Federal

U.S. House District 36

Recommendation: None

Lieu is the likely winner, and while critical of Trump, he sits firmly within the Democratic establishment camp. 

Rationale

Lieu is the likely winner in this race. Though mildly progressive on certain social and environmental issues, he has consistently disappointed on issues such as unconditional support for Israeli military aid. His opponent is underfunded, has no political experience, and holds reactionary views.

U.S. House District 38

Recommendation: Hilda Solis

Solis has shown that she’s willing to stand up for renters, healthcare, and immigrants over her long political career.

District 38 is one of the newly drawn territories from Prop 50 that passed last year allowing California to temporarily redraw partisan Congressional districts to counteract Republican state gerrymandering. The incumbent for this seat, Linda Sánchez, chose to run in CA-41 instead, leaving a wide open field in the primary. After defeating another somewhat progressive challenger, Dr. Monica Sanchez, Hilda Solis is now up against a “law and order", anti-immigrant Republican in Pedro Casas in the general election.

Solis, a Los Angeles native and daughter of immigrants, is not a perfect candidate by any means. However, her long tenure has gained her credibility among constituents. 

She became the first Latina to serve in the CA State Senate and in 2000, she began the first of her four terms in Congress. In 2009, she was appointed as Secretary of Labor under President Obama, and since 2014, she has served on the LA County Board of Supervisors where she has served as chair three times, including 2025-26.

Across her political career, she has consistently supported renter protections, criminal justice reform, and solutions to homelessness. She has pushed for universal access to affordable healthcare regardless of immigration status and supports legal challenges to protect undocumented immigrants from ICE. She wants to set limits on ALPR cameras and the data companies collect on citizens including protestors. Questions remain as, like most issues in this race, she’s remained silent in her stance on Palestine.

Solis has really coasted on name recognition alone in this race and has not run much of a campaign after entering the primary late. We’re unsure of her full platform or reasons for running, but her track record of progressive stances on labor and immigration make the enough of a preference in this race against her challenger.

U.S. House District 41

Recommendation: None

Sánchez narrowly won in the primary, even with her corporate backers. She’ll likely win in a blue district, but clearly voters want something different.

Rationale

During the primary, Sánchez was challenged by Clemmons and two other Democrats. As a result, Sánchez won with only 2,800 more votes than Clemmons, with the other two Democrats receiving over 40,000 in total. A significant portion of those extra 40,000 will likely vote for Sánchez, making a Republican victory extremely unlikely. We believe it is safe to sit this one out and work on finding better candidates in two years.

U.S. House District 42

Recommendation: None

Garcia’s political opportunism and ties to special interests make him just as much of a thorn in the side for the left as they do for the right.

Rationale

Former Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia is likely well-known to anyone reading our guide. He was the city's first openly gay mayor and first Latino to hold the office. He's been in Congress since 2022 and has made himself a public figure in the fight against Trump.

While he flaunts a "progressive" persona on the national stage, locals have a different understanding of Garcia's track record, particularly his relationship with the Long Beach Police Officers Association. In Congress, Garcia has consistently shown a willingness to provide military aid to Israel, only voting against aid for the first time this past year when it became politically advantageous. In 2022 and 2024, his campaigns received over $100,000 from AIPAC and JStreet. He has also accepted corporate PAC money from the real estate, insurance, and healthcare industries.

Burley is your boilerplate Republican. His policies are light on substance, and after redistricting, he is unlikely to win. Even with Burley’s politics, we cannot recommend voting for Robert Garcia. His history of throwing working people under the bus in favor of monied interests, his record of arming a genocide, and his performative politics make him a non-starter. A challenger must emerge for this seat in 2028.

U.S. House District 43

Recommendation: Maxine Waters

While Waters' age is a concern, she’s consistently taken unpopular positions to fight for working people and against US imperialism throughout her career.

Maxine Waters needs very little introduction because she’s been in office longer than most of her constituents have been alive. She has been in Congress since 1991 and across her 18 terms in Congress, she has consistently shown a knack for fighting for progressive causes, though not without controversy or missteps. She voted against the Iraq War, has supported an end to the US trade embargo in Cuba, and opposes mandatory minimum sentences. Waters was one of few members of the Congressional Black Caucus who was an outspoken critic of Barack Obama during his presidency. 

She was one of the first Congress members to call for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire in Gaza and voted against sending military aid to Israel, though she supports Israel’s “right to exist” and called the events of October 7th an unprovoked “terror attack”. She is a supporter of Medicare for All, pro-regulation of the cryptocurrency industry and has called on the Justice Department to investigate the LASD deputy gangs.

Her opponent, Cristian Morales, is the VP of Operations for a defense contractor. He previously ran for Governor in 2022, receiving 0.3% of the vote (22k votes). He has no other political or personal experience of note and a very sparse platform focusing on mandatory voter IDs and immigration reform to support those “waiting their turn”.

At age 88, we certainly hope for a younger challenger from the left in the next cycle. Even if we expect more as socialists, Waters has generally held progressive principles throughout her career.

U.S. House District 44

Recommendation: None

Barragán will likely win, but she’s tied to special interests and AIPAC making this an easy call to not recommend any candidate.

Rationale

Barragán presents herself as a progressive fighter. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Since 2023, she has received almost $700,000 in corporate PAC money from the healthcare, telecom, and real estate industries, with another $94,000 from AIPAC. Most of her congressional record is performative over substantive, and as she is running in a safe blue district against an unknown and inexperienced Republican challenger. There is no recommendation we can make in this district because of Barragán's weak record and continued support for genocide.

U.S. House District 45

Recommendation: None

Tran has been one of the most conservative Democrats since he was elected last cycle. His opponent is even worse.

Rationale

While Derek Tran is not engaging in red-baiting tactics like his last election cycle, his positions have remained cemented in the center. In Congress, he voted to increase military spending, punish undocumented immigrants without due process, and has vocally supported cryptocurrency interests. Meanwhile, Chuong Vo is a pro-Israel ex-cop with hardline stances on crime, enforcement, and America’s imperialistic foreign policy. We can’t recommend either candidate in this race.

California State

State Senate District 24

Recommendation: John Erickson

Erickson supports universal healthcare, investing in public education, and renters rights. He has endorsements from labor, housing justice organizations, and DSA-backed electeds because of his record fighting to improve West Hollywood.

With two Democrats in this race and no incumbent, SD-24 is a more competitive race than most. This district covers from Rancho Palos Verdes all the way up to Calabasas along the coast including areas like Beverly Hills and West Hollywood. 

John Erickson currently serves as a councilmember and rotating mayor of West Hollywood. Previously he held the Vice President position at Planned Parenthood LA and was an advocate for overturning California’s statute of limitations on rape and sexual assault in 2016. He is also the chief of staff for Alliance for a Better Community, focused on immigrant rights.

His progressive stances on women’s rights, immigrant justice, and single-payer healthcare make him stand out, as does his push for increasing housing supply while still looking out for affordability for renters. He has garnered over $1.5 million in campaign donations, not to mention plenty of endorsements from labor unions and progressive politicians that have given his campaign a boost. 

Brian Goldsmith, on the other hand, is a political newcomer. The Beverly Hills-based media consultant is banking on his own wealth and ties to national establishment Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton to buy his way into office. A former senior advisor to the liberal Zionist organization Democrats for Israel (DFI), his platform includes a vow to “fight BDS and all attempts to break the bonds between California and Israel.”

To us, the difference could not be clearer. Erickson’s extensive history of putting words to action, fighting to improve West Hollywood, and prioritization of affordability, healthcare, and housing reform makes him our definitive choice for this race. 

State Senate District 30

Recommendation: None

Incumbent Bob Archuleta has protected cops and special interests while in office. We can’t make a recommendation in this race.

Rationale

We see it as highly likely that Archuleta will win, as he is more experienced and has far broader connections than the inexperienced, non-present Martinez. However, we cannot make a recommendation in this race. Archuleta’s unresolved sexual harassment lawsuit, history of voting to protect the police over the citizens, and strong ties to lobbyist groups mean that we cannot recommend him. 

State Assembly District 62

Recommendation: None

Neither candidate is compelling in this rematch of their 2024 contest. Jones is pro-cop, anti-immigrant and an advocate of school choice. Solache leaves a lot to be desired as a corporate-aligned Democrat.

Rationale

These two candidates faced each other in the 2024 election. Solache won that year with 66% of the vote. While we find Jones unacceptable for his stances on education, deregulation, and healthcare, that does not mean we find anything worthy of recommendation in Solache, whose tenure over the past two years has not shown any strong action or advocacy.

State Assembly District 64

Recommendation: None

This is yet another race between a pro-corporate Democrat and reactionary right-winger. We can’t recommend either candidate.

Rationale

Pacheco opposes Medicare for All, accepts large donations from multiple large businesses and police associations, and proudly lists a Zionist group’s endorsement on her website. She exceeded Ortiz in the primary by 15,000 votes, or 62% of total votes. We expect Pacheco to win this election, but we do not stand with her nor her positions.

State Assembly District 65

Recommendation: None

Davis has ties to oil, police, and Zionist orgs. Gutiérrez is a MAGA candidate. We offer no recommendation.

Rationale

Ayanna Davis is the clear frontrunner in this race. She took 46% of the primary vote as compared to Gutiérrez's 18%. Davis’ history of accepting campaign contributions from oil companies and endorsements from police and Zionist groups keep us hesitant. Gutiérrez's focus on increased police budgets and conservative, anti-LGBTQ+ identity politics make her a non-starter as well. We have no recommendation for this race.

State Assembly District 66

Recommendation: None

Deen is a progressive but distanced herself from DSA and democratic socialism after DSA-LA’s recommendation in the primary. It seems as though she does not want our recommendation so we will offer none.

Rationale

Surprisingly, we do not recommend either candidate. While many of their core platforms overlap, Deen definitely has a more progressive agenda, and does not plan to pursue increased police funding. She is opposed by DFI-LA because of her pro-Palestine stances. Politico credits her with calling for the end of Israel’s military operations back in 2023. However, after DSA-LA recommended her in the June 2026 primary, she used her social media platform to distance herself from DSA and socialism. It seems like a calculated stance to avoid associations with the DSA and our adversarial stances to the mainstream of the Democratic Party. For this reason, we chose not to issue a recommendation.

State Assembly District 67

Recommendation: None

Pulido is a centrist Democrat who will likely win after defeating a more progressive challenger in June. His opponent is a former cop who wants more funding for law enforcement. No recommendation from us.

Rationale

While Pulido came in second behind his Republican challenger in the primary earlier this year, he only did so by narrowly beating the more left-adjacent labor activist Ada Briceño. Pulido leans more centrist than we would hope to see, and his status quo platform makes that abundantly clear. Without another Democrat challenger, Pulido is expected to win in November. For these reasons, we do not recommend either candidate, and hope to see candidates with more urgent and inspired platforms in future election cycles.

