Leyla’s 2024 CA primary election voter guide

Welp. Here we are again. Yet another election that somehow manages to feel like both an existential crisis and an exercise in futility at the same time.

Honestly? I get that it feels harder and harder to engage in the voting process each cycle. I get that people are choosing to opt out—for all kinds of reasons that, frankly, make a ton of sense. I get that “don’t boo, vote” is a crappy response when our votes are so clearly, and so routinely, suppressed, gerrymandered and dismissed. I get that “vote blue no matter who” is a crappy response when the world is (literally) collapsing and the blue people don’t seem to be doing much about it.

I get it. But I’m also going to keep voting. Out of sheer spite. Because I know so many people would prefer that people like me didn’t bother to cast a ballot. For me, voting is spitting in the soup of the shitty person at table 6. Voting is throwing your cheating husband’s crap out of the window and into the street. Voting is flipping off the weirdo selling Trump merch at the intersection. Voting is a visceral moment of raw rejection — however small — of the insanity all around us.

So, if it feels like you’ve been careening from pissed off to petty, and from sadness to spite for the past several years, you’re in good company. Let’s do this.

— — —

A few reminders:

• Our political system is a giant turducken. The Federal Government is on the outside, followed by State Government, then County, then City. When you slice through it, you end up with a little bit of each, which means one bad layer screws up the whole meal. I write this guide to help as many people as possible vote all the way up and down the ballot (from POTUS to dog catcher).
• I don’t bother evaluating any candidates with an (R) behind their name. At this point, if you’re willing to claim the US Republican party… you do you.
• I cover everything on my own CA ballot (find out what’s on your ballot here) as well as issues that impact friends/family who live in other parts of the state/country.
• All candidate qualifications being equal, I’ll pick the non-white, non-guy, non-cis, non-straight (you get where I’m going with this) candidate every time.
• I tend to use the LAT endorsements as a rough guide, as well as local progressive voter guides (LAist, Knock LA, and LA Forward Action) and progressive-ish State guides (Courage California and CalMatters). But I also do my own research — and I find that my choices don’t always line up with theirs.
• If you are a registered voter in CA, you should already have received a ballot in your mailbox. If you haven’t, go register. Now. Election day is Tuesday, March 5.

Ready? Here we go.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — — — — — — — — —

PRESIDENT — Joe Biden

• For the record, if the Democrats would put forward ANYONE OTHER THAN BIDEN, I would vote for that candidate instead. Biden is literally the worst possible choice right now for reasons that range from the fact that he said he wouldn’t run for a second term, to his age, to his handling of the genocide (yes, genocide) in Gaza. I would vote for a sentient lawn chair over Biden if I had that option. But I don’t. So I’m holding my nose, pulling the lever, and moving on with my life.

UNITED STATES SENATOR (Full Term / Short Term) — Katie Porter

• (Heads up that you’ll have to vote twice for this one because the timing got all wonky post-Feinstein. Don’t overthink it.) There are three perfectly viable candidates for this seat, so it honestly doesn’t matter which of them you pick. They’ll all do a fine job. Personally (despite the fact that she was late on calling for a ceasefire) Porter is my pick because I think she’s the best communicator of the three, and because I think the Senate could benefit from the business end of her whiteboard. To me, Schiff is capable but boring, and Lee is an icon (respect!) but doesn’t bring any new ideas. I don’t think Porter will win (Schiff has all the endorsements that matter), but I’m casting my vote for her anyway. For the record, I sorta wish Laphonza Butler was on the ballot. I’d vote for her in a heartbeat.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA — — — — — — — — —

STATE SENATOR, 27th District — Henry Stern

• This one tripped me up for a moment because Senator Susan Collins is AWESOME, but is not the same Susan Collins that is Stern’s D challenger on this ballot. The one on this ballot is endorsed by former (and absolutely terrible) LA Sheriff Alex Villanueva, and thinks homelessness should be criminalized. So yeah, I’ll go with the guy who has been our sitting State senator for the past 10 years and has been doing just fine, thank you very much.

MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, 46th District — Jesse Gabriel

• No D challenger, so Gabriel is the only available choice, but for the record I really like him. I’ve met him in person and he’s charming and actively engaged in the community. I get emails from him often, and I honestly find them useful and informative. I’m happy to check the box for him.

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, 32nd District — Chris Ahuja

• Ugh. Brad Sherman has been my pick for this seat consistently over the years. But he has doubled-down on support for the Israeli government’s approach (notice that I said “government” not “people”) to the war in Gaza over and over — and again as recently as just a few days ago. At this point, even Biden is backing away as it becomes clearer that the Israeli government is unable to listen to reason. It’s not a good look for Sherman, and it’s costing him my vote, even though his four D challengers are clearly — and almost painfully—unqualified for the role. I’m choosing Ahuja since he is the only one of the four with a website that lists endorsements, although they are thin at best. He won’t win of course, but I’d personally rather cast my vote for an untested newbie rather than an intransigent ideologue.

STATE MEASURE 1 — YES

• You know a piece of legislation is a doozy when Disability Rights California, the League of Women Voters California, and the (very, very right-leaning) Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are all on the same side. Personally, I think Newsom is using this bill as an arrow in his quiver for a Presidential bid. And honestly, I’m not mad at him. The optics of homelessness in California are terrible, and he knows it. If he wants the big chair (and lord knows the party needs more candidates-in-waiting), he’s got to find a way to get those optics under control. If I were in his position, with his ambitions, I would do the same thing. If it works, it’s a win-win: he gets a better shot at becoming President, and (in theory) California gets a way out of the homelessness crisis. At the same time, I think the arguments against his approach are valid. It robs Peter to pay Paul by defunding programs that are working well to pay for a new, and untested, approach. It also opens the door to the involuntary confinement of mentally ill people, which is a very slippery slope–and one that disability advocates are right to call out. This approach is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. But honestly the state has been trying to use a variety of different scalpels for a while and they’ve all failed miserably. I’m voting yes because what we’re doing isn’t working. Something’s gotta give.

LOS ANGELES CITY/COUNTY — — — — — — — — —

MEASURE HLA — Yes

• Just 6% of LA’s streets account for 70% of pedestrian fatalities/severe injuries. Which is bananas. And absolutely unconscionable. This measure requires the city to actually follow it’s own (already funded) Mobility Plan and add pedestrian and bike accommodations whenever there’s an improvement to a stretch of a road or sidewalk over a certain length. It also requires the city create a data portal so the public can follow the city’s progress, and allows residents to sue if the city doesn’t follow its own rules. The biggest argument against the measure is that adding pedestrian and bike accommodations will narrow streets which will increase traffic. But, because I am a nerd about things like urban infrastructure design, I’ve already seen puh-lenty of evidence that building things like bioswales, neckdowns and quickbuilds both improve pedestrian/bike safety and benefit traffic flow, while building things like wider roads actually make traffic worse. So yeah. I’m voting yes on this one.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY — Gascón

[Full disclosure: I was contacted by a friend who has a (distant) relationship with Chemerinsky to ask that I consider him for my voter guide, which I do below, along with all of the other viable candidates.]

• This is a tough one. I picked Gascón for DA in 2020 because of his progressive platform, including a pledge to not seek the death penalty, to limit excessive sentencing and to eliminate cash bail for some crimes—but he has since lost support across LA’s progressive base for a number of (valid) reasons. Crime is down by double digits across LA county, no matter what Fox News says, which suggests his reforms have been working. But the fact that he faces nine challengers (including several from his own office) makes it clear that nobody likes him—which is a (big) problem for the leader of a complex law enforcement agency. I didn’t have the stomach to sit through the entirety of either the 2+ hour Santa Monica Dem DA debate, or the ~2 hour LA Mag DA debate, but a quick scroll through both, along with this great guide from CalMatters, makes it clear that Gascón only has four serious challengers. Of those, Hatami, Siddall, and Hochman are all pro-police conservatives — which means they won’t get my vote. Chemerinsky is a progressive, but he is choosing to differentiate himself from Gascón with some “tough on crime” positions that are red flags for me. From what I can tell, this race is about Gascón’s (in)ability to manage his agency, not the failure of his overall strategy. I’ve worked for my share of shitty managers, so I get how bad that can be. But if his strategies are working, I say we leave well enough alone.

LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS — Fourth District — Janice Hahn

[Note that this race isn’t on my ballot, but I’ve been contacted by friends in this district who wanted my opinion]

• Recent redistricting means that long-time Fourth District Supervisor Janice Hahn now has two challengers: Alex Villanueva, the former Los Angeles County sheriff and all around horrible human being who needs to just go away forever; and John Cruikshank, part-time mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes who simultaneously serves as the CEO of two engineering firms. By any measure, both of them pale in comparison to Hahn and the rest of LA County’s all-female Board. The audacity.

MEMBER, COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE, 46TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT

I had to Google what a County Central Committee is. Turns out, committee members are the ones who decide on candidate endorsements — which (a) gives them serious influence, and (b) means you have to be a local party insider to know who the heck they are. I found this guide, and not much else (does anyone out there have better intel?). Anyway, you get to vote for up to 7 candidates, but you don’t have to vote for all 7. My picks are below for what they’re worth.

• 1/ Barri Girvan (I am always all in for an Emerge alum)
• 2, 3, 4, 5/ Michelle Verne / Jason Small / Chris Manabe / Yessica M. Manabe (running as a progressive slate for AD46 — yay slates! That said, I find it odd that that there appears to a married couple sharing the slate (how many Manabes can there be?) but I couldn’t confirm it one way or the other so I’m moving on.)
• 6/ Steven E. Belhumeur (he self-identifies as a Social Justice Advocate, so why not)
• 7/ Elizabeth Badger (who knew getting named “Democrat of the year” was a thing?)

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES — — — — — — — — —

Disclaimer: Judges are SUPER hard to vote for because there’s not a lot of info out there to use as a reference. There are more than two dozen judges on the ballot this round. I used endorsement lists from the LAT , LA Progressive, and LAist to try to figure these out, but in general I prioritize defense attorneys — and especially public defenders — over prosecutors, and I prioritize those with judicial experience over practicing attorneys.

Also, this is the second time we’ve had “The Defenders of Justice” slate on the ballot (albeit with different candidates this round) and I am here for it as an ongoing strategy. They get my vote: La Shae Henderson, #97 / George Turner, #39 / Ericka Wiley, #48

• Office #12–Lynn Olson (Apparently this race is being called a “grudge match” between Olson and challenger Haymon. While I love some hot tea as much as the next person, and I default to Public Defenders whenever I can, Haymon’s painfully thin endorsement list, and “unqualified” rating from the LACBA knocks her out of the running for me.)
• Office #39 — George Turner (part of “The Defenders of Justice” slate)
• Office #48 — Ericka Wiley (part of “The Defenders of Justice” slate)
• Office #93 — Victor Avila (running unopposed)
• Office #97 — La Shae Henderson (part of “The Defenders of Justice” slate)
• Office #15 — Christmas Brookens (got the LAT endorsement along with a slew of local Dem clubs)
• Office #124 — Kimberly Repecka (her challenger Emily Spear (1) only has Police association endorsements (which is always a nope from me), and (2) is facing public admonishment because of misconduct.)
• Office #130 — Leslie Gutierrez (got the LAT endorsement along with a slew of local Dem clubs)
• Office #135 — Georgia Huerta (I’m super torn on this one because Steven Yee Mac is a GREAT candidate — but he’s a prosecutor, so I gotta go with Huerta. Mac got the LAT endorsement so he might win, but either way I hope to see Mac’s name on a ballot again very, very soon.)
• Office #137 — Tracey M. Blount (got the LAT endorsement along with a slew of local Dem clubs)

image created with DALL-E