  Women Act in 1994, and led the Obama Administration’s effort to reduce campus sexual assault through the It’s On Us campaign. After supporting the 1994 Crime Bill and aligning with the racist ‘tough on crime’ approach of that era, his current platform supports criminal justice reform, abolishing private prisons, and decriminalizing marijuana. 

    Vice President Biden has long been committed to building relationships with colleagues across the aisle, and bridging intra-party policy differences to establish compromise legislation for the American people. This commitment to civility resulted in Vice President Biden maintaining problematic working relationships with segregationist Senators James Eastland and Herman Talmadge during his time in the Senate. During the 2020 primary, Sen. Cory Booker and Sen. Kamala Harris, both Black candidates running for President, were outward in their critique of what they viewed as Vice President Biden’s defense of the reputations and decency of these segregationists. However, Vice President Biden has not apologized for his continued defense of collaborating with these segregationist colleagues, and maintains broad support in the Black community. 

    Vice President Biden’s commitment to compromise has extended to the left in recent months, and updates to his campaign platform are reflective of his interest in connecting with progressive voters. While he was a more moderate candidate in the larger 2020 field, he has been conscientious about including the popular perspectives of his progressive rivals, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, in his platform. He has recently issued proposals that include middle-class tax cuts, lowering Medicare eligibility to age 60, new benchmarks for greenhouse gas emission limits, free college tuition for families making less than $125,000 annually, and clean energy investments. While these proposals do not embrace the full scope of progressive ideals, they are an important indicator of his capacity for collaboration. 

    The Biden/Harris campaign is endorsed by many progressive groups in the country. While the Biden/Harris platform is the most progressive platform ever adopted by a major party ticket, we encourage progressive advocates to continue to hold their administration accountable, and work to encourage progressive legislation throughout the country. With consideration to their records in public service, we unequivocally recommend Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. is from Scranton, PA, and moved to Claymont, DE with his family when he was 10 years old. He has been a resident of Wilmington, DE, for most of his adult life. Vice President Biden came of age during the 1960s Civil Rights movement, which he cites as his inspiration for majoring in political science at the University of Delaware before earning his law degree at Syracuse University. His political career began in 1970 when he was elected to the New Castle County Council. Just two years later, at age 29, Vice President Biden ran for the Delaware Senate seat, and became one of the youngest people ever elected to the United States Senate. A few weeks after his election, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident, and his two sons were badly injured. This personal tragedy shaped Vice President Biden’s public image as an empathetic leader and committed family man. 
    Last updated: 2020-10-27
  • Elect Senator Kamala Harris as Vice President of the United States to get America back on track. 

    About the Position

    The Vice President is the second-highest office in the Executive branch of the federal government. The officeholder is the first in the line of succession to the presidency and holds legislative authority as the president of the Senate. In this role, the Vice President presides over Senate deliberations and can cast a tie-breaking vote in close decisions. A Vice Presidential candidate is selected directly by a Presidential nominee who has won the democratic primary process. Vice Presidential candidates are elected indirectly as a part of the Presidential ticket in the general election. A Vice President serves four year terms, and there is no term limit for this position.  

    About the Race

    As of October 12th, Democratic challenger Vice President Joe Biden is leading Republican incumbent President Donald Trump in the polls by an average national margin of 9.2% (as of 10/24/20).  Ten days before Election Day in 2016, Secretary Hillary Clinton held an average 4.9% polling lead over Donald Trump. Vice President Biden’s campaign has raised $952 million (as of 10/14/20) and is not funded by fossil fuel money. While his platform commits to establishing meaningful campaign finance reform, his 2020 campaign has received donations from special interest, corporate PAC, and lobbyist organizations. President Donald Trump has raised $601 million (as of 10/14/20) and has not taken any fundraising pledges. President Trump is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, Citizens United, Proud Boys, and a variety of law enforcement organizations.

    About the Candidate

    Senator Kamala Harris grew up in Berkeley, CA, and now resides in Los Angeles. She is the daughter of a Jamiacan father and an Indian mother who both emigrated to the Bay Area in the 1960s, and established themselves as activists in the Civil Rights movement in Oakland. Sen. Harris’ interest in justice and equal rights was instilled at a young age when she participated in civil rights protests in Oakland alongside her activist parents, and was further shaped when she was included in the second class of students to be bussed as part of Berkley’s efforts toward school integration. She attended Howard University, one of America’s HBCU institutions, for undergraduate studies, and completed her law degree at the University of California, Hastings. 

    After working for the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office for 8 years, Sen. Harris transitioned to a role as a prosecutor in the San Francisco District Attorney’s office. Sen. Harris’ political career began in 2003 when she won her bid to become District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. She served two terms in San Francisco before being elected as the Attorney General for the state of California in 2010. She was the first woman and the first person of color to hold this seat. In representing the needs and interests of Californians in each of these roles, Sen. Harris’ record was both progressive for the time and complicated by her moderate approach to policing and criminal justice. She has been criticized for failing to institute comprehensive police accountability measures, for not establishing meaningful prison reform, and for taking a hands-off approach to cases related to police misconduct. However, her lenient approach to policing was often punctuated by decidedly progressive support for social justice issues, including the establishment of an education and workforce reentry program designed to diminish recidivism. Similarly, as Attorney General, she declined to defend Proposition 8, a proposition to make same-sex marriage illegal in California, in court and officiated the first wedding in the state when marriage equality was restored in 2013. 

    In 2016, Sen. Harris became the first woman of color elected to represent California in the United States Senate. Sen. Harris has sponsored legislation on climate and environmental protections, rental and housing protections, women’s health, and pandemic relief. She was also an original cosponsor of the progressive Green New Deal authored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey. Sen. Harris sits on four committees: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Budget, Judiciary, and Select Committee on Intelligence. She has been an outspoken opponent of the Trump Administration, and has deftly used her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to question judicial nominees and interrogate the hypocrisy of her Republican colleagues. 

    Sen. Harris formally launched her campaign for President in January 2019 at an Oakland rally with an estimated attendance of 20,000 supporters. As a candidate, she pushed forward a platform that opposed Medicare for All, supported expansion of the Affordable Care Act, sought to expand tax benefits for middle and low-income families, supported citizenship for Dreamers, and favored a ban on assault weapons. She ended her campaign in December 2019, and was tapped to join Vice President Joe Biden’s ticket ahead of the Democratic National Convention in August 2020. 

    The Biden/Harris campaign is endorsed by many progressive groups in the country. While the Biden/Harris platform is the most progressive platform ever adopted by a major party ticket, we encourage progressive advocates to continue to hold their administration accountable, and work to encourage progressive legislation throughout the country. With consideration to their records in public service, we unequivocally recommend Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Senator Kamala Harris grew up in Berkeley, CA, and now resides in Los Angeles. She is the daughter of a Jamiacan father and an Indian mother who both emigrated to the Bay Area in the 1960s, and established themselves as activists in the Civil Rights movement in Oakland. Sen. Harris’ interest in justice and equal rights was instilled at a young age when she participated in civil rights protests in Oakland alongside her activist parents, and was further shaped when she was included in the second class of students to be bussed as part of Berkley’s efforts toward school integration. She attended Howard University, one of America’s HBCU institutions, for undergraduate studies, and completed her law degree at the University of California, Hastings. 
    Last updated: 2020-10-28

Congress

Depending on where you live, you may have one of the below congressional districts on your ballot.

3rd Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

  • Re-elect John Garamendi to keep CA-03 on the right track.

    About the Position

    The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals. Each district elects a representative to the House of Representatives for a two-year term. California has 53 congressional representatives. There is no term limit for this position.  

    About the District

    California’s 3rd Congressional District includes the counties of Colusa, Sutter, and Yuba, and portions of Glenn, Lake, Sacramento, Solano, and Yolo counties. Democrats typically hold this district, with Incumbent Garamendi representing CA-03 since 2013. In the 2016 presidential election, 52.8 percent of CA-03 voters cast their ballot for Hillary Clinton, 40.3 percent for Donald Trump, and 6.6 percent for third-party candidates. In the 2018 gubernatorial election, 52.4 percent of CA-03 voted for Gavin Newsom and 47.6 percent voted for the Republican candidate. Of those who voted in the 2020 presidential primary, 61.5 percent of CA-03 voters cast their ballot for a Democratic candidate and 38.5 percent opted for a Republican candidate.

    About the Race

    In the primary, Democrat Incumbent Representative John Garamendi led Republican challenger Tamika Hamilton by a margin of 27.4 percent. Rep. Garamendi’s campaign has accepted at least $95,000 (as of July 27, 2020) from corporate PACs and $1,000 from fossil fuel giant General Electric Company PAC. Both Garamendi’s and Hamilton’s campaigns have not pledged to reject fossil fuel, corporate PACS, or police money. Hamilton’s campaign is funded by WinRed and Maggie’s Lists, PACS that are committed to electing conservative candidates, and individual contributions.

    About the Candidate

    Rep. Garamendi is from Walnut Grove, CA. According to campaign materials, Rep. Garamendi is running for re-election to improve education for students, create middle-class jobs by rebuilding the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure with American materials and workers, fight climate change, improve flood control, and ensure that everyone has good, affordable health care.