State Assembly District 69

Recommendation: None

Lowenthal is the expected winner but his corporate agenda and ties to DFI-LA deserve public criticism. We cannot offer a recommendation.

Rationale

Lowenthal is the quintessential corporate Democrat and likely winner as the two-time incumbent. His generic platform of “safe neighborhoods” and “strengthening our economy” is no surprise considering he mostly waters down bills to make them more friendly to business interests. In the past year, his amendment to AB1953 limits local municipalities from prohibiting short term rentals and the AB2027 amendment he co-authored reduces penalties for workplaces that violate laws for disclosing data to AI companies. He accepted an endorsement from Democrats for Israel - LA (DFI-LA), a liberal Zionist organization, and was a proponent of AB2664, the “Safe Worship Zone Act”, which established buffer zones outside of religious institutions, specifically written in light of pro-Palestine demonstrations. Essex has an ambitious, if not vague, platform and seems to be running for the right reasons, but her campaign lacks legitimacy and specifics. We have no recommendation for this race.

Board of Equalization Dist. 3

Recommendation: Sam Sukaton

Sam Sukaton is a long-time DSA member who wants to use this office to advocate for tax reform to support working people rather than corporations.

The California State Board of Equalization (BOE) provides oversight for taxes and state-assessed properties. While there is not much power in this position, it serves a valuable function as the country’s only elected tax board. With federal funding cuts putting school districts, healthcare providers, and public employers on their heels, having a socialist on the BOE has never been more important to making sure public funds go towards the public good.

Sam Sukaton won in a crowded field of candidates in the primary. A long time DSA-LA member and lead organizer for AFT Local 1521, the LA Community College Faculty Guild, he has been fighting for working people for years. His promises include using his power to fight for reforms to the BOE itself, restoring the power that was stripped from it previously and fighting to take tax administration power away from unelected bodies like the Franchise Tax Board and putting it back in the hands of democratically-elected representatives. Sukaton also wants to use the office to make sure that working class communities know their rights when it comes to tax exemptions, appeals, and assessments.

Most importantly, Sukaton has also made it a top priority to provide oversight on property taxes to make sure everyone is paying their fair share. As part of this, he promises to push for tax reform that would create a “split-roll” system to separate out taxes on single-family, primary residences from commercial or landlord-owned multi-family buildings. This loophole has allowed major corporations like Disney to get away with much lower property tax rates, putting the burden on everyone else. An effort was made in 2020 with Prop 15 to achieve a  similar objective and narrowly lost by a margin of about 4 points against deep-pocketed special interests. While he may not have the power to do this on the BOE, having a strong advocate for this position on the Board would be a step in the right direction.

Mike Gipson is a familiar name to many in Long Beach, but not for the right reasons. A former reserve officer who exaggerated his police record for years, he has been closely tied to developers and the fossil fuel industry throughout his political career in the State Assembly and Carson City Council. For a position meant to provide oversight on taxes, someone who gladly courts money from giant corporations like Meta and Amazon probably isn’t the best choice to ensure the rich are paying their fair share.

Sukaton is the clear choice and gets our recommendation.

Governor

Recommendation: None

Becerra is a career politician who will continue the line of establishment Democrats willing to side with big business when things get tough. Hilton is a bigoted political advisor and commentator with no substantive policy proposals.

Rationale

Becerra is completely beholden to corporate interests, particularly California’s energy lobby. He has walked back his long-term support for single-payer healthcare, and his policy on affordability is non-committal. He is a major proponent of AI and wants to work in partnership with tech companies to develop policy around AI. Hilton’s policies are more soundbite than substance, and can be reduced to deregulation and effect-based enforcement rather than prevention. Furthermore, Hilton’s “family first” agenda is a cover for his anti-abortion and anti-transgender bigotry. We cannot recommend either candidate.

Lieutenant Governor

Recommendation: None

Ma has experience, but is a Democratic insider politician with a sexual harassment allegation. Romero is anti-LGBTQ+ and for school choice.

Rationale

Romero’s platform is narrow-band, concerned mostly with educational system reform and coastal land management. There is little substantive policy to be found on her end. Fiona Ma’s extensive background in financial management and accountability is commendable, but given the scope and credibility of her sexual misconduct allegations and personal impropriety, we cannot recommend her.

Attorney General

Recommendation: None

While Bonta has done some positive things as AG, his recent move to broker a deal in the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger makes him unfit for a recommendation from us.

Rationale

Rob Bonta has shown some fight as AG taking on police misconduct investigations, antitrust filings against tech giants Amazon and Google, and suing clinics for ending gender-affirming care. However, in recent weeks Bonta capitulated to conservative, Trump-aligned billionaires by allowing the Paramount / Warner Brothers merger to proceed, even when the law and public support were on his side. Gates, by contrast, has spent his career fighting against California laws designed to promote housing construction. Neither candidate has earned a recommendation.

Secretary of State

Recommendation: Shirley Weber

Weber has stood up to Trump and has worked to promote democracy on the ballot in the state.

Shirley Weber is the incumbent Secretary of State for the State of California. She was appointed to the position by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2021 and retained her position in a 2022 election. Prior to her tenure as Secretary of State she served in the California State Assembly representing the 79th District from 2012 to 2021.

During her time in office, she expanded voter accessibility through universal mail-in voting, voiced commitment to maintaining California’s democratic institutions, and has resisted overreach by the Trump administration.

Weber ran into some controversy during the 2026 primary when Green Party candidate Butch Ware filed suit against Weber’s office due to what he claimed were “contradictory and confusing messages” from her office which he concluded were designed to disqualify him from ballot access. While this lawsuit was thrown out by a Sacramento judge, this does give us some caution with Weber.

Her opponent, Donald Wagner, needs little said about him. He wants to institute voter ID laws and in 2021 Wagner asked Orange County Health Officer Dr. Clayton Chau whether COVID vaccines might contain a “tracking device.” Wagner subsequently clarified his question, claiming he was aiming to combat misinformation.

DSA-LB recommends Shirley Weber for Secretary of State.

California Controller

Recommendation: None

Cohen is the better choice over Morgan who has no prior experience and wants to use AI to monitor government spending; however, Cohen's silence on Palestine and long-time support for Israel make us question her fitness at a time when BDS is crucial for Palestinian liberation.

Rationale

The Controller position oversees financial disbursements, audits, and unclaimed property. 

The incumbent, Malia Cohen, previously served on the State Board of Equalization (BOE) and has achieved some results in auditing charter-school spending but has a mixed record on the accountability promises made during her 2022 campaigning concerning spending on the unhoused, the DMV, and the Employment Development Department. 

Further, Cohen’s record on Israel is questionable, which gives us pause. She has the support of DFI-CA, and refused to answer a voter guide question on whether she supported BDS. She appeared at the 2024 DNC Convention expressly in support of hostage families. Meanwhile, DNC officials and the Kamala Harris campaign rejected a request from the Uncommitted National Movement to feature a Palestinian American speaker on the main convention stage. In 2014, as San Francisco Supervisor, Cohen "spoke in solidarity" with Israel at a time of "crisis" (the 2014 Gaza War).

Morgan’s ill-defined plan of AI-driven scrutiny of state-funded non-profits and own Zionist beliefs are non-starters, but Cohen is no progressive. Her strong liberal Zionist tendencies make her unfit for an office crucial to BDS efforts in California.

Treasurer

Recommendation: None

Kounalakis is a Democratic establishment politician with ethical concerns and a bad track record. Unfortunately, she’s likely to keep her seat against a worse Republican opponent.

Rationale

Kounalakis’ campaign has received the full backing of the Democratic Party establishment, with endorsements ranging from Gavin Newsom to Hillary Clinton. She has faced scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest stemming from extensive real estate holdings across the Sacramento region, several of which are leased by state agencies and organizations. Kounalakis was a vocal opponent of pro-Palestine student encampments, claiming a need to educate on the importance of the existence, celebration, and empowerment of Israel. On the other hand, Hawks’ positions are full of vague platitudes with little substantive commitment. Everything from her campaign website to her published candidate statement appears to be AI-generated. Neither candidate warrants our recommendation.

Insurance Commissioner

Recommendation: Jane Kim

Jane Kim will fight for a California insurance system that actually protects working people and their families. She gets our recommendation.

With incumbent Insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara, terming out, the fight for the seat comes down to Democrats Jane Kim and Ben Allen.

Jane Kim has received endorsements from multiple labor unions and aligns with DSA-LB values. Ben Allen’s dedication to insurance accountability for natural disaster claims is commendable, but we find his campaign contribution record questionable in the light of his values. For us, Kim is the clear choice.

Kim won just 26.8% of the vote in a heavily divided field, but the civil rights attorney and former San Francisco supervisor from 2011 to 2019 has a strong track record of fighting for working people. She acted as California political director for Bernie Sanders in 2020 and as the state director for the Working Families Party. Kim has held fast to her pledge of refusing all insurance industry and corporate PAC donations.

Her platform includes a promise to guarantee minimum coverage statewide, create a “Natural Disaster Insurance for All” program, and hold bad actors accountable for trying to make money off of Californians’ misfortunes.

During his time since 2014 serving in the California State Senate, Ben Allen authored the law restricting single-use plastics in California and after the devastating wildfires in his district, he authored an expansion of the Insurance Department’s enforcement power and established a wildfire-resilience loan program. Though he pledged to not take insurance-industry donations, he was found to have taken multiple donations from insurance companies, undermining his credibility.

That makes Jane Kim the clear choice here.

California Superintendent of Public Instruction

Recommendation: Richard Barrera

Barrera gets the nod because Shaw would be uniquely bad for public education in California. Keep a MAGA transphobe from taking control of our schools and vote for Barerra.

California Superintendent of Public Instruction is another race where a long-time incumbent is terming out this cycle.

Several Democratic-aligned candidates battled it out in the primary allowing Sonja Shaw to take the top spot with 22.6% of the vote. Shaw is an actual danger to public education and students across the state. She has been president of the Chino Valley Unified School Board since 2022 and carries endorsements from the California Republican Party, Steve Hilton, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the notorious Moms for Liberty. Shaw is promising to attack trans rights and prevent vaccine mandates.

Richard Barrera was not our top choice in the primary and we have some concerns about both his support from charter school associations and his refusal to take a stance on the anti-free speech AB 715, aka the “Don’t Say Palestine” bill, but with nearly twenty years of dedicated service to the San Diego Unified school district, his record shows that he values public education. Barrera now has widespread support from organized labor and California’s biggest teachers’ unions including CTA, CFT, and CSEA.

Barrera is miles above Shaw’s uber-conservative agenda and should get your vote as a safeguard against right-wing attacks on education.

State Measures

Proposition 1: Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Prop 1 will provide some relief for some Californians, but is only a Band-Aid on our state’s housing crisis.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 1 authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance. Prop 1 would result in an estimated annual debt servicing cost of $500 million to $600 million for about 25 years.

