Why is passing Prop. 50 so important? MoveOn.org explained it well:
Proposition 50, on the ballot for the November 4, 2025 election, would enact the congressional maps approved by the California legislature earlier this August. This measure is a direct response to the unprecedented GOP-driven power grab, backed by Trump, taking place in states like Texas, Indiana, and Missouri.
If passed, Proposition 50 would lock these new congressional boundaries in place until 2030, when the regular census and redistricting process resumes. Unlike in Texas, where political leaders unilaterally redrew maps at the direction of the president and governor, California is putting this decision in the hands of voters for their approval.
This measure does not permanently change the state’s redistricting process. Instead, it allows the legislature’s approved maps to take effect temporarily, ensuring a fairer process while countering the blatant partisan manipulation happening elsewhere. The balance of the House of Representatives is at stake, and our ability to push back on future power grabs, if we don’t respond to Republican redistricting efforts.
END OF 2025 ELECTION SECTION
STOP HERE
Previous historical election info FYI
2024 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION
CLICK HERE for short version to take to the polls, or read below for fuller explanations of PPDC’s reasoning behind ballot measure recommendations
Vote center location info follows the endorsements
L.A. County Community College Seat 7 wasn’t able to be discussed by PPDC’s endorsement committee in time for the endorsement vote — info provided FYI:
L.A. Community College District Seat 7 . . . L.A. Times, LACDP, UTLA, Lieu, Bass, and multiple Dem orgs endorse Kelsey Iino(incumbent)
Late additions to the ballot not able to be discussed by PPDC’s endorsement committee in time for the endorsement vote — info provided FYI:
THE FOLLOWING BALLOT MEASURE INFO REFLECTS THE RESULTS OF PPDC’S ENDORSEMENT VOTES
CLICK HERE for shorter version, or read above for fuller explanations of PPDC’s reasoning behind ballot measure recommendations
VOTE CENTER LOCATIONS
Starting Friday, 10/26, people can vote early at one of the
Complete voting information HERE, including your registration status, sample ballot, and more
PPDC ENDORSEMENTS
for the March 5, 2024 Presidential Primary
For President: Joe Biden
For Vice President: Kamala Harris
For Senate: No endorsement (Competitive race among three viable Dem candidates) — but vote your pick twice, for Full Term & Short Term
For Congress: Brad Sherman
For State Assembly: Jacqui Irwin
For L.A. District Attorney: No endorsement (Eight Dems are running; at least three are viable)
JUDICIAL (Based on ratings from the L.A. County Bar Association, LACDP endorsements, L.A. Times and other outlets’ and Dem clubs’ endorsements, and general background information)
Judicial Seat 12: Lynn Diane Olson
Judicial Seat 39: George A. Turner Jr.
Judicial Seat 48: Ericka J. Wiley
Judicial Seat 93: Victor Avila
Judicial Seat 97: Sharon Ransom
Judicial Seat 115: Christmas Brookens
Judicial Seat 124: Kimberly Repecka
Judicial Seat 130: Leslie Gutierrez
Judicial Seat 135: Steven Yee Mac
Judicial Seat 137: Tracy M. Blount
More info on Judicial and DA races at these sites:
California Proposition 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure (March 2024)
A “yes” vote supports:
renaming the Mental Health Services Act (2004) to the Behavioral Health Services Act and expanding its purpose to include substance use disorders;
changing how revenue from the 1% tax on income above $1 million is spent under the law, including requiring 30% of the Behavioral Health Services Fund be allocated to housing intervention programs; increasing the size of the oversight commission from 16 to 27 voting members; and
issuing $6.380 billion in bonds to fund housing for homeless individuals and veterans with mental health or substance use disorders.
Supporters are businesses and pro-business advocates, nonprofit and for profit healthcare systems and advocates.
Support
· San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: “California is short thousands of mental health beds at all levels of care, according to a 2021 study from the nonprofit think tank Rand Corp. Furthermore, even when beds are available, many facilities are unwilling or unable to accept patients with complex co-occurring conditions, criminal records and a history of violence. Other times, beds sit empty because there aren’t enough workers to staff them. As of late last year, some behavioral health nonprofits that contract with San Francisco had vacancy rates reaching 40%. Enter Proposition 1, a state ballot measure that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration describes as the ‘linchpin’ of its strategy to overhaul California’s behavioral health system. … The status quo is not an option — and that means voting ‘yes’ for Prop. 1 on March 5.”
· The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: “This tug of war over California’s mental health dollars will not solve California’s mental health crisis. Proposition 1 promises real solutions.”
· Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: “When compared with the cost of doing nothing, Proposition 1 is an important step forward in meeting California’s responsibility to the most vulnerable homeless people and those housed Californians with behavioral health problems most at risk of ending up on the street. It is a worthy addition to other state, local and private investments, and it warrants support. The Times urges voters to approve Proposition 1.”
Opposition
· The Orange County Register Editorial Board: “In addition to adding $6.38 billion to the state’s $80 billion bond debt, Proposition 1 permanently raids the funding for mental health services that voters approved in 2004 with Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act. That measure put a 1% tax on incomes over $1 million, and it typically generates between $2 billion and $3.5 billion per year. By law, 95% of the money goes to the counties for mental health services and the state takes 5% for mental health programs. … Vote no on Proposition 1. It’s no solution.”
Los Angeles, California, Initiative B, City Mobility Plan Implementation Initiative (March 2024)
A “yes” vote supports requiring the city to prioritize the completion of street improvement projects described in the previously approved City Mobility Plan and provide accessible information to the public about the progress of these projects.
A “no” vote opposes requiring the city to prioritize the completion of street improvement projects described in the previously approved City Mobility Plan and provide accessible information to the public about the progress of these projects.