    Rep. Garamendi’s priorities for CA-03 this year have included creating jobs, protecting the California environment, and affordable health care for all. He currently sits on two committees: the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This year, Rep. Garamendi has voted 100 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 94 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. One significant piece of legislation that Rep. Garamendi voted for and AOC voted against was H.R. 5430, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which will replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

    This year, Rep. Garamendi has sponsored 28 bills about a wide variety of topics, including transportation, national security, international affairs, civil rights, and government operations, of which one has become law (H.R. 5671--WWII Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2020) and one that has passed both the House and Senate (H.R. 550--No War Against Iran Act).  On July 21, 2020, Rep. Garamendi voted against the Progressive Caucus on H.R. 6395, the Pocan Amendment, which would have cut all Pentagon funds and accounts by 10 percent. This is not surprising, considering Rep. Garamendi has accepted $30,500 in campaign contributions from corporations that receive billions of dollars in contracts by the Defense Department every year. As of August 21, 2020, Rep. Garamendi has still yet to cosponsor H.R. 40, which would begin the formal process of studying the case for reparations to Black Americans, despite saying that he has been a lifelong proponent for social justice.

    Rep. Garamendi is endorsed by a strong majority of progressive groups and elected officials in the district, such as National Organization for Women, California Teachers Association, California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, and the California Democratic Party. He is also endorsed by a former Yolo County sheriff. However, the threat of Republican challenger and avid Trump supporter Hamilton’s potential policies greatly outweighs Rep. Garamendi’s corporate PAC and military-industrial complex campaign financing. According to our analysis, Rep. Garamendi is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

     

    John Garamendi

    Re-elect John Garamendi to keep CA-03 on the right track.

    About the Position

    The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals.

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

6th Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

  • Re-elect Congressional Representative Matsui to keep CA-06 on the right track.

    About the Position

    The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals. Each district elects a representative to the House of Representatives for a two-year term. California has 53 congressional representatives. There is no term limit for this position.  

    About the District

    California’s 6th Congressional District includes portions of Sacramento and Yolo counties. Democrats have held this district since the special election of 1974, when Democrat John Burton flipped CA-06 from red to blue. Incumbent Rep. Matsui has held the office since 2005 with at least 70 percent of the vote each election. In 2016, 69.1 percent of CA-06 voters cast their ballot for Hillary Clinton and 24.4 percent voted for Donald Trump. In the 2018 gubernatorial election, 69.4 percent of CA-06 voters cast their ballot for Gavin Newsom and 30.6 percent opted for a Republican candidate.

    About the Race

    In the primary, Democrat Incumbent Representative Doris Matsui led Republican challenger Chris Bish by an overwhelming margin of 55.9 percent. Rep. Matsui’s campaign has accepted over $200,000 from corporate PACs and $7,000 from fossil fuel. Both Matsui’s and Bish’s campaigns have not committed to rejecting fossil fuel, corporate PAC, and police money. Sixty-nine percent of Rep. Matsui’s total campaign contributions came from PACs; only .69 percent came from small individual contributions of less than $200. In contrast, 90 percent of Bish’s total campaign contributions came from candidate self-financing.

    About the Candidate

    Rep. Matsui is from Dinuba, CA. According to campaign materials, she is running for re-election to create jobs, improve economic security for working families, ensure access to affordable health care, support seniors, and improve the Sacramento region’s flood protection and transportation infrastructure.

    Rep. Matsui’s priorities for CA-06 this year have included flood infrastructure, gun-safety research, election security, increasing funding for the EPA and fighting climate change, and ensuring affordable health care for all. She currently sits on one committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and is co-chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. This year, Rep. Matsui has voted 100 percent of the time with Nancy Pelosi and 96 percent of the time with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Some of the significant legislation she and AOC have disagreed on is the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2020, the DHS Cyber Hunt and Incident Response Teams Act, and the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act, all of which AOC voted no and Rep. Matsui voted yes on. Rep. Matsui has sponsored 24 bills about health, science, energy, politics, and crime and law enforcement this year, none of which have successfully passed yet. On July 21, 2020, Rep. Matsui stood with the Progressive Caucus (with only 92 other representatives) and voted yes on H.R. 6395, the Pocan Amendment, which would have cut all Pentagon funds and accounts by 10 percent for the next fiscal year. Rep. Matsui has received $8,000 in campaign contributions from Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, groups that receive billions of dollars in contracts from the Defense Department every year, but her voting record shows that she is not completely bought by the defense industry.

    Rep. Matsui is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district, such as California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, National Organization for Women PAC, Planned Parenthood Federal PAC, and the Human Rights Campaign. She is also endorsed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the largest law-enforcement organization in California. This conflict of interest makes it impossible to put forth meaningful policy surrounding divesting from police and reallocating funds toward public safety through social services. However, the threat of Republican challenger and strong Trump supporter Bish’s potential policies greatly outweighs Rep. Matsui’s corporate PAC financing. According to our analysis, Rep. Matsui is the strongest choice for representative leadership in office.

    Doris Matsui

    Re-elect Congressional Representative Matsui to keep CA-06 on the right track.

    About the Position

    The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals.

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

7th Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

No Recommendation

Based on our analysis, there is no progressive candidate to recommend for your vote in this race.

About the Position

The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals. Each district elects a representative to the House of Representatives for a two-year term. California has 53 congressional representatives. There is no term limit for this position.

About the District

California's 7th Congressional District includes most of Sacramento County. This district has long been held by Democrats. This district has voted in support of Democratic state and national candidates in recent years, supporting Hillary Clinton with 52.3 percent of the vote in 2016, and Gavin Newsom with 52 percent of the vote in 2018.  

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat incumbent Representative Ami Bera led Republican challenger Buzz Patterson by a margin of 33.6 percent. Rep. Bera’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC money, fossil fuel money, or police money. He has a substantial number of donations from the oil and gas industry, including Sempra Energy and PG&E. He has also received donations from the PACs associated with Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Corporation, which are affiliated with the military-industrial complex. Patterson’s campaign has not committed to any of the pledges and is funded almost entirely by small and large individual contributions (91.5 percent) and candidate self-financing (8.5 percent).

About the Democratic Incumbent

Rep. Bera is the incumbent, having served as congressmember for the 7th district since 2013. He has supported legislation that would subject a person to the death penalty for attacking first responders in H.R. 115, Thin Blue Line Act of 2017, and co-sponsored H.R. 620, the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017, which took away the right for a person with a disability to sue over architectural inaccessibility. In July of this year, Rep. Bera voted against H.R. 6395, the Pocan Amendment, which would have cut all Pentagon funds and accounts by 10 percent for the next fiscal year. Rep. Bera has consistently accepted thousands of dollars from companies that receive billions of dollars in contracts by the Defense Department, such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and Sierra Nevada Company throughout his campaigns. Based on his legislative activity in 2019, Rep. Bera is ranked the 41st most conservative as compared to House Democrats by GovTrack. When questioned about his stance on the Green New Deal and Medicare for All, Rep. Bera said, “I’m not a socialist. How are we gonna pay for it?”

Rep. Bera’s priorities for CA-16 this year have included health care in the time of COVID-19. He currently sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and serves as vice chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Rep. Bera has sponsored 13 bills this year about health, international affairs, education, energy, and arts, culture, and religion. Only two of his bills have moved on to committee consideration. It is notable to mention that Rep. Bera did not receive the preliminary endorsement from the California Democratic Party’s delegates in his district, who cited his history of supporting pro-corporate policies as the reason why Rep. Bera does not have the support of the working families in the district.

Based on his track record, Rep. Bera is likely to provide no progressive leadership in office. Because the Democratic candidate in this race is considered to be a safe win in this district, we feel comfortable providing no recommendation in this race. Keep reading for progressive recommendations in other key races and on ballot measures where your vote can make a critical difference.

 


9th Congressional District

Member of the House of Representatives

No Good Choices
Based on our analysis, there is no progressive candidate to recommend for your vote in this race.
About the Position

The United States is divided into 435 congressional districts, each with a population of about 710,000 individuals. Each district elects a representative to the House of Representatives for a two-year term. California has 53 congressional representatives. There is no term limit for this position.  

About the District

California's 9th Congressional District includes parts of Contra Costa, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Counties. Democrats typically hold this seat.  In recent state and federal elections, Democratic candidates have won a majority of the vote. Hillary Clinton won with 56.6 percent of the vote in 2016, and Gavin Newsom won with 53.9 percent of the vote in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Democrat Incumbent Representative Jerry McNerney led Republican challenger Antonio Amador by a margin of 26.7 percent. Rep. McNerney’s campaign has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. He has received donations from Amazon, Google NetPAC, Comcast Corporation, Edison International, and Exelon Corporation. He has also received financial backing from defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corporation. Challenger Amador’s campaign has not committed to any pledges, and his campaign is entirely self-funded.

About the Democratic Candidate

Rep. McNerney is the incumbent, having served in Congress since 2007. From 2007–2013, he was the congressmember representing California’s 11th district. After redistricting, he took office in CA-09 in 2013. His platform favors increasing funding for local law enforcement and border patrol, and rejects Medicare for All. Although he holds more progressive views on issues related to climate change, his moderate stance on social issues indicates that he is likely to provide limited progressive leadership in office.

Rep. McNerney’s priorities for CA-09 this year have included applying scientific practices to congressional redistricting, consumer protections around CBD dosing, and establishing a carbon tax and renewable energy. He currently sits on two committees: Science, Space, and Technology (ranks 12th), and Energy and Commerce (ranks 12th). Rep. McNerney has sponsored 21 bills about nuclear waste, water efficiency, energy development, and STEM education. Of those bills, nearly all are in committee or referred to committee.