Rationale

While Prop 1 does little to address the systemic issues that make California’s housing crisis so dire, any additional relief is welcome. It’s an odd Proposition with support from Airbnb and developers but also unions and affordable housing organizations. Market-based solutions like this one will never solve the issue though. It’s a shortsighted Band-Aid that may help some, but without increasing housing supply and looking for alternative solutions to the market, the housing situation in the state will only continue to deteriorate.

Proposition 2: Budget Stabilization Account Cap Increase and Gann Limit Changes Amendment

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Prop 2 would increase the reserve balance when tax revenue is up to ensure a safety net when the state needs it. Without increasing taxes, this would help prevent future cuts in bad economic times.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 2 aims to increase the cap and yearly funding of California’s Budget Stabilization Account, a budgetary rainy day fund, by extending existing funding through 2039-2040 and increasing its maximum balance from 10% to 20% of annual tax proceeds. Prop 2 will not increase taxes; it simply provides a higher threshold to save funds in years of surplus in order to ensure a financial safety net in times of economic shortfalls.

Rationale

Ensuring that our state has a greater reserve to weather significant stretches of economic hardship is common sense, poses no additional economic burden on Californians, and is prudent in times of increasing federal austerity efforts. The opponents here are mostly taxpayer associations and libertarians who would love for the state to cease operating let alone save money to guarantee public services continue during economic downturns. We recommend that you vote YES.

Proposition 3: The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Vote yes to keep taxing the rich to support public education and healthcare. Prop 3 extends a current tax on CA’s top earners. If it fails, 1 in 6 teachers will lose their jobs to give a massive tax break to the richest Californians.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 3 asks voters to approve a permanent extension of the current top marginal tax brackets. Currently, these taxes generate over $15 billion annually for K-12 public schools and community colleges. This tax on the wealthiest earners in California was already approved twice in the last 15 years. In 2012, Prop 30 passed with 55.4% of the vote, instituting the tax hike, and Prop 55 in 2016 passed by an even greater margin of 63.3%, which kept it in place until 2031. This new measure also includes mechanisms to make sure the rates keep up with inflation. If tax revenues exceed what is required for education, the additional funds will be used to support programs like Medi-Cal and other healthcare services in the state.

Rationale

Public schools already face serious funding shortages from federal cuts. Losing out on this revenue in favor of giving the rich a tax break would be devastating for public education and teachers across the state. If Prop 3 fails, it will effectively be a huge tax cut for the rich at the expense of public education and healthcare. It’s estimated that 1 in 6 educators in the state would be laid off as a result of the immediate 15% cut to education funding in 2027. Prop 3 is a clear YES for us. Tax the rich and help working families.

Proposition 4: California Fair Elections Act of 2026

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Prop 4 would open the door for public funding of elections, a win for candidates running without institutional or special interest backing.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 4 modifies the Political Reform Act of 1974 to permit allocation of public funds to electoral candidates. It specifically requires recipients to abide by expenditure limits and qualification requirements and prohibits use of funds to cover fines, loans, and/or legal defense fees.

This measure also would expand the fine for accepting foreign contributions or other campaign investments to a maximum of three times the foreign contribution.

Rationale

Incumbents often have a significant advantage in elections in part due to their accrued connections with local entities such as unions, businesses, organizations, and wealthy individuals whose campaign contributions make a difference early in a race, opening up avenues for messaging, publicity, and name recognition beyond what a challenger candidate may have at their disposal. Public funding of elections is one of the major reasons for the shift in New York City politics in recent history, including the election of DSA-endorsed Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

While this Proposition does not actually enact public financing, it does remove the restrictions that kept it off the table and favored capitalists’ attempts at undermining our democracy through big money donations.

We see this proposition as a means for reducing campaigns' reliance on donors and special interest groups. The allocation of local government resources for election campaigns is in effect a citizen-funded election program. This would go far towards making candidacy accessible, less compromised, and equitable.

Notably, charter cities were exempted from the Political Reform Act of 1974, and Los Angeles’ “Supermatch Public Financing Program” already matches LA residents' small donations at a six-to-one ratio.

Prop 4 allows such a system to be adopted at any level of government within the state. Vote YES.

Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

This changes the way recall elections are conducted to allow for the recalled candidate to run for the vacant seat rather than having the successorship election on the same ballot. 

What This Measure Would Do

Currently, if a vote is held to recall a state officer, then the vote to choose their successor may appear simultaneously on the ballot. Furthermore, the officer whose recall is being voted on may not appear on the successorship ballot.

Prop 5 would amend the process such that successorship elections for recall vacancies may not appear on the same ballot as a recall election. It also states that a recalled officer may run again for the officership in the vacancy election, but explicitly prohibits the recalled officer from being appointed to fill the vacancy. Prop 5 additionally amends that if a governor is recalled after close of nominations for the next election, then the Lieutenant Governor becomes governor for the remainder of the term.

Rationale

The current ballot system allows the successor in case of a successful recall vote to be elected by plurality, whereas the vote for recall requires a majority. This allows important state officials to be selected by a minority in historically low-turnout elections. Furthermore, the current system confuses voters who mistakenly believe that if they vote not to recall an officer, they are prohibited from voting on the officer's replacement.

Basically, if someone wins an election, and a typically smaller group of recall voters are successful, the original winner is not allowed to be considered under current law. This would eliminate that loophole.

The above issues drive voter disenfranchisement, which allows the current recall process to be an effective tool to subvert democracy and erode electoral credibility. We see Prop 5 as a common-sense solution to a quirky problem in California’s recall system. Vote YES.

Proposition 37: California Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act of 2026

Our Recommendation: Vote NO

Prop 37 is another market-based solution that will only lead to price inflation. A yes vote would be a win for realtors and developers.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 37 establishes a program for the state to subsidize the purchase of property for Californians through issuing a secondary loan to qualified homebuyers of up to 17% the property purchase price. Qualifying Californians must have: 1-year residency, earn no more than 200% of the county’s median household income, pay a minimum down payment of 3%, and assume primary residence there within 60 days. Qualifying homes must be a new construction or a newly converted residential unit, have a maximum sale price of 125% the loan limit in the county, be built by state-licensed builders/contractors/constructors, and not be considered “public works.” Prop 37 would finance these subsidy mortgages through issuing $25 billion in bonds which would be repaid through payments on the second mortgages.

Rationale

Subsidizing the housing market typically only leads to matching price inflation. This proposition is short-sighted and will only result in a transfer of money from the government to sellers. While it is aimed towards an upwardly-mobile “middle class,” this would really just provide a windfall for realtors, construction firms, and landowners. This is why it has support from the California Association of Realtors and California Chamber of Commerce. Its restriction to new construction and converted residential units limits its potential applicability considering California’s well-documented struggles with increasing the housing supply.

We hold that the long-term solution to the housing problem is not through subsidizing demand but instead through banning venture capital-backed corporate landlords, progressive taxation on non-primary residences and vacant properties, and the development of publicly-funded social housing. We recommend voting NO.

Proposition 38: California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative

Our Recommendation: Vote NO

Funding medical research is important but Prop 38 still allows private companies to take home most of the profits while the public takes on all the risk.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 38 grants $8.4 billion in funding to the California Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy (CII). This proposition would cost $500-600 million per year for 20 years, with 10% of profit from the research returned to the state. Any recipient licensing a technology or drug developed with funds from this act must make it available to Californian patients at a cost at least 20% below the national average. 98% of costs go to medical research and development, with 2% for admin costs.

Additionally, Prop 38 sets the CII as the arbiter of sale / licensing of developed IP, and requires a 25% minimum of gross profits from any monetization deals to be paid to CII, and ultimately sets CII as the sole owner of all IP developed as well. It also stipulates that CII must monetize the IP developed.

Rationale

While we recognize the vital need to support medical research in times of national defunding, we do not view this proposition as a correct solution. Prop 38 subsidizes the economic risk of research while still allowing the beneficiaries to privatize the profits. We believe that state-funded research should be owned by the people of the state.

The economic incentive is plainly visible in Prop 38’s requirement that all developed IP must be monetized, and in the supporters of the initiative which include six different billionaires who have heavily invested in the California Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy.

According to CalMatters and UCLA spokesperson, Phil Hampton, the way the proposition is written, only the California Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy would be eligible for the funds due to oddly specific stipulations. No wonder the top donors are the billionaire co-founders, Gary K. Michelson and Meyer Luskin.

Don’t fall for this handout to billionaires at the public’s expense. Vote NO.

Proposition 40: 2026 Billionaire Tax Act

DSA Long Beach Endorsed Measure: Vote YES

Taxing the rich is not only necessary to fund healthcare in our state amid federal cuts, but it also weakens the power of the ultra-wealthy to influence elections.

Tax the Rich to Save Our Healthcare

Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act ripped about $100 billion in federal healthcare funding out of California. If nothing replaces it, we’ll lose an estimated 145,000 healthcare jobs, clinics will cut services, and working families will pay more to see a doctor. This measure makes the people who can most afford it cover the gap. It raises about $100 billion from the very richest Californians to replace those cuts, with no new taxes on the middle class, small businesses, or homeowners.

It was put on the ballot by Jim Mangia, president and CEO of St. John’s Community Health, and Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. That’s the people who run community clinics and the union of workers who staff them, fighting for patients and each other.

Now California’s billionaires are pouring money into defeating it to protect their fortunes. They’d rather see hospitals close and nurses laid off than pay their fair share. Don’t let them buy this election. And don’t let them sneak it through the back door: Propositions 41 and 42 are designed to nullify Prop 40, so vote NO on both (explained in more detail below).

That’s why the DSA Long Beach chapter body voted to endorse this measure and put our full organizing power behind it. Right now, our members are knocking on thousands of doors across Long Beach and the surrounding cities to get out the vote. Billionaires have money, but we have people.

This fight doesn’t end in November. DSA Long Beach is organizing to make the rich pay for the public goods working people need, from healthcare to housing to transit. Join our Tax the Rich campaign and knock doors with us.

Vote YES on Prop 40 to tax the rich and protect California’s healthcare safety net.

Proposition 39: California Voter ID Initiative

Vote NO

Voter ID laws only work to disenfranchise voters. This repeats many Republican talking points without ensuring any actual protections for voters.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 39 would introduce the following changes to the electoral and auditing processes:

• The Secretary of State and county election officials must maintain “accurate voter registration lists, verify citizenship using “government data", and issue a yearly report of %-verified county voter rolls.

• When casting in-person ballots, voters must present “government-issued identification."

• When casting mail-in ballots, voters must “provide the last four digits of a unique identifying number from “government-issued identification."

