Candidate Endorsements
President and Vice President
Joseph R. Biden (Dem)
Kamala D. Harris
RLn recommends a NO Vote on Trump. Is there really another choice?
United States Congress
District 28 — Los Angeles County
Rep. Adam B. Schiff* (Dem) — RLn Endorsed. Schiff did a great job with impeachment.
District 29–San Fernando Valley
Coin toss
Rep. Tony Cardenas* (Dem)
Angélica María Dueñas (Dem)
District 33–Los Angeles County
Rep. Ted Lieu* (Dem) —RLn Endorsed
District 43–Los Angeles County
Rep. Maxine Waters* (Dem) —RLn Endorsed
District 44 — Los Angeles County
Rep. Nanette Barragán* (Dem) —RLn Endorsed
District 47–Los Angeles County
Rep. Alan Lowenthal* (Dem) —RLn Endorsed
State Assembly
District 64 — Carson
Coin Toss
Assemblymember Mike Gipson* (Dem)
Fatima S. Iqbal-Zubair (Dem)
District 66–Rolling Hills Estates
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi* (Dem) —RLn Endorsed. His opponent is rightwing extremist Arthur Schaper.
District 70– Long Beach
Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell* (Dem) —RLn Recommend
State Senate
District 24
Sen. Maria Elena Durazo —RLn Recommends
District 33
Sen. Lena A. Gonzalez —RLn Recommends
District 34
Sen. Tom Umberg —RLn Recommends
District 35
Sen. Steven Bradford —RLn Recommends
Superior Court Judges
Office 72
Myanna Dellinger —RLn Recommends
Office 80
Klint James McKay —RLn Recommends
Office 162
Caree Harper —RLn Recommends
Los Angeles District Attorney
George Gascon —RLn Recommends
El Camino College District Board of Trustees:
Ken Brown —RLn Recommends
Los Angeles Unified School Board
District No. 1
Dr. George McKenna III*—RLn Recommends
District No. 3
Coin Toss
Scott Mark Schmerelson* (School Board Member)
Marilyn Koziatek (School Programs Director)
District No. 5
Jackie Goldberg* —RLn Endorsed
District No. 7
Patricia Castellanos (Workforce Deputy/Parent) —RLn Endorsed
Long Beach City Council Election
Council District 2
Cindy Allen —RLn Recommends
Council District 6
Coin Toss
Councilmember Dee Andrews *
Suely Saro
Council District 8
Coin Toss
Councilmember Al Austin II *
Tunua Thrash-Ntuk
City of Carson Mayoral Election
No RLn recommendations
When the final tally of votes has been counted, the citizens of Carson who now live in newly formed districts will already have elected their new mayor and city council members. Whether those district boundaries remain as they are remains to be seen given the broad dissatisfaction with how the city approved those boundaries. It is gratifying to see new blood and new talent rise up to take on the city’s civic affairs. We look forward to seeing a new generation of leaders take the reins in the coming election cycles. With some trepidation, Random Lengths News won’t be endorsing any candidate for any office in Carson this cycle due to our belief that the city’s incumbents with their collective experience will be able to guide the city through this new phase in its evolution.
Mayor Albert Robles *
Councilman Jim Dear
Councilwoman Lula Davis Homes
Ana Meni
Carson City Council District 1
Councilmember Jawane Hilton*
Elito Santarina
Vincent Kim
Charles Thomas
Carson City Council District 3
Councilmember Cedric Hicks*
Brandi Williams-Murdock
Daniel Valdez
Lomita City Council (At large Election)
No RLn recommendations
Brenda L. Stephens
Barry M. Waite
William D. Uphoff
Robert Bohi
Kevin N. Torrez
Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees
Seat 1
Andra Hoffman* —RLn Recommends
Seat 3
Robert Payne —RLn Endorsed
Seat 5
Nichelle M. Henderson —RLn Recommend
Seat 7
Nancy Pearlman —RLn Endorsed
*Incumbent
California General Election Ballot Measures
State Propositions
Proposition 14
Vote YES on Proposition 14 to continue the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, or 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.
Why voting YES on Prop. 14 matters:
Funding from the CIRM has been available for 15 years, and ending the program could limit 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 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 could 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.
Proposition 15 — YES
Vote YES on Prop. 15 to provide between $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in additional funding to local schools and governments.
Why voting YES on Prop. 15 matters:
California public schools continue to be underfunded and communities of color continue to be impacted the most. Prop. 15 is a way to invest in our communities without having to raise taxes on small businesses, renters and homeowners. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout, California needs this funding from corporations who have not been paying their fair share of taxes.
California ranked 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).
Proposition 16 — YES
Vote YES on Prop. 16 to repeal 1996’s Prop 209 and reinstate affirmative action in the state.
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 annual losses of more than $820 million every year in Minority-and Women-Owned Business Enterprise Program contracts with the state of California.
Reports conclude that the percentage of contracts granted to the program 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%, with the largest effects seen at UCLA and UC Berkeley.
Proposition 17 — YES
Vote YES on Prop. 17 to restore voting rights to Californians 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.
Proposition 18 — 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.
Why voting YES on Prop. 18 matters:
Nineteen other states, as well as Washington 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.
Proposition 19 — NO
No on Prop 19 to maintain property tax savings for all and avoid increasing housing inequity.
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.
Proposition 20 — NO
Vote NO on Prop. 20 to protect criminal justice reforms and constitutional rights to privacy.
Why voting NO on Prop. 20 matters:
Prop. 20 is a dangerous proposition put forth by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assembly member Jim Cooper, and it is sponsored by Courage Score Hall of Shame Assembly member Vince Fong. Time and again, Assembly Members Cooper and Fong vote to protect police brutality and discriminatory criminal justice policies. Both voted no on Assembly Bill 1600, which would expedite access to police misconduct records for a trial.