Because the Democratic candidate in this race is considered to be a safe win in this district, we feel comfortable providing no recommendation in this race. Keep reading for progressive recommendations in other key races and on ballot measures where your vote can make a critical difference.

 


State Assembly, 9th District

Member of the State Assembly

No Recommendation

Based on our analysis, there is no progressive candidate to recommend for your vote in this race.

About the Position

State Assembly Members form part of the California State Legislature, and work alongside the governor to establish laws and a state budget. They hold the power to pass bills that affect public policy, set state spending levels, raise and lower taxes, and uphold or override the governor’s vetoes. The California State Assembly has 80 districts. Each represents a population of at least 465,000 Californians. Representatives are elected to the Assembly for a four-year term. Every two years, all 80 seats are subject to election. Members elected before 2012 are restricted to three two-year terms (six years) in the Assembly. Those elected in or after 2012 are allowed to serve 12 years total across both the State Senate and Assembly. This term, Democrats currently hold a two-thirds supermajority of 61 seats in the California State Assembly, while Republicans hold 17 seats. One seat is held by an Independent, and one seat is currently vacant.  

About the District

California's 9th Assembly District includes portions of Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties. Democrats typically hold this district. Democrat incumbent Assemblymember Jim Cooper has held this office since being elected in 2014. The most recent election results show 61.5 percent of AD-09 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016, and 59.7 percent of AD-09 voted for Newsom for governor in 2018.

About the Race

In the primary, Assemblymember Jim Cooper led Republican challenger Eric Rigard by a margin of 14.4 percent. Assemblymember Cooper has not signed a pledge to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money. Consequently, his campaign is heavily financed by all three types of these contributors, totaling $999,8345 in contributions, with over $63,000 from police associations. Rigard’s campaign is funded entirely by individual contributions, and he has not pledged to refuse corporate PAC, fossil fuel, or police money.

About the Candidate

Assemblymember Cooper is endorsed on paper by progressive organizations, like the California Teachers Association and Planned Parenthood, but is financially backed by:

  • Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs State PAC
  • CA Association of Highway Patrolmen PAC
  • CA Correctional Peace Officers Association PAC
  • CA Statewide Law Enforcement Association PAC
  • Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego County PAC
  • L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Association
  • L.A. Police Protective League PAC
  • National Peace Officers and Fire Fighters Benefit PAC
  • Peace Officers Research Association of CA
  • Riverside Sheriffs’ Association Public Education Fund
  • Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
  • San Bernardino County Safety Employees PAC

Assemblymember Cooper’s disappointing and regressive voting history has continued to show Californians that he does not have the people in mind. In fact, he registered as “no vote recorded” for over 60 percent of the bills graded on last year’s Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records, showing he doesn’t really stand for anything. For the last five years, Assemblymember Cooper has been a persistent Hall of Shamer, with a lifetime Courage Score of 20. He consistently fails to support the legislation that the majority of people of AD-09 vote and call for. Assemblymember Cooper also created the Protecting California Cooper Ballot Measure Committee to support Proposition 20, an attack on California’s recent criminal-justice reforms.

Republican challenger Rigard is running on a platform of personal responsibility, government accountability, and economic opportunity. He cites Assemblymember Cooper’s fondness for abstention as the reason he decided to run for office, and according to campaign materials, Rigard will show up and vote on these tough issues. Rigard is an active member of Calvary Christian Center and the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) Clergy Form, which focus on pro-life and Christian beliefs to fight poverty. He is endorsed by the California ProLife Council, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the California Republican Party.

While Assemblymember Cooper is a marginally stronger choice than Republican challenger Rigard, neither demonstrates a commitment to equitable or representative leadership. Because the Democratic candidate in this race is considered to be a safe win in this district, we feel comfortable providing no recommendation in this race. Keep reading for progressive recommendations in other key races and on ballot measures where your vote can make a critical difference.


State Senate

Depending on where you live, you may have one of the below State Senate races on your ballot.

State Senator, 3rd District

Member of the State Senate

No Good Choices

Based on our analysis, there is no progressive candidate to recommend for your vote in this race.

About the Position

State senators represent and advocate for the needs of their district at the California State Capitol. They are responsible for creating legislation that addresses issues within their district, as well as voting and debating on preexisting laws. The California State Senate has 40 congressional districts. Each represents a population of about 930,000 people. Representatives are elected to the Senate for a four-year term. Every two years, half of the Senate's 40 seats are subject to election. Members elected before 2012 are restricted to two four-year terms (eight years) in the Senate. Those elected in or after 2012 are allowed to serve 12 years total across both the State Senate or Assembly. This term, Democrats currently hold a two-thirds supermajority of 29 seats in the California State Senate, while Republicans hold 11 seats.

About the District

California’s 3rd Senate District includes all of Napa and Solano Counties, and parts of Contra Costa, Sacramento, Sonoma, and Yolo Counties. Notable cities within the district include Napa, Martinez, Vallejo, Sonoma, and Davis. Democrats typically hold this district. The most recent election results show SD-03 voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018. 

About the Race

In the March 3 primary election, Democrat incumbent Representative Bill Dodd led Republican challenger Carlos Santamaria by a margin of 97.6 percent. Dodd’s campaign has raised over $200,000 and is funded largely through business, finance, and real estate contributors. His campaign has also received corporate, police, and fossil fuel money. These include significant donations from the Peace Officers Research Association of California, Walmart, and Chevron, just to name a few. Republican challenger Santamaria's campaign has raised around $1,500 from individual contributions.

About the Candidate

Democrat incumbent Senator Bill Dodd has served as senator for the district since 2013. He holds non-progressive positions regarding affordable housing and criminal-justice reform. Based on his track record, Senator Dodd is likely to provide no progressive leadership in office. 

It’s important to note that prior to his appointment in 2013, Dodd was a Republican, having switched parties in late 2012. Prior to switching to the Democratic Party, Dodd had faced criticism for his slow turnaround on progressive issues. 

Sen. Dodd’s priorities for SD-03 this year include strengthening education, supporting California agriculture, and pushing for environmental protections. He currently sits on 13 committees, and serves as chair for the Wildfires and Climate Change--California’s Energy Future Select Committee. Sen. Dodd has sponsored 51 bills regarding various topics, including safety, the environment, and agriculture, of which four have successfully passed. 

Senator Dodd’s emphasis on environmental protections however, is countered by his close relationship with PG&E leadership. PG&E is the energy company whose equipment started wildfires that devastated California communities. Bill Dodd’s chief of staff is the son of longtime PG&E Supervisor Jim Chaaban. Dodd has also received ample funding from the company through coded “independent expenditures” and PG&E lobbyists. Dodd has used his committee appointments as state senator to craft “bailout bills” for PG&E. Specifically, SB 901 was supposed to “prevent catastrophic wildfires and protect Californians”--yet once again failed to hold PG&E responsible two months later, when the company caused the devastating fires in Paradise, California. The bill was highly criticized for redirecting part of the cost of PG&E’s negligence onto California taxpayers. Senator Dodd’s conflicting interests regarding PG&E have proved to be concerning. 

Senator Dodd also possesses a regressive voting record in terms of affordable housing and criminal-justice reform. In 2019, Dodd voted in favor of SB 136, a bill that keeps mandatory sentence enhancements despite the fact that they cost a fortune and disproportionately harm people of color. Dodd has also opposed giving tenants the right to organize for better living conditions (SB 529) and didn’t vote at all on the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (AB 1487), an agency to fund affordable housing there. In 2020, Sen. Dodd has also voted against SB 50, which supported the expansion of multifamily apartments to address housing shortages, and against SB 1383, which proposed expanded protections for paid family leave. 

Senator Dodd scores a lifetime courage score of 64 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. Based on our Courage Score analysis, Dodd has supported some progressive bills, but remained neutral on key issues. He has also received over 22 endorsements from law-enforcement organizations and sheriffs. 

Because the Democratic candidate in this race is considered to be a safe win in this district, we feel comfortable providing no recommendation in this race. Keep reading for progressive recommendations in other key races and on ballot measures where your vote can make a critical difference.


 


State Senator, 5th District

Member of the State Senate

  • Elect Susan Eggman to the State Senate keep SD-05 on the right track.

    About the Position
    State senators represent and advocate the needs of their district at the California State Capitol. They are responsible for creating legislation that addresses issues within their district, as well as voting and debating on pre-existing laws. The California State Senate has 40 congressional districts. Each represents a population of about 930,000 people. Representatives are elected to the Senate for a four-year term. Every two years, half of the Senate’s 40 seats are subject to election. Members elected before 2012 are restricted to two four-year terms (eight years) in the Senate. Those elected in or after 2012 are allowed to serve 12 years total across both the state Senate or Assembly. This term, Democrats currently hold a two-thirds supermajority of 29 seats in the California State Senate, while Republicans hold 11 seats.

    About the District
    California’s 5th Senate District includes all of San Joaquin County and parts of Stanislaus and Sacramento Counties. Notable cities within the district include Stockton, Tracy, Lodi, Galt, and the majority of Modesto. Democrats typically hold this district. Most recent election results show this district voted for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 and Gavin Newsom for governor in 2018, with small victory margins in both elections. The district includes a significant Hispanic population (37.7 percent).

    About the Race
    In the primary, Democrat challenger Susan Eggman led Republican challenger Jim Ridenour by a margin of 10.9 percent. Eggman’s campaign has raised $1.1M, and top funders include labor associations, such as the California Teachers Association and United Domestic Workers of America, as well as contributors from the energy and natural resources sector. Eggman’s campaign has received corporate, police, and fossil fuel money. The opposing campaign, for Ridenour, has raised about $9,000, including many individual contributions.