• The government may, “upon request by an eligible voter," provide at no charge a voter ID card for use in casting a future ballot

Rationale

Prop 39 is vaguely worded and, instead of working to serve election integrity, solely acts to bolster the current Republican Administration's lies, rhetoric, and intimidation surrounding our existing electoral process. Prop 39 does not specify the means by which it is to be introduced; it only opens gaps in the current electoral process. It would result in questioning of voter rolls by the national administration, ballots rejected by non-Californian entities, debasement of our proven-secure electoral process, and waste increasingly strained taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, requiring even a portion of a Social Security number to be printed on the exterior of their ballot envelope is an incredulous breach of information security. For all the above reasons, we strongly recommend voting NO on Prop 39.

Proposition 41: Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act of 2026

Vote NO

This billionaire-backed proposition aims to block Prop 40 and stop the state from raising taxes by putting in place all sorts of hurdles and restrictions. If it gets more votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 will be nullified. This is a play by the rich to prevent taxing their wealth and it’s written in a way that, even if Prop 40 passes, they hope to go around the will of the voters.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 41 introduces several impediments to the process by which special taxes, introduced by voters as ballot propositions, are executed.  Prop 41 seeks to nullify Prop 40 by imposing the following restrictions, applicable to any special tax approved or modified by voters after January 1, 2026:

1. Required audits of programs benefiting from special tax propositions before election to assess for budget cuts in lieu of special tax.

2. Required audits of programs benefiting from special tax propositions every 4 years with a stated goal to recommend program reductions.

3. Special taxes to no longer be excluded from the existing state spending limit, resulting in automatic taxpayer refunds - nullifying the intended revenue-generating effect.

4. Supersede any other ballot measures that are in conflict, directly nullifying Prop 40.

Rationale

This measure is designed to take the power out of the people's votes. If ratified, Prop 41 would block Prop 40, along with any other measures designed to raise funds for specific programs. Furthermore, it would constrict those same programs through rigorous, expensive audits for as long as the measure is in effect, in perpetuity. The auditing power created by Prop. 41 is especially insidious because it would empower bad actors to submit disingenuous special tax measures designed to trigger prolonged audit processes. In effect, this authority would be a weapon to burden, delay, or undermine state programs.

If you need any more reason to vote against it, Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin, the third richest man in the world, has spent over $100m to try to get this passed. The CEOs of Stripe, Affirm, Google, and DoorDash are all also major contributors. Vote NO.

Proposition 42: The Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026

Vote NO

 Like Prop 41, this is designed to protect the wealth of the richest people in the state by preventing taxes on retirement holdings, assets, and savings both in the future and retroactively. 

What This Measure Would Do

Prop. 42 would prohibit California from imposing taxes on savings and assets, whether held directly or indirectly, through legislation or special ballot initiatives. It would also prohibit California from imposing taxes on individuals based on circumstances that existed before its ratification, such as net worth or residency status.

Limited exceptions would apply if the Governor declares an emergency or disaster. In such cases, a tax could be imposed retroactively for no more than one year and only to the extent necessary to raise funds to address the emergency or disaster.

Rationale

Similar to Proposition 41, this measure is a blatant attempt to counter Proposition 40 under the guise of protecting retirement funds from taxation. It would also create a broad restriction on future tax initiatives by prohibiting taxes based on an individual’s or entity’s status prior to the measure’s enactment, allowing businesses and high-net-worth individuals to avoid certain future tax obligations.

If Prop 42 gets more yes votes than Prop 40, it would prevent Prop 40 from being enacted.

Prop 42 is backed by the same supporters as Prop 41, including some of the richest people in the country like Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt, who alone have a combined net worth of $300 billion.

This is what DSA means when we say taxing the rich is necessary for democracy. Not only does the capitalist class take the value we create through our hard work for their own gain, but then they turn around and use it to protect that wealth. The influence the rich have over elections and laws in the country undermine our democracy. Vote NO.

Proposition 43: The Local Taxpayer Protection Act to Save Proposition 13

Our Recommendation: Vote NO

Prop 43 is yet another attempt to keep California in the Reagan era. This would let a minority of voters block new taxes on the local level. It only works to shield wealthy homeowners and corporations from paying their fair share.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 43 amends the California Constitution to require a ⅔ voting supermajority (66.67%) for all local tax ballot measures. In addition, it prohibits any local government or its local electorate from proposing future ballot initiatives that impose taxes on the current valuation of property.

Rationale

This proposition specifically targets the ability for voter-petitioned tax ballot initiatives to be passed by a simple majority vote (50%). While we are not generally thrilled by our current tax structure, additional hurdles in the form of forcing a ⅔ majority vote to pass any proposed taxation initiative is not a solution and a step in the wrong direction. This is undemocratic by definition; Prop 43 allows a small minority (33.33%) of voters to block any local initiative, and it will constitutionally prohibit ballot measures that attempt to reform CA property tax codes in the future.

Prop 43, also referred to as “Save Proposition 13,” is an attempt to re-entrench Howard Jarvis’ legacy amendment. An impetus to California’s housing crisis and ever-rising unaffordability, Prop 13 has been a scourge on working Californians and their families since 1978. With the exact same measures being proposed here, Prop 43 would only further exacerbate the affordability crises that Californians face today while restricting one of our only means to enact any semblance of meaningful change at the local level. We recommend voting NO.

Proposition 44: The Clinic Funding Accountability and Transparency Act

Our Recommendation: Vote NO

The spirit of this is in the right place, but the text leaves much to be desired to ensure that funding goes to patients and workers.

What This Measure Would Do

The initiative would require nonprofit federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and FQHC Look-Alikes to spend at least 90% of their annual total revenue on expenses that advance the FQHC’s mission. The initiative defines this as the mission spend ratio, which would be calculated annually by the California Attorney General.

The initiative would authorize the State Department of Public Health to levy penalties for not meeting the 90% mission spend ratio. The penalty would be equal to the difference between the 90% requirement and the amount the clinic spent on mission-related expenses in that year. The initiative would create the Mission Spend Ratio Penalty Account within the state's Special Deposit Fund, where penalty funds would be deposited. The legislature would be authorized to allocate the money in the fund to clinical worker training, recruitment, and retention.

Rationale

Federally qualified health clinics, which typically take the form of smaller community clinics, are an important feature of our health care landscape, and provide crucial services to underserved populations. While DSA Long Beach supports their ongoing work, this proposition is not the correct way to support them. The California Department of Public Health already has sufficient authority to regulate FQHCs as needed to optimize service alongside audit and investigative authority for those that are fraudulent, poorly managed, or otherwise failing to provide adequate services. Imposing mandatory expenditure ratios via ballot initiative is not an appropriate mechanism to regulate their operations. DSA Long Beach recommends voting no on Proposition 44.

Proposition 45: Building an Affordable California Act

Our Recommendation: Vote NO

This is part of the new libertarian-neoliberal alliance on deregulation that only benefits developers, while putting everyone else at risk.

What This Measure Would Do

Prop 45 alters the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approval process for certain types of infrastructure. It creates a special class of development projects under CEQA called “essential projects” with separate permit applications and review processes from standard projects.

Article 2 of this proposition defines qualifying projects as belonging to housing, clean energy, water, public health, public safety, broadband Internet access, education facility, and transportation projects. It does not however define what “essential” constitutes, nor does it define the size or scope of the projects.

Any project designated as essential would receive the following treatment under Prop 45:

• Shorter public comment periods

• Exempt from delays related to missing application information

• Exempt from local government agency changes

• Ability to continue work when challenged by a lawsuit.

Rationale

This proposition is a well-organized attempt by capitalists to expand their power by offering a false solution to a real problem. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been abused by wealthy interests to delay and even cancel important public works projects. Instead of offering a measured and rational update to CEQA, Proposition 45 simply obliterates CEQA protections for a vaguely defined class of “essential” projects. While it can be frustrating to see necessary work delayed due to the bad faith behavior of wealthy interests, the solution is not to pass authority to a different set of wealthy interests.

Its major backers include LA County BizFed, anti-tax California Taxpayers Association, Cal Chamber of Commerce, landlord lobbying group Apartment Association of LA, California Charter Schools Association, and the General Contractors of California.

The top backer is Sergey Brin, signaling that this is not only a positive for billionaires, but also that this may be used to expedite the construction of data centers without environmental review.

L.A. County

L.A. Sheriff

Recommendation: None

This is an easy one. The LA Sheriff’s Department has a long history of making us less safe rather than preventing crime. You’d be hard-pressed to find a candidate we’d ever recommend for this position.

Long Beach unfortunately knows former LBPD Chief Robert Luna well. He had a long and controversial history within the police department before retiring in 2021 to run for Sheriff. In his first campaign he touted his record of reducing use of force incidents in LBPD, though the numbers lied a bit. During his time as police chief, three-quarters of LBPD officers did not attempt to use non-deadly force before firing their guns in reported incidents and 27 people were killed. They faced constant complaints of police misconduct and racial profiling. LBPD was known as one of the worst departments in the country for public safety.

He was also no stranger to controversy for his policies within the department. In 2018, he was found to have used the self-deleting message app, TigerText, for internal messages which destroyed the ability to access public record of conversations.

For someone so adamant about keeping himself off the record, he had no issue spending $7 million on surveillance technology still prevalent throughout most of Long Beach today including ALPR cameras and facial recognition. He later shared information from those now notorious ALPR cameras with ICE under Trump’s first term, in violation of state law.

As Sheriff, he has tried to come in as a reformer and has delivered mixed results. Violent crime is down in LA County but deaths at county jails are up. In 2024, he finally banned the decades-old internal deputy gangs within the Sheriff’s department which was a campaign promise, though the effect of this is still an open question. In February 2025 he said that LASD would not cooperate with ICE, but in July said he had “no choice” but to turn inmates over to ICE. In spite of his limited success, he still carries the backing of organized labor and Democratic clubs and politicians across the establishment spectrum.

Luna is squaring off against the same challenger he handily defeated in 2022, the cartoonishly despicable former LA Sheriff Alex Villanueva. Villanueva ran cover for LASD gangs during his time and has long been in bed with Donald Trump. He refused oversight and used his position to go after critics of the Department. When he left his position, he was placed on a “do not hire” list for violating County policies regarding discrimination and harassment during his term.

It’s not hard to see why Luna won, but no one is beating the ACAB allegations here.

L.A. County Measures

Measure A

Our Recommendation: Vote NO

Measure A could have some positive benefits, but it undermines workers’ rights to fight for themselves.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure A would change how labor disputes are handled between the County and certain public safety employees, namely firefighters, sheriff's personnel, district attorney investigators, medical examiners, lifeguards, and other non-administrative civilian employees by disallowing strikes and settling disputes through an independent binding arbitration process.

Rationale

While this measure is supported by some public safety departments and many city officials, we see this as a net negative. Prohibiting workers from exercising their right to strike in almost every instance cripples their power and ability to speak up for themselves. It fundamentally undermines negotiations. The contract awarded does not need to be approved by union membership and would only be decided by the arbitration panel.

