Vote!

Elections

Local voting info to come, but for now you can visit https://www.lavote.gov/ for answers to your voting questions. PaliDems 2024 endorsements follow:

2024 PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION

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

END OF 2024 ELECTION SECTION

** STOP HERE **

— OLDER, HISTORICAL ELECTION INFO FOLLOWS FYI —

March 5, 2024 Presidential Primary Election

Find a Ballot Drop Box

There are 400+ convenient and secure Ballot Drop Box locations open and available to voters throughout their communities. 

FIND A BALLOT DROP BOX

Find a Vote Center

Safe and accessible in-person voting will be available in this election beginning Saturday, February 24.

Days and Hours

  • February 24 – March 4: 10 AM – 7 PM
  • Election Day, March 5: 7 AM – 8 PM

FIND A VOTE CENTER

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:

Judicial — https://bluevoterguide.org/

 DA — https://laist.com/news/politics/2024-election-california-primary-los-angeles-county-district-attorney

BALLOT MEASURES

Measure HLA: YES …… State Measure 1: YES

Ballot measure deep dive follows:

Ballot Measures:

State Measure 1 — YES

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.” 

“YES” recommended by

A “no” vote opposes:

  • changing the Mental Health Services Act and issuing $6.4 billion in bonds for homeless individuals and veterans.
  • Those who oppose the proposition are mental health advocates and agencies, in addition to disability rights organizations.
“NO” Recommended by

Measure HLA — YES

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. 

“YES” recommended by

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. 

Scroll to Top