    About the Candidate
    Susan Eggman is a current State Assemblymember residing in Stockton, CA. She is originally from Turlock, CA, which is located just south of State Senate District 5. According to campaign materials, Eggman is running for state Senate to fight for Central Valley water rights, veteran services, and access to higher education within the district.

    As a State Assemblymember, Eggman currently represents California’s 13th Assembly District. During her eight-year tenure, Eggman has prioritized education expansion and health-care access, and has advocated for resources to address crime. Also in her Assemblymember role, Eggman has led efforts to establish a California State University in Stockton, and has challenged the delays in establishing the French Camp CA Medical Clinic. She has been an ongoing voice of opposition toward the proposal to develop tunnels through the San Joaquin River Delta. Additionally, Eggman has authored legislation in support of undocumented residents and alternative programs as a replacement for incarceration. Prior to her position in the state legislature, Eggman worked as a combat medic for the United States Army, and later as a social worker focusing on issues of substance abuse and mental health. In 2006, Eggman was elected to the Stockton City Council as the first Latina and openly gay member of office.

    Eggman is endorsed by many progressive groups in the district, including Equality California, Sierra Club California, California Teachers Association, and AFSCME. Additionally, she has received endorsements from Governor Gavin Newsom, County Supervisor Kathy Miller, and the California Democratic Party. Other key endorsements include a number of District 5 council members, the California Women’s List, Latinas Lead California, and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta. In 2019, as an Assemblymember, Eggman scored 86 out of 100 on Courage Score, our annual analysis of legislators’ progressive voting records. According to our analysis, despite the weakness of her campaign-financing record, Eggman is the strongest choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

     

    Susan Eggman

    Elect Susan Eggman to the State Senate keep SD-05 on the right track.

    About the Position

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Statewide Ballot Measures

Proposition #14

  • No Position
    Vote on Stem Cell Research Funding
  • Voters will be asked to vote YES to authorize $5.5 billion in bonds to continue a large-scale, long-term stem cell research funding initiative or vote NO to not authorize bond funding and let the initiative lapse.

    Proposition 14 asks voters to authorize a total of $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to continue the California stem cell agency that funds research, therapy, and grants to educational, nonprofit, and private entities for Alzheimer’s, Parkison’s, epilepsy, strokes, and other central nervous system and brain conditions and diseases. Prop 14 is an extension of Prop 71, which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in 2004. The CIRM ran out of the original Prop 71 funds in 2019 and has not been funding new projects since then.

    YES on Prop 14 Supporters Say

    Vote YES to continue the CIRM, a state agency that has distributed a significant source of funding to scientific research programs and enterprises across the state, both nonprofit and for-profit.

    • Funding from the CIRM has been available for 15 years, and ending the program could have a limiting impact on research programs in areas that include central nervous system and brain conditions, but also immunotherapy trials, cancer research, and vision-loss research currently funded by the CIRM.
    • In 2018 (the last year it was fully funded), CIRM-funded companies raised more than $1 billion in funding from outside investors; a sign of validation not just for the companies and their therapies, but also for CIRM and its judgment.
    • Stem cell research has the potential to lead to groundbreaking medical treatments, which we need more than ever in the face of COVID-19.
    • CIRM has changed its policies for those who receive CIRM funding through an academic or nonprofit institution to require project proposals to address considerations of racial, ethnic, sex, and gender diversity, which is an important step in remedying past inequities in medical research. It is important to note that this policy change does not appear to apply to for-profit entities funded by the CIRM.
    NO on Prop 14 Supporters Say

    Vote NO to not authorize the sale of $5.5 billion in state bonds for the CIRM and eliminate a financially burdensome stem cell research program that no longer has significant impact on medical research.

    • The federal government provides significantly more funding for stem cell research now  than it did 16 years ago, which makes the CIRM less necessary as a source of stem cell research funding. According to National Institute of Health estimates, the federal government will spend $2,129 billion on stem cell research just this year alone, while the CIRM has granted a fraction of that, $2.7 billion, in its entire 16-year history. Private-sector funding is also growing for stem cell research.
    • There is a lack of accountability and transparency around the funds distributed to the various research entities, as there is no legislative oversight in the program design, and the program has built-in conflicts of interest that Prop 14 does not address. In fact, multiple sources state that the majority of the board overseeing the CIRM come from institutions that have received the bulk of the CIRM’s spending.
    • Prop. 71 was designed to kick-start the research at a time when federal funding was blocked. Opponents say the CIRM should continue its work as a self-sustaining nonprofit organization or close down and allow federal grants and venture funding to push the industry forward.
    • The California Constitution prevents the state from holding equity, and Prop 14 is designed in such a way that any returns the state could generate are then used to improve the affordability of stem cell treatments, with no possibility of paying back the interest being paid back over many years by the state.
    • Prop 14 will add billions of dollars in debt through bond financing tied to the state's General Fund. The bond interest has to be paid first, which makes the overall General Fund budget smaller for other services for years, even while the debt from Prop 71 still hasn't been paid back.
    Top Funders of Prop 14

    Robert N. Klein II, a Silicon Valley real estate developer and the top donor for Prop 14, was also the chief author of Proposition 71, which authorized $3 billion in bonds to create and maintain the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in 2004. There is no registered financial opposition.

    Misinformation

    There is no notable misinformation about Proposition 14.

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape

    Voters will be asked to vote YES to authorize $5.5 billion in bonds to continue a large-scale, long-term stem cell research funding initiative or vote NO to not authorize bond funding and let the initiative lapse. Proposition 14 asks voters to authorize a total of $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to continue the California stem cell agency that funds research, therapy, and grants to educational, nonprofit, and private entities for Alzheimer’s, Parkison’s, epilepsy, strokes, and other central nervous system and brain conditions and diseases. Prop 14 is an extension of Prop 71, which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in 2004. The CIRM ran out of the original Prop 71 funds in 2019 and has not been funding new projects since then.
    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #15

  • VOTE YES
    Yes to Schools and Communities First
  • Vote YES on Prop 15 to provide between $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in additional funding to local schools and governments. 

    Proposition 15 asks California voters to raise an estimated $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in funding for local schools and governments by increasing property taxes on commercial and industrial properties based on current market value instead of the price they were purchased for. Based on the most recent report by Blue Sky Consulting Group, 10% of the biggest corporate property owners will pay 92% of the funding and more than 75% of total revenues will come from properties that have not been reassessed since prior to 1990 -- just 2% of all commercial and industrial properties! Proposition 15 will maintain the existing commercial and industrial property tax at a 1% limit and will also maintain existing exemptions for small businesses, homeowners, agricultural lands, and renters.

    Why voting YES on Prop 15 matters
    • Proposition 15 closes a corporate tax loophole by taxing all large commercial properties of $3 million or more at fair market value – not purchase price. This reform will restore $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion of critically needed funds for schools and local community services without raising taxes on homeowners, renters, or small businesses.
    • Prop 15 also cuts taxes for small business owners who have been especially harmed by the pandemic.
    • Prop 15 is a way to invest in our communities without having to raise taxes on small businesses, renters, and homeowners. Closing the corporate tax loophole will restore billions to underfunded public schools that serve low income and communities of color.
    • California schools have the largest class sizes in the nation, and California ranks 41st (with adjusted cost of living) out of all states and Washington, D.C. in spending per K-12 student (California Budget & Policy Center). 
    • California is ranked 51st in three categories: number of K-12 students per teacher, number of K-12 students per guidance counselor, and number of K-12 students per librarian (National Education Association / National Center for Education Statistics).
     
    Misinformation about Prop 15 includes
    • "It hurts small businesses" -- FALSE. Prop 15 exempts small businesses, homeowners, renters, and agricultural land.
    • "It taxes working families" -- FALSE. 92% of the revenue comes from only 10% of large commercial properties that have been undertaxed for decades.
    • "It is a step towards repealing Prop 13" -- FALSE. – This is scare tactic used by large commercial property owners to avoid paying their fair share. Prop 15 protects homeowners, renters and small business owners.
    • "Small business operations from home aren’t protected under Prop 15" -- FALSE. Prop 15 not only clearly exempts small businesses, but helps them by exempting the first $500,000 of business equipment from being taxed. This eliminates this tax for nearly all small businesses.
     
    Primary Funders of Prop 15 include

    Prop 15’s main opponents include realty and industrial property owners, while the California Teachers Association and SEIU California State Council are main supporters.

    Top Funders of Prop 15

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 15

    Prop 15: Schools and Local Communities Funding Act - YES

    Vote YES on Prop 15 to provide between $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in additional funding to local schools and governments. 

    Proposition 15 asks California voters to raise an estimated $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in funding for local schools and governments

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #16

  • VOTE YES
    Yes to Affirmative Action
  • Vote YES on Prop 16 to repeal 1996’s Prop 209 and reinstate affirmative action in the state.

    Proposition 16 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Prop 209’s restrictions on local and state governments from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. If passed, Prop 16 will permit governments to consider those protected categories in order to promote inclusive hiring and admissions programs in California’s public universities, government, and public agencies.