The purpose may be well intentioned: to have a neutral party agree to increase wages and ensure both sides are negotiating in good faith. This issue is of particular interest to sheriff’s deputies and firefighters who are currently not allowed to strike regardless.

However, the reality is that this will make union life harder across the public sector. There is a fear that this would prioritize the salaries of law enforcement officers over other public sector workers and squeeze resources when the ultimate decisions are not tied to actual budgets.

The principle remains. Workers deserve the right to use their most powerful weapon in fighting for their wages and working conditions: withholding their labor. We recommend that you vote NO.

Measure E

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Measure E provides some much needed reforms to the county’s Ethics Commission and Compliance Office.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure E would give the County Ethics Commission, Ethics Compliance Office, and Ethics Compliance Officer a clearer structure and greater independence. It also preserves the County's commitment to community investment and alternatives-to-incarceration funding that originated from earlier reforms.

Rationale

This measure is part of an ongoing sh*tshow in LA County. In 2020, the County passed Measure J, instituting critical criminal justice reforms in the wake of the George Floyd uprising. This was a huge win for those who want to see alternatives to incarceration and disinvestment from the prison system.

However, in 2024, Measure J was accidentally repealed through Measure G, because it was written to go in the same spot of the County Charter as Measure J, effectively cancelling out Measure J by mistake. Even with the reassurance that the funding could just be kept in place by the Board of Supervisors — if there’s no mandate for it — Measure J has less staying power. Measure G itself added new layers of ethics oversight through an expanded Board of Supervisors and created an ethics commission.

Measure E would give the County Ethics Commission, Ethics Compliance Office, and Ethics Compliance Officer a clearer structure and greater independence.

This fixes a major mistake that restores a voter-approved Measure to help move away from our broken justice system. Future changes would need to be approved by voters if this Measure passes, making it a much more democratic process. We urge you to vote YES.

Judicial Elections

You’ll find judicial races on your ballot, but you won’t find recommendations from us. That’s a deliberate choice.

Our recommendations are measured against Workers Deserve More, and that requires knowing where a candidate stands. Judicial candidates in California are barred by the state’s Code of Judicial Ethics from making promises or commitments about issues or cases likely to come before them. They can’t campaign on a platform the way a city council candidate can, which leaves us with little more than resumes and endorsements to go on. We won’t put our name behind a candidate whose politics we can’t evaluate.

That doesn’t mean that judicial races don’t matter. Judges decide evictions, wage theft claims, bail, and sentencing every day, and the courts are often where working people feel the system most directly. The fact that voters are asked to choose judges with almost no meaningful information is itself a problem with our democracy. Until that changes, we’d rather be honest about what we don’t know than guess.

Water Replenishment District of Southern California

In California, we know that water supplies can be scarce. The Water Replenishment District (WRD) maintains the local groundwater supply through groundwater replenishment, water quality monitoring, and contamination prevention.

Board of Directors, Division 3

Recommendation: Al Austin

Al Austin is a former UAW aerospace worker and three-term Long Beach councilmember, and he’s the only candidate with deep labor backing and a record of fighting for working families along the 710 corridor. His opponents are a corporate lobbyist, a retired sheriff’s sergeant who promotes data centers, and a former councilmember who has run a thin, mostly-on-Facebook campaign.

Al Austin is one of the frontrunners. He is the current Secretary on the Long Beach Public Utilities Board of Commissioners and is probably best known for his three terms representing Long Beach Council District 8 from 2012-2024 where he focused on increasing affordable housing, redevelopment, and climate action. His current priorities for the Water Replenishment Board position include maintaining affordable water rates, strengthening local groundwater capacity, and improving treatment through sustainable long-term investment that prioritizes environmental conservation. His experience as a UAW aerospace worker has also given him deep ties to organized labor. Austin has received endorsements from LALCV, LA Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, local unions of AFSCME, ILWU, IBEW, LiUNA, as well as numerous state and local elected officials including the outgoing incumbent of this position.

Tracy Burns is a retired sergeant for the LA County Sheriff’s Department and self-described businesswoman, claiming to have co-founded one multimillion-dollar business and helped build another Inc. 5000 company. She has made it a point to advocate for data centers creating jobs and supporting new technology, though stating that ratepayers should not be handed the bill.

Mike Murchison is a long-time Long Beach lobbyist and President of Murchison Consulting, a firm that advises private business and property owners in facilitating government contracts and navigating regulatory matters. He boasts a history of publicly-funded privatized successes on the side of corporate interest, including land acquisitions and developments for oil companies along the coast, the unfinished downtown Hard Rock Hotel, Axon body cameras for LBPD, a proposed data center in District 8, along with a number of high-end apartment and office developments. Murchison has received endorsements from City Councilmembers Zendejas, Allen, Supernaw, Ricks-Oddie, along with other surrounding area local elected officials.

Like Austin, Tonia Reyes Uranga is another former City Councilmember and can best be described as a Long Beach career politician. Elected to represent CD 7 from 2002-2010, she ultimately lost her bid at a third term as a write-in candidate in an attempt to sidestep prior term limit restrictions. (Don’t feel too bad for her. Her husband, Roberto Uranga got elected to the seat in the following election, keeping it in control of one family for over 2 decades.) She has since made multiple attempts to return to elected office, but has continued her involvement in the local political sphere through her self-titled consulting firm TRUConsult. Uranga has received endorsements from Unite Here Local 11, LA County Supervisor Hilda Solis, and the Southern California Progressive Democratic Club and Latino Democratic Club.

Rationale

Due to the nature of this elected position, all of the candidates are generally reiterating the same prioritized positions. Al Austin has a leg up, boasting a career in organized labor with affiliated endorsements, a generally uncontroversial tenure in City Council, and has maintained a commitment to issues affecting working families, especially along the 710 corridor. On the other end, Murchison is a career lobbyist in the pocket of corporate interests with the sole objective of transferring public funds into privatized ventures under a progressive veneer; he is the epitome of everything that we advocate against in current day American politics. Burns is an ex-cop who is seemingly pro-data center, which is odd given the position she is running for, and does not offer anything beyond the lukewarm one-liners on her campaign website. Uranga, while her advocacy and messaging look to be in the right place, hosts an incomplete campaign website with most of her candidacy being broadcast over Facebook, leading us to believe this is yet another failed and half-baked attempt to run for elected office.

All that considered, Al Austin is our recommendation in this race.

School and College Board Races

LBCC District

Governing Board Member, Board of Trustees, Area 5

Recommendation: None

An establishment-backed PR consultant against an LAUSD administrator endorsed by LBCC’s full-time faculty union. Neither is running on the bold reforms that LBCC’s students and workers need, so we make no recommendation.

Rationale

The LBCC Board of Trustees has oversight of LBCC’s budget, operations, and negotiations with faculty and staff unions. It may not seem immediately important to many people in the city, but it is one of the largest public sector employers in Long Beach and serves a key role in providing educational support and student services to those entering into the community college system.

In this race, neither candidate takes a bold stance on strong reform initiatives that would further the mission of LBCC or the interests of students, staff, or faculty so we are not making a recommendation. Nguyen’s support from the full-time faculty union is an important signal, however, as the Board has had serious issues with contract negotiations and legal issues over the last few years.

Other School and College Board Races

This guide covers the Long Beach Community College District, where our chapter is most deeply rooted and where the stakes for Long Beach students and workers are highest. Your ballot may also include races for other local school and college boards, including ABC Unified, Bellflower Unified, Paramount Unified, Norwalk-La Mirada Unified, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified, and the Cerritos, Compton, and El Camino community college districts. We have not made recommendations in those races.

School boards decide what our kids learn, how teachers and staff are treated, and where public money goes. They deserve far more attention than they get. If you live in one of these districts and want to help us build the capacity to cover them in future guides, or to run a candidate of our own, get involved in our Chapter.

Long Beach

Long Beach will get more of the same. All elections were settled in the June primary. All but one of the winners were incumbents. Join us to fight back in 2028!

Taking Back Our Power

As DSA Long Beach, it might seem strange that we have no recommendations or endorsements in municipal elections for Long Beach this November. Unfortunately, all of the elections within the city were decided in the June 2nd Primary Election. In Long Beach, if a candidate wins a majority of the votes in the primary, meaning 50% + 1 votes, they are elected without a runoff in the general election.

This is … not great news for a number of reasons.

First, a Top 2 system that avoids a runoff in this way prioritizes primary elections which often have lower turnout than general elections. Without a system like ranked-choice voting, whereby voters rank candidates from most to least preferable, incumbents hold a huge advantage.

This played out in the 2026 election cycle. Mayor, City Attorney, City Auditor, City Prosecutor, and five City Council seats were all up for election, and all but one of those seats was filled by the incumbent.

Rex Richardson was re-elected mayor, beating out 5 challengers by securing 57.4% of the votes (57,843 votes). At this point, his progressive platitudes have already begun to wear thin on residents while he seems to take pride in the ceremonial nature of his position. He parades his establishment backing, is friendly with corporate real estate developers with no regard for actual affordability while the housing crisis continues to worsen, and maintains his focus on tourism and marketing initiatives.

Dawn McIntosh won re-election for City Attorney of Long Beach without appearing on the ballot. McIntosh, who ran unopposed, was first elected as City Attorney in 2022 and was the first woman elected to this position. She has served in city and government agencies across 33 years with focuses on land use and environmental protections.

Doug Haubert, who also ran unopposed, won his re-election bid for City Prosecutor. Haubert was first elected as City Prosecutor in 2010 and has held the position since. Over his tenure, he has maintained a strong focus on violence, crime and prevention, and his approach to gang intervention and rehabilitation is seemingly highly regarded, but has a record of anti-LGBTQ+ controversies.

Laura Doud will remain City Auditor of Long Beach after beating out her opponent Ginny Gonzalez 70.53% (65,572 votes) to 29.47% (27,396). Doud was first elected as City Auditor in 2006 and has held the position since. She has a 20-year record of independent oversight, identifying over $350 million in additional revenue for the city with a focus on ensuring that funds directly assist the unhoused population of Long Beach.

Kristina Duggan once again will represent District 3, beating out 3 challengers. Duggan’s 63.98% (10,502 votes) was more than enough to give her a second term. She has a record of hostility towards the unhoused, supporting increased LBPD presence, and prioritizing the wants of wealthy homeowners over the needs of the many working class families and students in her district. Unlike in her first election, there wasn’t a credible challenger this time, but we hope for one in the next cycle.

Megan Kerr narrowly won District 5, beating out her real-estate backed opponent Tara Riggi 53.96% (10,564 votes) to 46.04% (9,014). Kerr was first elected in 2022 and will be serving her second term in this seat. She tries to be everything for everybody. Kerr garnered widespread support from local labor unions but also had the support of LB Police Officers Association. While not viewed as a progressive champion, she has a decent record on housing, homelessness, pedestrian infrastructure, and protecting core city services.