Association for Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, Los Angeles 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.
Proposition 21 — YES
Vote YES on Prop. 21 to allow cities and counties to establish and regulate rent control.
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% of their income just toward rent.
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prohibits rent control on residential properties built after Feb. 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 within 8 years, which confirms that rent control is an effective way to prevent displacement from the city.
Proposition 22 — NO
Vote NO on Prop. 22 to protect labor rights and classify app-based drivers as employees, not contractors.
Why voting NO on Prop. 22 matters:
By classifying workers as contractors and not employees, companies like Lyft, Uber and DoorDash are not required by state employment laws to enforce minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation.
Ride-share and delivery workers are entitled to labor rights that every other employee in California is entitled to, such as the right to organize, minimum wage and Social Security.
Assembly Bill 5, which Prop. 22 is trying to repeal, guarantees paid family leave, paid sick days and unemployment insurance to those classified as gig employees. These labor rights are essential during a global pandemic.
Proposition 23 — YES
Vote YES on Prop. 23 to require infection reporting and state approval to close or reduce services at hospitals.
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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 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.
Proposition 24 — NO
Vote NO on Prop. 24 to protect consumers’ personal information.
Why voting NO on Prop. 24 matters:
While this proposition looks like it protects consumers from giant corporations it was written behind closed doors by these very same corporations. We don’t trust them and neither should you!
Prop. 24 erodes a consumer’s request to delete their data and would completely end California Consumer Privacy Act protection of biometric information.
California should maintain net neutrality so people do not have to pay for companies to safeguard their personal information.
Prop. 24 would disproportionately affect working people and families of color.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that Prop. 24 will cost $10 million annually to create a new state agency that oversees and enforces the more stringent consumer privacy laws with an unknown impact on state and local tax revenues.
Proposition 25 — YES
Vote YES on Prop. 25 to eliminate the use of cash bail in pretrial incarceration.
Why voting YES on Prop. 25 Matters:
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.
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.
COUNTY/COUNTYWIDE MEASURES
Measure J (Los Angeles County, Calif.)
Budget Allocation for Alternatives to Incarceration Charter Amendment (November 2020)
A “YES” vote supports:
Amending the county’s charter to require that no less than 10% of the county’s general fund be appropriated to community programs and alternatives to incarceration, such as health services and pretrial non-custody services; authorizing the Board of Supervisors to develop a process to allocate funds; and authorizing the Board of Supervisors to reduce the amount allocated with a vote of 4-1 during a declared fiscal emergency.
A “NO” vote opposes:
Amending the county charter to require that no less than 10% of the county’s general fund be appropriated to community programs and alternatives to incarceration.
City of Carson
Measure K
Carson Essential City Services, Emergency Response Protection.
A “YES” vote approves the 0.75% general transactions and use tax.
A “NO” vote goes against the 0.75% general transactions and use tax. The transactions-and-use general tax proposed by Measure K would take effect only if it receives a majority “YES” vote at the Nov. 3, 2020, general municipal election.
City of Long Beach
Measure US
Long Beach Community Services General Purpose Oil Production Tax Increase
To provide funding for community healthcare services; air/water quality and climate change programs; increase childhood education/ youth programs; expand job training opportunities; and maintain other general fund programs, shall a measure be adopted increasing Long Beach’s general oil production tax from 15¢ to maximum 30¢ per barrel, subject to annual adjustments, generating approximately $1,600,000 annually, until ended by voters, requiring audits/ local control of funds?
A “YES” vote favors increasing the general purpose Barrel Tax to a maximum of 30 cents per barrel, subject to annual CPI adjustment.
A “NO” vote opposes the increase and maintains the general purpose Barrel tax at 15 cents per barrel, subject to annual CPI adjustment.
A majority of “yes” votes is required for the measure to pass.
Los Angeles Unified School District
Measure RR
School Upgrades And Safety Measure
To update classrooms/labs/technology for 21st century learning; implement COVID-19 facility safety standards; address school facility inequities; reduce asbestos, earthquake and water quality hazards; and replace/renovate aging school classrooms/buildings, shall Los Angeles Unified School District’s measure be adopted authorizing $7 billion in bonds at legal rates, levying approximately $0.02174 per $100 of assessed valuation, generating an estimated $329,528,000 annually until about 2055, with independent audits, citizens’ oversight, no funds for administrative salaries?
A “YES” vote favors the bond measure.
A “NO” vote opposes the bond measure.
City of Lomita
Measure L
City of Lomita Local General Municipal Sales Tax Measure.
To protect Lomita’s long-term financial stability; maintain city services; improve local drinking water quality; repair streets/potholes; keep parks and public areas clean/safe; maintain emergency/public safety response; help retain local businesses; and provide other city services, shall a measure be adopted establishing a three-fourth cent local sales tax providing about $1.3 million annually until ended by voters, requiring annual independent financial audits with all funds benefitting Lomita residents.
A “YES” vote favors the sales tax.
A “NO” vote oposes the sales tax.
City of Signal Hill
Measure R
City of Signal Hill Financial Stability Measure
Shall a measure establishing a three-quarter cent sales tax providing an estimated $5 million annually to the city’s general fund to maintain city programs such as: street, pothole, and infrastructure repair, clean public areas, 9-1-1 emergency response, crime prevention, and other general services until ended by voters, with independent audits, all money used locally for Signal Hill, be adopted.
A “YES” vote favors the sales tax.
A “NO” vote opposes the sales tax.