    Why voting YES on Prop 16 matters
    • It is time that California follows the other 42 states that have taken gender, race, ethnicity, and national origin into account for college admissions and hiring in government and public agencies.
    • Prop 209’s affirmative action ban resulted in an over $820 million loss every year in Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise Program (MWBE) contracts with the state of California.
    • Reports conclude that the percentage of contracts granted to MWBEs never returned to pre-Prop 209 levels. Restoring affirmative action is the next step in building a more equitable and diverse future for California.
    • The University of California’s analysis of Prop 209 revealed that affirmative action had increased the population of underrepresented students by at least 12 percent, with the largest effects seen at UCLA and Berkeley.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 16 includes
    • "Gains for women of color in workforce diversity have already been addressed." -- FALSE. Women of color continue to face systemic racism in the wage gap and earn an estimated $946,120 less than white men over a 40-year career.
    • "Black civil workers are overrepresented." -- FALSE. According to the 2018 Civil Service Census of California employees, Black Californians made up 5.5 percent of the total population and 9.8 percent of the total civil-service workforce, compared to white Californians, who made up 37 percent of the total population but 43.5 percent of the total civil-service workforce.
    • "Colleges and universities would be able to use racial quotas." -- FALSE. Racial quotas for university admissions have been outlawed as unconstitutional since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 16 include
    • Opposition to Prop 16 is sponsored by Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., which contributed to the Californians for Equal Rights committee.
    • Support for Prop 16 is largely financed by philanthropists M. Quinn Delaney and Patty Quillin, California Nurses Association Initiative PAC, California Works (a project of California Labor Federation AFL-CIO), and Elizabeth Cabraser.
     
    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 16

    Prop 16: Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment - YES

    Vote YES on Prop 16 to repeal 1996’s Prop 209 and reinstate affirmative action in the state.

    Proposition 16 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Prop 209’s restrictions on local and state governments from considering race, sex, color,

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #17

  • VOTE YES
    Yes to Restored Voting Rights
  • Vote YES on Prop 17 to restore voting rights to Californians on parole. 

    Proposition 17 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to restore voting rights to persons who have been disqualified from voting while on parole. If passed, Prop 17 will restore voting rights to approximately 50,000 Californians currently on parole.

    Why voting YES on Prop 17 matters
    • California is one of the 31 states that do not automatically restore voting rights upon completion of a person’s sentence. In Maine and Vermont, there are no laws that disenfranchise and discriminate against people with criminal convictions even when they’re still serving out their sentences.
    • Parolees who are reintegrating into society resume other civic responsibilities, such as paying taxes and jury duty. Being barred from voting while paying taxes is taxation without representation.
    • In 2017, Black Californians made up 28% of all prison populations despite only making up 6% of California’s total population. With an astonishing and horrifying incarceration rate at 8 times the rate of white Californians, it is clear that the disenfranchisement of parolees is the disenfranchisement of Black voters.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 17 includes
    • "Voting is a privilege" -- FALSE. Voting is a right, not privilege. Projecting voting as a privilege and not a right inherently undermines our democracy. 
    • "Individuals who have not completed their parole period have not completed their sentence" -- FALSE. As soon as a person completes their sentence in prison, they are released into their parole period in order to reintegrate into society. The sentence in prison and parole period are two separate phases.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 17 include

    There are no contributions recorded for support or opposition to Prop 17.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 17

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #18

  • VOTE YES
    Yes to Expanded Voting Rights
  • Vote YES on Prop 18 to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election.

    Proposition 18 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election. At the age of 18, Californians are technically given the right to vote in all elections. However, those who are not 18 by the time of the primary are not able to have input on who would or would not appear on their ballot in the general election. A YES vote on Prop 18 solves this problem.

    Why voting YES on Prop 18 matters
    • Nineteen other states, including D.C., allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will be 18 by the general election.
    • Research has proven time and again that voting is habit-forming. These states recognize the importance of allowing 18-year-olds to vote, to help form their voting habits and amplify their voices.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 18 include

    There are no recorded contributions in support of or opposition to Prop 18.

     
    Misinformation about Prop 18 includes

    There is no prominent misinformation about Prop 18.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 18

    Prop 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment - YES

    Vote YES on Prop 18 to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will turn 18 by the following general election.

    Proposition 18 asks California voters to amend the Constitution of California to allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #19

  • VOTE NO
    No to More Housing Inequity
  • Vote NO on Proposition 19 to maintain property tax savings for all and avoid increasing housing inequity.

    Proposition 19 asks voters to amend sections of 1978’s Proposition 13 to increase the number of times a property tax base can be transferred to three times for longtime homeowners. Prop 19 is almost exactly the same as Proposition 5, which was on the 2018 California ballot and overwhelmingly defeated by voters, with 60 percent having voted against the proposition. The main difference in the proposition this year is that Prop 19 includes an additional amendment to Prop 13 that narrows an existing inheritance property tax break and promises to distribute any revenue generated from that amendment toward fire protection agencies and schools.

    Why voting NO on Prop 19 matters
    • Proposition 19 widens the generational wealth gap by giving homeowners older than 55 and other qualified groups a way to keep property tax breaks they receive for having bought their homes decades ago if they move anywhere else in the state, up to three times. They can also keep that break if they move to a more expensive property.
    • Proposition 13 caps most property tax rates at 1 percent of a home’s sale price and holds annual increases in assessed value to 2 percent or less. This means people who purchased their home a few decades ago already pay significantly less property tax than newer homeowners. Prop 19 further builds the wealth of longtime homeowners and denies wealth-building opportunities to people who don’t own a home or who may be struggling to buy one.
    • While Prop 19 does eliminate a $1 million property tax exemption for parent-to-child transfers and could potentially generate state revenue that would be distributed to fire protection agencies and schools, this amendment is being paired with the primary tax break for longtime homeowners to make it more appealing.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 19

    Realtor associations have contributed $36,270,000 in support of Prop 19. There is no registered financial opposition.

     
    Misinformation

    There is no prominent misinformation about Proposition 19.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 19

     

    Prop 19

    Vote NO on Proposition 19 to maintain property tax savings for all and avoid increasing housing inequity.

    Proposition 19 asks voters to amend sections of 1978’s Proposition 13 to increase the number of times a property tax base can be transferred to three times for long

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #20

  • VOTE NO
    No to More Incarceration
  • Vote NO on Prop 20 to protect criminal justice reforms and constitutional rights to privacy.

    If passed, Prop 20 increases penalties for low-level offenses and would create a state database that collects DNA samples from persons convicted of specified misdemeanors for use in cold cases by repealing parts of Props 47 and 57. Prop 20 would expand the list of offenses that disqualify inmates from a parole program, consider an individual’s collective criminal history and not just their most recent offense, and impose stronger restrictions for a nonviolent offender’s parole program. Additionally, Prop 20 would reclassify theft between $250 and $950 as a felony.

    Why voting NO on Prop 20 matters
    • Prop 20 is a dangerous proposition put forth by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assemblymember Jim Cooper, and it is sponsored by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assemblymember Vince Fong. Time and again, Assemblymembers Cooper and Fong vote to protect police brutality and discriminatory criminal justice policies. Both voted no on AB 1600, which would expedite access to police misconduct records for a trial.
    • Association for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs, L.A. Police Protective League, and the Peace Officers Research Association of California all support and have heavily financed Prop 20.
    • Prop 20 would increase recidivism by removing positive incentives from Prop 57.
    • Parole review boards would consider an individual’s entire criminal history, not just the offense they are on parole for, when deciding to release a person convicted of a felony on parole.
    Top Funders of Prop 20
    • Three police unions are the top funders in support of Prop 20, including the CA Correctional Peace Officers Association, the Association for LA Deputy Sheriffs, and the LA Police Protective League Issues PAC.
    • Philanthropists are the top funders of campaigns against Prop 20, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Patty Quillin, and Stacy Schusterman.
    Misinformation about Prop 20
    • "Criminals are getting away with more violent crimes." -- FALSE. The nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found that Prop 47, which Prop 20 attempts to roll back, not only decreased racial disparities in bookings and arrests, but also found that violent crimes did not increase after it was passed.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 20

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #21

  • VOTE YES
    Yes to Local Rent Control
  • Vote YES on Prop 21 to allow cities and counties to establish and regulate rent control.

    Proposition 21 asks voters to amend state law in order to allow (not require) local governments at the city and county levels to establish and regulate rent control on residential properties. This proposition would affect residential properties over 15 years old and exempts individuals who own up to two residential properties. Additionally, Prop 21 would allow rent in rent-controlled properties to increase up to 15 percent over a period of three years with the start of a new tenancy. Prop 21 is more or less the same proposition voters rejected in 2018.

    Why voting YES on Prop 21 matters

    California has the highest rate of homelessness in the nation, which can be attributed to the overwhelmingly high median rates for rent throughout the state forcing residents to pay 50 percent of their income just toward rent.
    The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibits rent control on residential properties built after February 1, 1995. Since then, housing built in California has become accessible only to those who can afford uncontrolled rent increases, and low-income families have largely been shut out from newer housing developments.
    According to a Stanford study, those who lived in rent-controlled properties when Costa-Hawkins passed ended up saving a cumulative total of $7 billion over 18 years, which confirms that rent control is an effective way to prevent displacement from the city.