Joni Ricks-Odie won re-election for District 9, beating out her opponent Sequoia Neff 67.97% (4,460) to 32.03% (2,102 votes). Neff was also running on the real-estate backed slate. Ricks-Odie was first elected in 2022 and has been a strong advocate for equity in her district. She has championed environmental justice initiatives, pushed for further budget transparency, and serves as Vice Chair of the city’s Housing Authority. While some of her policies merit critique, she has done a good job as a progressive leader for North Long Beach.

Mary Zendejas narrowly missed a runoff by only 15 votes after all was said and done. DSA-LB endorsed candidate, Anthony Bryson, earned second place at 17.75% (1,300 votes) after running a campaign centered on renters’ rights, public transit, stopping city cooperation with ICE, and community-based solutions to public safety. This message clearly resonated with voters and scared the establishment. A last-minute, six-figure donation from the LA Deputy Sheriffs helped Zendejas’ campaign to the finish line against a grassroots candidate running only on people power. Now, the corporate-friendly Zendejas, who was first elected in 2019, will get another 4 years to sell out the residents of District 1.

The only non-incumbent winner, Vivian Malauulu, will replace the long-tenured Roberto Uranga in District 7. Malauulu is firmly of the city’s Democratic machine and has been serving on the Long Beach City College Board of Trustees since 2016. Her time on the Board included voting to fire Dr. Kashara Moore, a part-time counselor and union leader in 2022 after an alleged incident at Commencement, and overseeing one of the most consequential class action lawsuits against California Community Colleges in its history. LBCC was forced to pay a settlement of $18 million to adjunct faculty who alleged that they were forced to work unpaid hours outside of the classroom. While she has made big promises on safe neighborhoods, responsive city services, protecting working families, and investing in workforce development, with the backing of the city’s Democratic establishment, Malauulu signals no meaningful shift in representation for the long-neglected Westside.

After all that, you might be thinking: “Why did all of the incumbents win? I don’t like the direction the city is going. I don’t agree with building an $800k fence around the library. I don’t want us giving tax breaks to developers while we get charged more for parking downtown. I think we need change!”

We agree with you.

We’re building our own political machine here in Long Beach and already prepping for the 2028 election. Join us.

Los Angeles City

Los Angeles elects a mayor, a 15-member district-based city council, a city attorney, and a city controller. Los Angeles also uses a two-round system: if a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in the first round they win outright, otherwise a runoff election is held with the two candidates to secure the most votes. City Council elections are staggered every two years with eight having held the primary election this year. Of those eight, only two advanced to the runoff, neither of which are in DSA Long Beach’s territory.

Mayor

Recommendation: Nithya Raman

Against the much worse incumbent, Karen Bass, Nithya Raman, a DSA member endorsed by DSA-LA, is preferred, but she, too, gives us big, progressive promises along with a sketchy track record.

After a hotly contested primary between incumbent Karen Bass, conservative pseudo-celebrity Spencer Pratt, and Councilmember Nithya Raman, Bass and Raman advanced to a runoff, with neither winning a majority.

Following Eric Garcetti’s absentee mayoralty and a race against billionaire Rick Caruso, Bass looked like welcome news. She quickly proved to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Her mismanagement of the Palisades and Eaton fires, her costly and ineffective “Inside Safe” program, and the city’s crumbling infrastructure have dogged her. She has backed more police funding, opposed BDS, favored homeowners’ associations, delayed infrastructure projects, accepted DFI-LA’s endorsement, and effectively green-lit federal sweeps of unhoused residents ahead of the Olympics. With backers like Airbnb, Amazon, Wells Fargo, and Kaiser Permanente, Bass is no candidate for working people.

Raman, DSA-LA’s first Socialist-in-Office, founded the SELAH Neighborhood Homeless Coalition before representing District 4. There, street homelessness fell 54% in three years through direct outreach and support, the sharpest decline in the city. She has fought for tenant protections and a landlord registry. She has also vowed to cut homelessness and encampments by 50% by 2028 and, unlike Bass, to take on the illegal short-term rentals that drive up rents.

But Raman is no slam dunk. She has courted both DSA and Abundance-style free-market liberals. She acted against the interests of DSA, unions, and various progressive orgs during her failed attempt to exempt market-rate developers from LA City’s “mansion tax” (Measure ULA). She was the lone DSA-LA Socialist-in-Office to vote for LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, which earned her a public reprimand, though she now says she’d replace him over his cooperation with ICE. She voted for the IHRA definition of antisemitism, twice accepted DFI-LA’s endorsement, and has moderated on Palestine.

At DSA’s 2025 Convention, delegates decided that candidates who publicly oppose BDS are ineligible for endorsement, yet Raman has long said that she personally opposes it. She now calls BDS “a legitimate form of peaceful protest,” but not part of her platform, and calls Gaza a genocide. Still, she recently dodged DSA-LA’s question on the sale of stolen Palestinian land at L.A. synagogues and said she’d use LAPD to enforce AB2664’s protest buffer zones at land sale events.

This is a race between an establishment incumbent who has made L.A. worse at nearly every turn and a pragmatist who talks big but hasn’t always delivered. Given the mayor’s power over budgets and appointments, we lean towards Raman. If she wins, we call on her to answer to the movement that helped build her career, not the special interests — including Zionist interests — she’s leaned on when opportunity struck.

City Attorney

Recommendation: Marissa Roy

Marissa Roy, a long-time DSA member, vows to use the City Attorney to support workers and fight back against corporate interests. She is the clear choice and gets our support.

Marissa Roy is a civil rights attorney and a long-time DSA member who earned her J.D. from Yale Law School in 2017. A lifelong Angeleno, she served as outside counsel on lawsuits against the first Trump administration, and has fought on the side of workers against companies like Meta and the Port of Los Angeles. This dedication shows in the support she’s received from organized labor. With the power of the City Attorney’s office, Roy wants to litigate worker misclassification, harassment, discrimination, abusive and unsafe working conditions, and wage theft. She also seeks to tackle unjust evictions and poor living conditions under landlords, and to fight the Trump Administration’s federal funding cuts and increased ICE presence. By changing the way the City Attorney’s office is used — to hold the rich and powerful accountable — there’s a huge opportunity for change.

Roy represents DSA-LA’s first endorsement in a city-wide race in the chapter’s history. Her connection to DSA well before her run, including serving as a delegate for LA to DSA’s National Convention in 2024, showcase her commitment to democratic socialist politics and the movement rather than her own political career.

Her opponent is the conservative deputy district attorney John McKinney, who cites the “crack epidemic” of the '80s as a defining moment for his politics. His platform includes prosecuting repeat offenders, shoplifters, and street races, enforcing existing laws on property owners, and general neighborhood protection. This is classic “law and order” politics.

The choice for this race is clear. Marissa Roy has a demonstrated history of standing up for workers and renters, whereas John McKinney has advocated for punishment over prevention. These are merely Band-Aid solutions for Los Angeles’ problems. Roy understands that making life livable for working people requires keeping both corporate interests and landlords in check, which is why she gets an enthusiastic recommendation from our Chapter.

L.A. City Measures

Measure EE: Charter Amendment — City Ethics, Elections, and Governance

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Measure EE puts guardrails on Ethics Commissioners, creates stricter penalties for campaign finance violations, and strengthens the oversight of Police and Fire Department Inspectors.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure EE would amend the City Charter’s language to include several Ethics and Governance reforms. Its changes include prohibiting Ethics Commissioners from running for City offices or LAUSD School Board for 5 years after serving, increasing campaign finance violation penalties, increasing the signature threshold for referendum petitions from 10% to 15% of total votes cast in the last mayoral election putting it on par with the ballot initiative threshold, strengthening the independence of the Police and Fire Department Inspectors, and reducing City Council meetings from three times per week to one weekly meeting.

Rationale

With multiple, high-profile scandals centering on Los Angeles City officials in the last several years, strengthening the ethics guidelines of the City is a must. These proposed changes hold City Council candidates more accountable and free the Police Inspector General from the Board of Police Commissioners’ interference or case suppression. These reforms put up roadblocks to stop some potential conflicts of interest and make sure there can be more accountability in LA City.

While we are concerned about raising the threshold for signatures for referenda, making it harder for organizations like DSA to build people-powered campaigns that don’t rely on paid signature-gatherers, it is also nearly impossible to get things on the ballot this way as it stands. The ethics reforms take priority here for us. Vote YES.

Measure PRT: Charter Amendment — Airports, Harbors, Water and Power Departments

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Measure PRT adds new layers of transparency to the Harbor, Airport, and Power Departments.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure PRT would require the Harbor department to fund waterfront access projects, disclose workforce impacts of leases and agreements, and increase terms for certain leases. It also requires a minimum of three out of seven Airport Commissioners to live in areas neighboring LA’s major airports. Additionally, it extends the maximum lease Water and Power departments may issue to 66 years from the mandated 30.

Rationale

We believe that Angelenos deserve better transparency across the board. Requiring the disclosure of economic and employment impact reports for some Port lease applications would be a win for the public. Greater representation from those most impacted by LAX and Bob Hope airports would also be a win. This isn’t a major victory, because there are plenty of loopholes that can be exploited by companies and city officials alike, but it can have some positive benefits. We say vote YES.

Measure FD: Sales Tax for Fire Department Initiative

Our Recommendation: Vote NO

Measure FD would help an underfunded LAFD, but does so by putting the burden on working people through a sales tax.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure FD would secure additional funding for the LAFD by establishing a 0.50% retail transactions and use tax. Revenue would be deposited into a dedicated fund to be used exclusively for the LAFD with the intent of hiring firefighters and paramedics, upgrading communications, and building fire stations. It is estimated that it would raise $345 million in its first year.

Rationale

We recognize that LAFD Firefighters and Paramedics need better funding and higher staffing levels to serve the City of Los Angeles. Fire stations need modernization. LAFD is not meeting national standards for emergency response times because of this, typically arriving nearly eight minutes after getting a call on average.

The problem is not the why but the how. A sales tax on everyday working people is not the equitable way to secure these funds. These types of taxes are “regressive," meaning that they impact lower income individuals more than wealthier individuals.

We cannot continue to force working people to shoulder the burden of city services and make life even less affordable than it has become for many Angelenos. We must continue to push for the rich to pay their fair share. Vote NO.

Measure LA: Charter Amendment — City Infrastructure, Budget, Finance, and Contracting

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Measure LA would set up longer term budgeting and much-needed planning for infrastructure projects in Los Angeles.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure LA is focused on improving the operations of the city. This measure would move the city to a two-year budget cycle instead of the current one-year plan, mandate a Capital Infrastructure Plan (not currently required), relax competitive bidding for administrative systems and essential security/public health contracts to provide flexibility in selecting the best tool for the job, increase Director powers over Public Works to streamline operations, and allow the city to engage in commercial activity.

Rationale

This measure aims to follow through on improvements by thinking more long term and allowing for flexibility to actually tackle some of the problems that have been plaguing LA’s crumbling infrastructure. By moving to multi-year plans, the City can follow projects through to their completion more carefully and there will hopefully be more accountability and strategy with an approved Infrastructure Plan. For too long, vital infrastructure projects have been delayed or cancelled entirely because no present accountability or foresight exists. Supported by City Controller Kenneth Mejia, this is a wise decision that can support the fiscal health of the city.

One of the more interesting parts of the amendment is repealing the restrictions on the City to engage in commercial or industrial enterprise. This could potentially open the door to things like City-owned grocery stores, though this is more speculation than anything else at this point.

Our recommendation is to vote YES on this measure to help make LA’s infrastructure and budget work better for the long term.

Measure PRK: Charter Amendment — Department of Recreation and Parks Budget

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

This Measure would meaningfully boost the budget for city parks and recreational spaces that serve L.A. communities.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure PRK would double the minimum budget for the Department of Recreation and Parks over 10 years. This change would require that the parks department receive .0325% of the total assessed value of taxable properties in Los Angeles.

Rationale

This would allocate more funds in the budget to Los Angeles’ long-neglected parks, waters, beaches, and other recreational spaces without taxes. It simply changes the minimum percentage of the budget. Where would this money come from, then? Well, this measure is opposed by police unions so they think it will come from their bloated budgets.

Improving public spaces is central to building healthier and happier cities.

With such a relatively small slice of the city budget, increasing the parks department's guaranteed budget over 10 years is a much-needed investment in Angelenos, who deserve a thriving park system. Vote YES.

Measure PL: Charter Amendment — City Planning Department

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

This Measure will streamline the planning process and reduce the influence of special interests.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure PL updates the City Charter sections governing the Planning Department, replacing seven current Area Planning Commissions (APC) with one Neighborhood Appeals Commission (NAC). This would streamline planning operations and keep decisions consistent within the city while removing special interest influence.

Rationale

These changes are common sense reforms to make decisions in the planning department of Los Angeles more consistent, streamlined, and less beholden to special interests. We recommend voting YES.

Measure SC: Board of Education Campaign Finance Rules Charter Amendment

Our Recommendation: Vote YES

Measure SC would bring Board of Education election standards in line with mayoral elections.

What This Measure Would Do

Measure SC would remove repetitive language and apply the same campaign finance rules to Board of Education candidates as those that apply to Mayoral candidates: $1,000 limit for donors to any individual office, time limits, disclosures, and oversight by the Ethics Commission. It also allows the City Council to make future changes by ordinance.

Rationale

This one's easy: The rules for elected office should be consistent and held accountable by the Ethics Commission, even and especially for the Board of Education. Vote YES.

Artesia

Artesia City Council is determined through an at-large election by voters of the entire city. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are appointed by the Council annually, not the electorate. For 2026, municipal elections are being held for three open seats.

City Council At Large

Recommendation: None

Unfortunately, none of the candidates will do much to make the lives of working people in Artesia better.

Ali Taj (D), Incumbent

Ali Sajjad Taj, a Pakistani immigrant, has served multiple terms as the Mayor of Artesia and in City Council since 2013. After losing the primary for State Assembly DA-67, he returned to the City Council race. Taj was ousted by the City Clerk and sued for allegedly failing to address city employee complaints on gender discrimination, harassment, and fiscal misconduct. Notably, proponents of the recall have their own controversy about their intentions and methods of pushing this recall. Taj’s stated positions center around affordable housing, supporting small businesses, and stimulating transit-oriented projects.

Melissa Ramoso (D), Incumbent

Melissa Ramoso was first elected to City Council in 2018 and was sworn in as Mayor of Artesia in 2021, becoming the first Filipina to hold this office. She has previously served as Senior Advisor to Congressman Ted Lieu, National Co‑Chair for the Filipino American community, and was appointed to President Biden’s 21st Century Government Policy Committee. Ramoso has overseen pro-policing initiatives, including securing a dedicated Sheriff’s Sergeant and the installations of ALPRs and roving cameras in the city. Her current priorities include improving public safety, beautification initiatives, and addressing homelessness through LAHSA and PATH.

Dan Rocha (NP)

Dan Rocha has not held a position in public office. He is endorsed by Equality California, a civil rights organization for LGBTQ+ candidates, along with Derek Tran, Eleni Kounalakis, and Fiona Ma. Rocha is pro-union, pro-policing, and believes in a community-centered approach to local governance. His top priorities are improving public safety through increased police presence and supporting tech-driven safety solutions, as well as responsible development that protects neighborhood integrity.

Bellflower

Bellflower City Council is determined through by-district elections, with five districts comprising the city. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are appointed by the Council, not the electorate, every two years. For 2026, municipal elections are only being held for City Council in District 1, as incumbent members in Districts 3 and 5 went unopposed.

City Council District 1

Recommendation: None

Neither candidate has proven a commitment to progressive policies at this time.

Rationale

Both candidates for District 1 have not shown a strong commitment on their positions for most issues they are running on. Despite the lack of currently available information on either, Drake does seem to have a more thoughtful approach to police funding, public safety initiatives, and is a stronger advocate for renter assistance and affordability.

Carson

The City of Carson uses a district-based election system for four elected City Council seats that are based on assigned geographic location. These elections are staggered, and each seat is held for four years. In 2026, there are two seats up for grabs. Because the positions of the City Clerk and City Treasurer are at-large elective offices, all City of Carson voters are eligible to cast their ballots.

City Council: District 2

Recommendation: None

Neither candidate deserves a recommendation in this race.

Rationale

At the guidance of local organizers in Carson, we have no recommendation to issue for this race. There is little credible information about both candidates and after candidate interviews, there were no major points of alignment in order to warrant a recommendation.

City Council District 4

Recommendation: None

Holloway has union support, but neither campaign gets our endorsement here.

Rationale:

At the guidance of local organizers in Carson, we have no recommendation to issue for this race. After candidate interviews there were no major points of alignment to warrant recommendation. We do acknowledge that the challenger in this race, Holloway, is more aligned, especially in his local organizing. However, we are unable to issue a recommendation based on the available information.

Measure CU

Our Recommendation: Vote NO

The good reforms on the table are packaged with some poison pills so we cannot recommend voting for this.

Measure CU is an omnibus Charter reform effort that looks to package some much needed updates with more controversial calls, giving the City Council and City Manager more power.

A vote yes on this would:

• Eliminate term limits for publicly elected officials

• Eliminate planning commission requirements and require City Council approval for municipal real property sales

• Prohibit public assets owned by the City of Carson (valued at >$2.5mil) from being sold, transferred, or conveyed without a ⅔ vote by City Council

• Provide the City Manager the authority to approve contracts on any subject matter

• Require candidates to comply with California Campaign Disclosure law

• Define municipal tax code and providing the City Council to expand to six seats if Carson’s population surpasses 100k residents

A vote no would keep the Charter as is.

This Measure comes only 10 years after residents voted to implement term limits with Measure TL and seems to be specifically introduced to eliminate term limits as the majority of the sitting City Council and the Mayor are beginning to reach the end of their eligibility.

That is not the only concerning language being introduced in this measure, so despite some modest reforms, we strongly recommend voting no.

Compton

Compton City Council is determined through by-district elections, with four districts comprising the city. The Mayor is voted for by the electorate every four years. For 2026, municipal runoff elections are being held for Mayor and City Council District 2, with races for District 3, City Clerk and City Treasurer having been decided in primary elections on June 2nd.

Mayor

Recommendation: None

Both candidates have ethics violations under their belts for serving themselves over serving the public. We offer no recommendation.

Rationale

We find both candidates lacking in integrity and capability. Despite talk about community investment and safety, there has been negligible change under Sharif. Further, her political machine itself appears to be falling apart with financial mismanagement and internal resignations. Spicer is no further an improvement, with financial unaccountability at best, and a defrauding of the City budget at worst.

City Council District 2

Recommendation: Bennie Tinson

Tinson, a former labor organizer, is determined to listen to his constituents and create community-oriented solutions for Compton. 

After recommending Bennie Tinson in the primary, we once again encourage residents in Compton District 2 to vote for him. He serves as Executive Director of LARCA (Licensed Adult Residential Care Association), a nonprofit working in partnership with the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health. His key priorities include improving public infrastructure, supporting economic revitalization along Long Beach Blvd., and combatting sex trafficking in the city. He has not held a position in public office. His platform is specific, community-oriented, and his history as a labor organizer with SEIU makes us confident that he can carry it out once in office.

Anthony Perry, a former instructor with Compton Unified School District, has run and lost multiple state and local elections over the last decade. His primary goals for Compton are enhanced policing, youth empowerment programs, local economic development and affordable housing. It is worth noting that he is registered with the American Independent Party of California, a far-right affiliated organization.

His AIPCA association and lack of any notable endorsements indicate that he’s not the right choice. We believe Bennie Tinson will lead his district well if elected.

Hawaiian Gardens

Hawaiian Gardens City Council is determined through an at-large election by voters of the entire city. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are appointed by the Council annually, not the electorate. For 2026, municipal elections are being held for three open seats.

City Council At Large

Recommendation: None

Roa is the best choice and most experienced of the bunch, but none get our recommendation here.

Luis Roa (NP), Incumbent, was born in Venustiano Carranza, Michoacán, came to Hawaiian Gardens as a toddler, and earned a master’s in public administration from Cal State Long Beach after working nearly 15 years as a city recreation leader. He was first elected in 2018, and he frames his goals around public safety and “innovation.”

Dandy De Paula (NP), Incumbent, is a Philippines-born early childhood educator who has worked in the field since 2003. Supervisor Janice Hahn appointed him to the LA County Commission on Human Relations in 2022. He has been honored by the city and ABC Unified for community outreach.

Maria Teresa Del Rio (NP), Incumbent, has served on the council since at least early 2021 and currently holds the rotating mayor’s seat. She is a reliable member of the council majority and is running for re-election on that record.

Luis Gonzalez (NP) currently works as an accounting technician. He has no prior elected office and no public platform beyond his ballot statement.

Jesus Mendoza (NP) currently works as a UPS Package Handler. In his candidate statement he does not list any specific priorities or stances aside from a desire to serve “seniors, residents, and our youth.”

Rationale

The three incumbents have governed comfortably within the status quo of a small city that contracts out its policing to the Sheriff’s Department and depends on casino revenue. The two challengers, while coming from working-class jobs we respect, have offered no platform voters or the chapter can hold them to. Without a candidate willing to run as an advocate for Hawaiian Gardens’ renters and workers, we cannot make a recommendation in this race.

Lomita

All candidates are running unopposed and were confirmed by the city council in lieu of a general election vote.

There will be no local election for local offices in Lomita this year (2026), as there are no seats with more candidates than vacancies. In such cases the city clerk gives notice to the council of their option to either directly appoint all persons nominated, or proceed with the local election. The city council has voted to confirm the nominees, and has done so as recently as in 2022. This year districts 1, 3, and 5 were up for election, and these council members will serve 4 year terms. District 2 and 4 will be up for election in 2028.