     
    Misinformation about Prop 21 includes
    • "Makes the housing crisis worse." -- FALSE. With one in three Californians paying 50 percent of their income just for rent, Prop 21 offers local governments the opportunity to prevent displacement, and as a result, prevent homelessness. A person who experiences homelessness will cost taxpayers an average of $35,578, and chronic homelessness generally costs around $100,000.
    • "Removes a landlord’s right to profit." -- FALSE. Prop 21 actually guarantees a landlord’s right to profit.
    • "California just passed AB 1482, which went into effect in January of this year, so California doesn’t need any more rent laws." -- FALSE AB 1482 only affects residential properties built after 2005, and according to Zillow’s analysis, only 7 percent of renters would have benefited from AB 1482’s rent cap in 2018.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 21 include
    • Three of the top 10 property owners in Silicon Valley (Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc., Essex Property Trust, and Equity Residential) have contributed over $10 million in opposition to Prop 21.
    • The leading funder in support of Prop 21 is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and its housing advocacy division Housing Is A Human Right is a leading sponsor of the Rental Affordability Act.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 21

    Prop 21: The Rental Affordability Act - YES

    Vote YES on Prop 21 to allow cities and counties to establish and regulate rent control.

    Proposition 21 asks voters to amend state law in order to allow (not require) local governments at the city and county levels to establish and regulate rent control on residential p

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #22

  • VOTE NO
    No to Worker Exploitation
  • Vote NO on Prop 22 to protect labor rights and classify app-based drivers as employees, not contractors.

    Proposition 22 asks voters to exempt companies like Lyft, Postmates, Uber, DoorDash, and others from a recently implemented state worker protection law, Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), so they can classify gig economy drivers from ride-share and delivery companies as independent contractors, not as employees. Additionally, Prop 22 would restrict local regulation of app-based drivers and would criminalize the impersonation of drivers.

    Why voting NO on Prop 22 matters
    • By classifying workers as contractors and not employees, companies like Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are exempted by state employment laws from ensuring basic protections to their workforce including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

    • Currently, rideshare and delivery workers are entitled under AB 5 to labor rights that every other employee in California receives, such as the right to organize, health insurance, and Social Security benefits. Prop 22 would take those rights away.

    • AB 5 also guarantees paid family leave, paid sick days, and unemployment insurance to those classified as gig employees. Proposition 22 asks voters to make gig-economy employees exempt from this law and replaces their rights with fewer benefits of much less value to their workers.

    • More than 2,000 drivers have filed claims against Uber and Lyft for over $630 million in damages, expenses, and lost wages. Prop 22 will codify Uber and Lyft’s abilities to systematically steal wages from drivers.

    • Uber and Lyft currently owe California  $413 million in unemployment insurance contributions due to misclassifying drivers as independent contractors under AB 5. If Prop 22 passes, Uber and Lyft would get away with not paying what they owe.

     

    Misinformation About Prop 22
    • "The cost of ride-share will go up, decreasing the amount of people who will pay for rides and services and forcing companies to lay off more workers." -- FALSE. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that because these companies would not have to pay for standard employee benefits and protections (roughly 20 percent of total employee costs), companies can charge lower delivery fees and fares. It is projected that this will increase companies’ profits and drivers’ state income taxes.
    • "Prop 22 will guarantee 120% of minimum wage to all drivers." -- FALSE. The UC Berkeley Labor Center released a report that estimates Prop 22’s “pay guarantee” for their Uber and Lyft drivers would only end up being $5.64 per hour after accounting for all the expenses that drivers are responsible for themselves. At that rate, even if an individual worked 10 hour days, 7 days a week under Prop 22, they would be living below the California poverty line.

    • "Prop 22 will give health insurance to all drivers." -- FALSE. Under Prop 22, companies do not pay for health insurance, but instead provide a stipend to drivers. This stipend is valued at only 82% of the minimum coverage provided by state law, and is actually worth even less because workers would owe state and federal income taxes on the stipend. Prop 22 forces drivers to work more than 39 hours a week to qualify for the health stipend, so many workers would never even qualify for the stipend. For drivers who do qualify, Health Access California estimates that the health stipend would be just a couple hundred dollars—and could be just tens of dollars for younger workers—not enough for drivers to cover the purchase of their own health insurance.

     

    What Is At Stake

    If Prop 22 is passed, all future labor legislation surrounding Uber and Lyft would have to be approved by 7/8 of the total California State Legislature. Making this happen is virtually impossible considering Uber and Lyft have donated $2 million to the California Republican Party campaign committee. This is why Uber and Lyft are spending millions of dollars: to make their operations virtually untouchable in terms of regulation.

     

    Top Funders of Prop 22
    • Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash are leading contributions in support of Prop 22, with over $148 million between the three of them. Both InstaCart and Postmates have contributed $27 and $11 million each respectively, for a grand total of over $187 million in support of Prop 22. Their coalition to pass Prop 22 is now the most expensive California ballot measure since 1992.
    • International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Service Employees International Union, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 770, and SEIU-UWH Political Issues Committee have contributed a total of $5.5 million in opposition to Prop 22.

    Top Funders of Prop 22


    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 22

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #23

  • VOTE YES
    Yes to Quality Clinical Care
  • Vote YES on Prop 23 to require infection reporting and state approval to close or reduce services at hospitals.

    Prop 23 would add sections to the California Health and Safety Code about how dialysis facilities can operate, requiring a physician to be on-site at every dialysis clinic to oversee operations, and mandating that each chronic dialysis clinic submit quarterly reports on dialysis-related infections to the California Department of Health. The on-site physician would assume a non-caregiving role, as they would not be required to be specially trained in nephrology or interact with patients at all. Additionally, Prop 23 would prohibit discrimination against patients based on their coverage or care.

    Why voting YES on Prop 23 matters:
    • Prop 23 builds upon current federal requirements that report dialysis-related infections to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Center for Disease Control to include reporting these infections to the California Department of Health.
    • Having a physician on-site at chronic dialysis clinics during all treatment hours provides a higher quality of medical care with an additional layer of patient safety.
    • Prop 23 protects the 80,000 Californians who require dialysis on a weekly basis by ensuring chronic dialysis clinics cannot discriminate against patients based on how they are paying for their treatments. Insurances like Medi-Cal pay less for dialysis treatments than private insurance, which is why corporations like DaVita and Fresenius are spending millions to oppose this proposition.
     
    Top funders of Prop 23 include:
    • Opposition to Prop 23 is heavily financed by dialysis giants Davita and Fresenius, who maintain larger profit margins if Prop 23 fails.
    • Support for Prop 23 is financed by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West PAC.
     
    Misinformation about Prop 23 includes:
    • “Prop 23 is just being used as leverage in unionizing against dialysis employers.” A spokesperson for SEIU-UHW West, Sean Wherley, said that health-care workers in dialysis clinics “want these [initiative] reforms regardless of what happens with their union efforts.”

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 23

    Prop 23

    Vote YES on Prop 23 to require infection reporting and state approval to close or reduce services at hospitals.

    Prop 23 would add sections to the California Health and Safety Code about how dialysis facilities can operate, requiring a physician to be on-site at every di

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Proposition #24

  • VOTE NO
    No to Pay-For-Privacy Schemes
  • Vote NO on Prop 24 to protect consumers’ personal information.

    Proposition 24 asks voters to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) to include pay-for-privacy schemes, which provide better services and internet connection to those who pay more in order to protect their personal information while providing suboptimal services for Californians who cannot or do not want to pay more. Additionally, Prop 24 caters to tech companies by allowing them to upload a California resident’s personal information as soon as that resident’s device, computer, or phone leaves the state’s borders, and permits tech companies to completely ignore a programmable universal electronic “do not sell my information” signal. Under current law, privacy follows a Californian wherever they go, and businesses must honor the electronic signal.

    Why voting NO on Prop 24 matters
    • Prop 24 removes the existing ability for a consumer to direct all companies to not sell their personal information with one instruction. Instead, consumers will have to direct each individual website and app to do so. This puts an impossible burden on consumers.
    • Prop 24 removes the existing prohibition on companies from tracking a consumer's data once an individual leaves the state boundary.
    • Prop 24 requires consumers to pay for privacy, disproportionately affect working people and families of color. California should maintain net neutrality so people do not have to pay for companies to safeguard their personal information.
    • Prop 24 would create a new state agency to exclusively oversee and enforce consumer privacy. Adding a new agency that costs an estimated $100 million annually is pointless when the power to enforce new consumer privacy rights is built into the position of the State Attorney General and the justice department.
    • Prop 24 is written to make it extremely hard for legislators to pass new legislation regulating consumer privacy in the future.

     

    Misinformation about Prop 24
    • "It will better safeguard consumers’ information." -- FALSE. Prop 24 will weaken existing safeguards and strengthen them only for consumers who are financially able to pay for better protections.
    • "It will give us the strongest privacy rights in the world." -- FALSE. Not only does Prop 24 revoke several protections established in the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act, but Europe's GDPR protects consumer data regardless of location within the EU and consumers’ citizenship/residence. This is not true of Prop 24.

     

    Top Funders of Prop 24
    • Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer from San Francisco, donated the majority of the total funds for the support campaign entirely by himself, with a total of $4,892,400.
    • A coalition called California Consumer and Privacy Advocates Against Prop 24 has been registered in opposition, with $20,000 contributed by California Nurses Association.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 24

    Last updated: 2020-10-29

Proposition #25

  • VOTE YES
    Yes to Ending Cash Bail
  • Vote YES on Prop 25 to eliminate the use of cash bail in pretrial incarceration.

    Proposition 25 is a referendum, which asks voters to directly weigh in on whether to keep or reject SB 10, a bill originally passed in 2018. Voting YES on Prop 25 will keep SB 10 in place and eliminate the cash bail system of pretrial incarceration in California, which is directly responsible for the disproportionate incarceration of Californians who cannot afford bail. The bail bond industry is directly responsible for placing Prop 25 on the ballot and calling SB 10 into question.

    Why voting YES on Prop 25 Matters
    • Nearly two-thirds of the jail population—nearly 48,000 people—are incarcerated pretrial, and California’s average bail is $50,000, more than five times the national average. The cash bail system directly ties an individual’s wealth and ability to pay to the question of whether they pose a risk to the community and their conditions of pretrial release. This system is unfair from every angle and perpetuates the cycle of poverty and incarceration existing in many low-income communities, which are also disproportionately Black and brown communities.
    • In New Jersey, where similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail in 2017, overall pretrial incarceration rates have dropped, racial disparities in pretrial incarceration rates have lessened, and the use of invasive monitoring strategies after release have been applied in far fewer eligible cases (8.3 percent) than feared. California’s SB 10 goes further than New Jersey’s legislation by fully eliminating the cash bail system and has the potential to have even more positive outcomes.
    • The bail bond industry uses its influence to lobby for legislation favorable to them, which perpetuates but also escalates the cycle of poverty and incarceration. Passing Prop 25 will permanently end their influence in the political process.
    • If Prop 25 does not pass, voters will be perceived as having rejected SB 10’s reforms, in particular the effort to end the cash bail system. This will be framed as a significant precedent for opponents of criminal-justice reform to use in lobbying and legal arguments to keep the system intact in the future.
    • If Prop 25 passes, community groups will have the opportunity to advance further criminal-justice reforms related to this initiative.
     
    Special Circumstances Surrounding Prop 25
    • Originally, there was unanimous support for SB 10 from most criminal-justice reform groups across the state. The process of making amendments to the legislation caused many groups to drop their support. In our research, we discovered that the legislative decision-making process around SB 10 was strongly influenced by applied political pressure, resulting in a process and an outcome with less buy-in. Despite the widely acknowledged flaws in the overall process, a strong majority of Courage California's statewide progressive partners are aligned around a yes position on Prop 25.
    • In a ruling in August 2020, the state Supreme Court issued a binding resolution in the case of In re Humphrey that orders all trial judges in the state of California to consider a person’s ability to pay in setting the cash bail amount for pretrial release. Grassroots groups objecting to Prop 25 argue that this ruling already creates systemic reform that will mitigate the impacts of the cash bail system, making SB 10 unnecessary. Advocates for Prop 25 contend that ending the cash bail system is an essential first step in eliminating the cycle of poverty and incarceration entirely.
    • Organized opposition to Prop 25 from grassroots groups is strongest in Los Angeles County, where community leaders have been most successful in partnering with county officials to design and implement community-based alternatives to the incarceration system. In Los Angeles County, there are major concerns about how the implementation of a state-mandated pretrial incarceration program could interfere with their major strides in redressing the harms done to communities by an unfair justice system. These concerns are entirely valid, and attention will be focused on the actions of L.A. County’s Board of Supervisors to ensure that the alternatives to incarceration recommendations developed through a robust, community-driven dialogue process will continue to be implemented. The breakthroughs achieved by L.A. County’s criminal-justice reform movement have been characterized as historic and a model for other counties in California to follow, and this work must continue to move forward without delay.
     
    Concerns About Prop 25

    There are three major components to grassroots groups' objections to Prop 25. Here we provide our assessment of these concerns and how they can be addressed in the future if Prop 25 passes.  

    • Algorithm-based risk-assessment tools will be used as the core component of the new pretrial incarceration system in all California counties. There are concerns about how inherent biases in the system could influence the implementation of these tools. There are two notable countermeasures in place to address these concerns, and both are overseen by the Judicial Council, the policymaking body of the California court system.
      • First, counties must validate the chosen risk-assessment tool for the communities in which it will be used. This is not a standardized approach to validation; the tool must be proven to provide a higher level of responsiveness and sensitivity to community conditions before it is implemented. The Judicial Council will have to certify each county's tool, and the tool must be revalidated for the communities it serves every three years.
      • Second, counties are now required by law to track and publicly report how a defendant’s circumstances and background correspond to the decision a judge makes about their pretrial release conditions. This data has to be collected, compiled, and reported annually to the Judicial Council, as well as made publicly available for review. This law was passed the year after SB 10 to provide an avenue to monitor the implementation of SB 10, and is an important step in making risk-assessment tools more accountable and the overall pretrial incarceration system more transparent.
    • The new pretrial incarceration system is directly implemented by the probation departments of each county in California. Probation departments are currently responsible for investigating offenders’ backgrounds, making sentencing recommendations to the court, enforcing court orders, and supervising sentenced offenders. They also recommend and collect restitution, oversee community service, and provide oversight of criminal-diversion programs. There are strong concerns about how probation departments will approach the oversight of people who have not been convicted of crimes. Probation supervision has been historically used for people who have been convicted and are released, and SB 10 expands that pool of people to those who are accused but not convicted. Probation violations are a primary driver of incarceration in LA, and in Sacramento under SB 10, initial data indicates that 30-40% of people released end up rearrested and 90%+ of those that are released have high conditions of release.
      • We encourage counties to 1) require probation departments to work in partnership with other agencies, including the public defender’s office, mental-health services, and other community-based programs, in both implementing the risk-assessment system and in the pretrial release and monitoring of released individuals; 2) use their power to hold probation departments accountable for how they implement pretrial incarceration programs in communities with a particular focus on ensuring non-invasive monitoring, minimizing conditions of release, and maintaining a low rearrest rate ; and 3) invest in alternatives to the overall incarceration system, such as Measure J on the ballot in Los Angeles County, which amends the county charter to require that at least 10 percent of the county’s local revenues go to community-based programs, such as affordable housing and rent assistance, job training, and mental-health and social services.
    • There are also concerns that judicial discretion is greatly expanded by SB 10. While this is technically true, there are two additional changes to the judicial role in the pretrial system that limit judicial discretion.
      • First, anyone arrested with a misdemeanor, with some exceptions, is considered to not pose a significant risk to a community and is automatically released without going in front of a judge. This greatly reduces the overall role that a judge currently plays in the pretrial incarceration system.
      • Second, while judges are not required to adhere by the risk scores findings in their determination of pretrial release or pretrial detention, this is not an expansion of judicial discretion from the current system. Instead, SB 10 simply gives judges additional information to inform their decision.
      • Third, all judicial decisions are now required to be publicly recorded and therefore more transparent and available for public scrutiny. This is essential because judges now have increased discretion over the more serious felony cases, and they also have discretion to carve out other other exclusions from release for misdemeanors at the county-level. Under the new system, when a prosecutor exercises their option to seek detention, a judge must hold a hearing and make the findings available on record before they order the person detained pretrial. In the current cash bail system, judges can use their discretion to set cash bail at any number with no requirement to make any findings public, which effectively detains an individual with no judicial accountability. The new judicial transparency requirement makes it easier for an individual to appeal a judge’s preventative detention decision. This is a clear improvement over the lax requirements that existed before SB 10.
     
    Misinformation About Prop 25

    The bail bond industry has invested heavily in a No on the Prop 25 campaign in an attempt to spread misinformation and save the industry.

    • “Prop 25 denies a U.S. constitutional right.” FALSE. The 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the courts from imposing excessive bail. By eliminating the cash bail system, Prop 25 simply makes this prohibition irrelevant.
    • “Prop 25 puts our public safety at risk.” FALSE. Judges will have increased judicial discretion over the more serious felony cases, which means defendants who may pose a threat to a community or specific individual will be given individual consideration. All decisions made by judges will also be required to be publicly recorded.
    • “Prop 25 deprives justice for crime victims.” FALSE. In New Jersey, where similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail in 2017, a recent study concluded that defendants are continuing to show up for court cases at the same rate and that people released under the new regulations are no more likely to commit a crime while waiting for trial than those released under the previous system on money bail.
    • “Prop 25 creates additional biases against minorities and the poor.” FALSE. In New Jersey, similar legislation passed eliminating the use of cash bail has reduced racial disparities in the jail population. In California, new reporting requirements enable racial disparities to be systematically tracked for the first time. And ending cash bail immediately eliminates the most immediate factor in the criminal-justice system that drives the cycle of poverty and incarceration existing in many low-income communities, which are also disproportionately Black and brown communities.
     
    Top Funders of Prop 25
    • The two largest donors in support of Prop 25 are Connie and Steve Ballmer. Steve Ballmer is the former CEO of Microsoft and current owner of the L.A. Clippers team. The Ballmers are philanthropists who have given over $300 million to 70 nonprofits over the last three years for gun safety and racial justice. They have also pledged $25 million in coronavirus aid. In a statement, they said that “far too many people that are not a danger are getting stuck in jail waiting for their trials simply because they can’t afford bail.”
    • The next largest donor is John Arnold of Arnold Ventures and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Arnold’s foundation created an algorithm-based pretrial risk-assessment tool called the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) that is currently used in 30 different counties including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and Tulare counties in California. The foundation has also created several think tank projects including the National Partnership for Pretrial Justice and Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, which produce research, policy advocacy, and implementation support for the PSA specifically and more generally for the process of replacing cash bail with pretrial risk assessments. Arnold has been sued for a judge’s use of PSA resulting in a murder by the released suspect. In our research, we did not find a connection between Arnold and any of the three pre-trial assessment service providers that have been approved for use under SB 10, which are Journal Technologies Inc., FivePoint Solutions, and Equivant. It is also unclear if the PSA will continue to be used in California counties under SB 10. Arnold is a former hedge fund manager and was involved in the Enron scandal in which he walked away with an $8 million bonus.
    • The other three top donors in support of Prop 25 are SEIU California State Council; Action Now Initiative, LLC; and philanthropist Patty Quillin.
    • The top donor in opposition to Prop 25 is Triton Management Services, LLC, the parent company of Aladdin Bail Bonds.
    • The American Bail Coalition, consisting of several insurance and bail companies, is opposed to Prop 25, as it wants the bail system to remain in place to avoid going out of business.

     

    Progressive Landscape

    Progressive Landscape - Prop 25

     

    Prop 25

    Vote YES on Prop 25 to eliminate the use of cash bail in pretrial incarceration.

    Last updated: 2020-10-20

Sacramento City Ballot Measures

Measure #A

  • VOTE NO
    Amends the city’s structure of government
  • Vote NO on Measure A to reject a centralized “Strong Mayor” government that strips power away from the city council, and citizens of Sacramento.

    Measure A proposes a shift of power within Sacramento’s municipal government. The measure asks Sacramentans to amend the city’s structure of government from a council-manager form to a mayor-council form. Under the proposed measure, the city council would be composed of nine members, which may include a president and vice president. The mayor would then become the city’s chief executive officer with a two-term limit. Under Measure A, the mayor would have the authority to fire and hire Sacramento’s city manager, propose the city budget, and hold line-item veto power. The mayor would only be obligated to attend city council meetings once a quarter -- currently, the mayor is expected to attend every city council meeting. Accountability components of the act outline the council’s ability to override mayoral decisions with a two-thirds majority vote and the creation of an ethics commission and Fair Housing and Human Rights Commission. The text is not specific regarding the creation, enforcement, and consistency of the proposed commissions, leaving room for weak implementation.

    Under Measure A, the balance of power strongly favors a single mayor over city council members. Based on our analysis, the current council-manager system is particularly important to preserve in Sacramento, which encompasses diverse neighborhoods that each require specific needs. Councilmembers elected to represent and advocate for each district would have their powers weakened under Measure A.

    The City of Sacramento has previously attempted four times to centralize mayoral decision-making power. This is particularly concerning considering current Mayor Darrell Steinberg’s history of unresponsiveness to issues such as police violence. Mayor Steinberg has repeatedly ignored community narratives at city council meetings and has reallocated resources originally aimed at serving youth and preventing gang violence. The measure is concerning in and of itself, but especially so considering who would be holding power. Ultimately, Measure A would move the city of Sacramento further away from a system of co-governance and severely reduce the mayor’s accountability to the city and its residents.

    Why Voting NO on Measure A Matters
    • Under Measure A, the mayor would hold the power to veto any council decision, as well as the entire proposed city budget.
    • The mayor would no longer be held accountable to the Brown Act, which requires that mayoral decisions be conducted at open and public meetings. This would potentially allow for the mayor to make obscure deals that favor corporations, developers and law enforcement.
    • Under Measure A the mayor is not required to attend weekly city council meetings, and is only required to “be reasonably available to the public.”
    • The measure would weaken the power and voice of the city council, who are elected to represent the people of Sacramento.
    • The current council-manager structure of government holds the city manager more directly accountable to constituents, as opposed to being accountable to the mayor only.
    • The measure’s commitment to the Fair Housing and Human Rights Commision lacks structure for implementation, and serves as an enticement that is non-binding and will likely fall through. Sacramentans have seen this vague language in 2018 with Measure U, which proposed an increase in sales tax to “bolster an inclusive economy, stimulate job growth and provide affordable housing” - none of which was not followed through.
    • Issues of equity should be prioritized through their own proposition, not exist as an afterthought and used as a political tool.
    Top Funders

    Support for Measure A has raised over $250,000. The significant amount of development funding paired with the potential removal of the Brown Act suggest that the passage of Measure A would empower developers and development-related unions to privately negotiate with the mayor to their benefit.

    • Developers - This includes the California Association of Realtors,The Greebrist Development Project, and Sacramento development attorney Tina Thomas, among others.
    • Unions/Associations Related to Development - Over 9 organizations, including Members Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council and Sacramento Electrical Construction Industry Labor Management.
    • Big Business - Markstein Beverage Company of Sacramento and Park West Casinos, Inc.

     

    Sacramento Measure A

    Vote NO on Measure A to reject a centralized “Strong Mayor” government that strips power away from the city council, and citizens of Sacramento.

    Measure A proposes a shift of power within Sacramento’s municipal government.

    Last updated: 2020-10-26

Measure #C

  • VOTE YES
    Measure C: Sacramento Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Charter Amendment - YES
  • Votes YES on Measure C to amend the City of Sacramento Charter to establish a rental-housing board, eviction protections, and regulation of rent.

    Measure C asks Sacramentans to amend the city’s charter to expand rent regulation and eviction protections through the establishment of a rental-housing board. The proposed Rental Housing Board will consist of nine members, eight of which will be elected in districts matching the city council districts. Term limits are two consecutive four-year terms. To finance the cost of the Rental Housing Board itself, the Board will charge a Landlord Annual Fee (which has not been determined yet) to all landlords in the City of Sacramento.

    The Sacramento City Council previously passed legislation in August 2019 that caps rent increases at 5 percent plus consumer price index (CPI). However, under that current law, that means that rent could still be increased by 8 percent to 10 percent each year. Under Measure C, the Board will determine the Annual General Adjustment for rent increases, which will never be less than 2 percent or more than 5 percent.

    The Superior Court of Sacramento County is still deciding on the constitutionality of Measure C. Even if it is passed by voters, there is still a chance it will not be implemented, depending upon the court’s decision.

    Why voting YES on Measure C matters:
    • Measure C brings much-needed rental regulations to low-income renter households--63 percent of all Sacramento households in 2014 were categorized as low-income. 
    • Between 2000 and 2015, the median renter household income fell 11 percent, while median rent increased by 18 percent (when adjusted for inflation), according to the California Housing Partnership’s analysis.
    • Sacramento County’s 2019 Point in Time report revealed that people experiencing homelessness has increased by an alarming 19 percent since 2017 and that on any given night, 70 percent of the estimated 5,570 persons experiencing homelessness are unsheltered.
    Top Funders
    • The top funder in the opposition campaign against Measure C is the committee No on Prop 21: Californians for Responsible Housing. No on Prop 21 is sponsored by the California Apartment Association, with major funding from Equity Residential, AvalonBay Communities, and Essex Property Trust. The other four top funders in opposition are real estate entities.

    The top and main funder supporting Measure C is SEIU Local 1021 Issues PAC. The next two top funders (Sacramento Voter Project and Terry Schanz for Central Committee) are committees that are controlled by Terry Schanz. Schanz is the incumbent for Sacramento County Democratic Party Central Committee Supervisorial District 2. Also funding Measure C is Allison Brennan, a New York Times best-selling author who resides in Sacramento.

    Misinformation

    There is no prominent misinformation about Measure C.

    Last updated: 2020-10-12

Sacramento City Council

Sacramento City Council, District 8

  • Non-Partisan
  • Les Simmons promises to fight for systemic change, prioritize Sacramento youth, and work to prevent gang violence. Mai Vang promises to serve her community by advocating for investment in District 8, and working to promote economic prosperity.

    Les Simmons, a community activist and senior pastor at South Sacramento Christian Center is a South Sacramento native. His priorities for District 8 include reducing gang violence in South Sacramento, pushing for police reform, and creating opportunities for youth. Pastor Les has protested against police shootings in Sacramento, and was a crucial community leader following the murder of Stephon Clark. Prior to the acquittal of the officers in 2019, Pastor Les was a longtime advocate for Sacramento PD accountability and transparency, and continues to fight to this day. 

    He helped set up the Simmons Community Center in South Sacramento to provide education, job training and recreational activities for the community, and has assisted in securing millions of dollars for the Black Child Legacy campaign aimed at violence prevention. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Pastor Les helped set up the only free testing site in South Sacramento. He is endorsed by the Sacramento City Teachers Association and Los Rios Colleges Federation of Teachers. According to our analysis, Les Simmons is a strong choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.

    Les Simmons

    Les Simmons promises to fight for systemic change, prioritize Sacramento youth, and work to prevent gang violence.

    Last updated: 2020-10-28
  • Non-Partisan
  • Mai Vang, a Professor at Sacramento State University & UC Davis and Sacramento City Board of Education Member, lives in the Meadowview Neighborhood in South Sacramento. Her priorities for District 8 include investing in public health, youth services and affordable housing/infrastructure. She has committed to advocating for minority owned-businesses and green infrastructure to tackle issues of food insecurity and climate change in the district. 

    Mai Vang has previously served as the Community Affairs Director for Councilmember Larry Carr. As a community organizer, she has advocated to improve health and education services in South Sacramento, and to bring awareness to racial and ethinic health disparities within local and national policies. Mai Vang currently serves as the Executive Director of the Buck Scholars Association, is a co-founder of Hmong Innovating Politics and is a member of the Board of Directors for the Center for Land-Based Learning, as well as Hmong Youth & Parents United. She is endorsed by many local progressive organizations including Planned Parenthood, California Nurses Association, Sunrise Sacramento, as well as multiple labor unions. According to our analysis, Mai Vang is a strong choice for equitable and representative leadership in office.


     

    Mai Vang

    Mai Vang, a Professor at Sacramento State University & UC Davis and Sacramento City Board of Education Member, lives in the Meadowview Neighborhood in South Sacramento.

    Last updated: 2020-10-28