If you missed this local election, or are interested in learning more, we have further information below.

Unopposed or primary-elected officials

District 1: Mark A. Waronek - Incumbent

Mark Waronek has served as mayor of Lomita since December 2024. He also has spent a career in public affairs and government advocacy consultation. He runs his own consultancy business M&M consulting, but we have not been able to find any information on his clients. In the past he has served as senior deputy for South Bay communities and economic development deputy for former LA District 15 Councilman Rudy Svorinisch, Jr.

District 3: Cindy Segawa - Incumbent

Cindy Segawea has previously served as mayor of Lomita and was first elected to Lomita City Council in 2018. We have not been able to find any further verifiable information on her regarding past work/service experiences, or platform as a City Councilwoman.

District 5: Jon Harry Bayouth

Jon Harry Bayouth currently serves on the Lomita Chamber of Commerce Board and is the proprietor of Harry’s Oklahoma Style Smokehouse BBQ. We have not been able to find any further verifiable information on his past work/service experiences, or platform as an incoming city counselor.

Lakewood

Lakewood chose to use the primary, instead of the general, to determine the winners of their races so no election will be held.

The City Council has five members serving staggered four-year terms, with districts 1, 2, and 5 up in 2026. Voters do not elect the mayor directly. The municipal election was held on June 2, 2026, consolidated with the statewide primary. The City treated it as a general election with no runoff, meaning the candidate with the most votes wins outright regardless of whether they clear 50 percent.  Districts 1 and 5 had only one candidate, therefore the candidate was automatically seated.  District 2 was contested, with Rudy Villarreal winning that election.

If you missed this local election, or are interested in learning more, we have further information below.

Unopposed or primary elected officials

District 1: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers, first elected to City Council in 2001, won re-election unopposed. He is a former member of the LA county Sheriff’s Department and former Captain of the Carson Station. He also leads the Lakewood Education Foundation. His priorities as City Councilmember are public safety, economic stability, and improving city services.

District 2: Rudy Villarreal

Rudy Villarreal is a law enforcement officer with more than a decade of service and a District 2 resident raising his children in the district. His campaign ran on four stated pillars: public safety and support for first responders, economic growth and small business, transparent and open governance, and community engagement and infrastructure. His campaign materials did not publish detailed policy positions beyond these headings.

District 5: Cassandra Chase

Cassandra Chase, first elected to City Council in 2022, won re-election unopposed. She is a former business strategist and entrepreneur of her own consulting group. Her platform is based on transparency, accountability, and civic engagement and she particularly prioritizes public safety through community-based programming, local business support, and services for vulnerable residents.

Norwalk

Norwalk City Council is determined through an at-large election by voters of the entire city. The Mayor and Vice Mayor are appointed by the Council annually, not the electorate. For 2026, municipal elections are being held for two open seats. 

City Council At Large

Recommendation: Daniel Moreno

Out of all of the candidates, Daniel Moreno, an environmental advocate and recent college graduate, is the only one with a bold, progressive platform and gets our recommendation.

Norwalk City Council is determined through an at-large election by voters of the entire city. The Mayor and Vice Mayor are appointed by the Council annually, not the electorate. For 2026, municipal elections are being held for two open seats.

Out of all of the candidates, Daniel Moreno, an environmental advocate and recent college graduate, has taken a strong stance for working people. He is running on an anti-Flock, anti-data center platform and wants to build green, car-lite public infrastructure in Norwalk. His other priorities include safer streets through improved public transit, as well as transparent governance for working families. This all aligns him with many of our own policy positions and stands to be a progressive voice in this area with which to build greater solidarity going forward.

Other candidates in this race include several newcomers along with incumbent Tony Ayala who has served in City Council since 2017 and as the Mayor for one year in 2024. In 2022, he took credit for falling crime rates after he helped approve nearly $4 million dollars in police spending. His other priorities include commercial business development and local job growth. Leonard Shryock, another former mayor and councilmember, is also running. A retired high school teacher in NLMUSD, he lists his policy priorities as enhancing safety, fiscal responsibility, economic prosperity, and improving communication.

Only Moreno seems to stand on the side of building thriving working class communities in Norwalk.

Palos Verdes Estates

Palos Verdes Estates City Council is determined through an at-large election by voters of the entire city. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are appointed by the Council annually, not the electorate. For 2026, municipal elections are being held for two open seats.

City Council At Large

Recommendation: None

Most of the candidates have policy platforms that directly contradict the things DSA stands for. We offer no recommendation in this race.

Victoria Lozzi, an incumbent first elected in 2018, has prior experience as City Treasurer and Mayor. She also has over thirty five years of experience as a corporate banker. Her platform is highly focused on fiscal priorities.

Michael Kemps, an incumbent first elected in 2018, is also the founder and CEO of Innovative Computing Systems, a technology-services company he started in 1989. His priorities are to engage residents, continue improving the city’s financial position, protecting the character of Palos Verdes Estates, and “collaborating with numerous organizations in opposition to increasing density”.

Mark Saroyan is a challenger to the two incumbents, and has no discernable political experience. He previously served as chief of surgery and chaired Kaiser South Bay’s budget-management committee. His platform includes maintaining local police and public safety measures, repairing aging infrastructure, protecting open space, and opposing state housing mandates.

Rationale

After reviewing the candidates and their publicly stated positions, our chapter is not recommending any candidate in this race. None have demonstrated alignment with DSA’s core commitments. In particular, most candidates oppose additional housing density and support maintaining or expanding local policing rather than prioritizing broader investments in affordable housing, tenant protections, and community-based public safety.

Paramount

This race has already been settled based on the June primary. No recommendation.

Paramount City Council is determined through an at-large election by voters of the entire city. The Mayor and Vice Mayor are appointed by the Council annually, not the electorate. For 2026, municipal elections were held on June 2nd for two open seats.

If you missed this local election, or are interested in learning more, we have further information below.

Unopposed or primary-elected officials

City Council at Large: Peggy Lemons - Incumbent

Peggy Lemons has served on Paramount’s City Council since 1997, and served her seventh term as Mayor this past year. She previously served as the executive director for the Paramount Chamber of Commerce for over 25 years, held a position on the Public Safety Commission, and is the founder and editor of Paramount’s community newspaper. Lemons listed accomplishments are public safety measures such as speed bump installation and creation of a deputy services satisfaction survey.

City Council at Large: Annette Delgadillo

Annette Delgadillo has previously served as a Paramount mayor from 2024-2025, and as city councilwoman. She previously worked as a teacher in the Paramount Unified School District. We have not been able to find any significant priorities, policies, or any other platform indicators on her.

Rancho Palos Verdes

Rancho Palos Verdes City Council is elected by the entire electorate. There are no specific districts, and there are five members total. Council Members serve four-year terms, with elections held in November of even-numbered years. The Mayor is appointed every 12 months on a rotating basis by the Council. For 2026, Rancho Palos Verdes will elect three City Council members.

City Council At Large

Recommendation: None

Every candidate in this race is running to protect property values and keep new housing out. None is running for the renters, workers, and families who keep Rancho Palos Verdes running but can’t afford to live there.

David Chura is a Planning Commissioner, retired aerospace and tech executive, and CHOA board member who ran unsuccessfully in 2024. He has advocated for limiting housing density and names landslide relief and state housing mandates as his top priorities.

Michele Carbone has run unsuccessfully in both 2022 and 2024. Her platform centers on land stabilization to protect home values, local control over housing and development, and more law enforcement.

John Cruikshank is a civil engineer, business owner, and former two-term Councilmember and Mayor who served from 2017 to 2024. He runs as a limited-government taxpayer advocate and has promoted Steve Hilton for governor.

Matthew Brach is a Planning Commissioner, consultant, and former PVPUSD board member. In 2020 he was the named plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging Governor Newsom's COVID school closure order.

Jessica Patton Vlaco is CFO of Green Hills Memorial Park and a former banking executive. Little else is publicly known about her campaign.

Tina Funiciello is an attorney and RPV resident. She prioritizes maintaining property values and preserving the natural beauty of RPV. Little else is publicly known about her campaign.

Rationale

This field is a contest over who can best defend the status quo for homeowners. The landslide crisis is real, and residents deserve help, but candidates have framed it around protecting home values rather than public investment for everyone affected. Most of the field opposes higher-density housing, treats state housing mandates as a threat, and frames “local control” as a way to keep the city exclusive. Others offer more policing, limited government, and a record of fighting public health measures. The rest have said little beyond preserving property values and scenery. In a region where working families are being priced out every year, a city that walls itself off with single-family zoning is part of the problem. None of these candidates has offered a vision for affordable housing, tenant protections, or a city that working people can call home, so we make no recommendation.

Rolling Hills

Rolling Hills City Council is elected by the entire electorate. There are no specific districts, and there are five members total. City Council members serve four year terms with members alternately elected on even-numbered years. Elected members are volunteers and do not receive compensation for their attendance at City Council meetings. For 2026, Rolling Hills will elect two city council members.

City Council At Large

Recommendation: None

Three incumbents who treat state housing and energy rules as outside interference, and a luxury homebuilder. No one in this race is running for the working people who build, clean, and maintain Rolling Hills but could never afford to live there.

James Black is the incumbent Mayor Pro Tem of Rolling Hills. A plastic surgeon with a private practice in Torrance, Black is a Rolling Hills native serving on City Council since 2011. He has stated that his priorities are focused on external pressures on the city, citing housing and energy regulations enforced by the state.

Jeanevra Calhoun is a real estate developer and owner of Ampersand Development, a South Bay residential construction company specializing in high-end custom homebuilding and renovation. She is a member of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.

Leah Mirsch has been on Rolling Hills City Council since first being elected in 2015. As a councilmember, her priorities are mainly focused on issues from outside government regulations.

Patrick Wilson was first elected to City Council in 2015 and has served as Mayor during his time as a Councilmember. Wilson is an Air Force veteran, musician and owner of Fast Lane Transportation, a local full-service trucking company. He credits his military service as the reason to devote his time towards public service.

Rationale

Rolling Hills is a gated city of large estates, and this race is about keeping it that way. All three incumbents frame their priorities around resisting “outside” pressure from the state, which in practice means state housing requirements and energy rules. The one challenger builds high-end custom homes for the wealthy. Meanwhile, the gardeners, housekeepers, construction crews, and caregivers who keep the city running commute in from places like Harbor City, Wilmington, and Long Beach, because there’s nowhere for them to live here. Unpaid council seats in a city like this are a job for people who can afford to volunteer, and the result is a government by and for property owners. None of these candidates has offered anything for the renters and workers of our region, so we make no recommendation.

Rolling Hills Estates

All candidates running unopposed in this one. No recommendation.

Rolling Hills Estates city council seats are elected by the entire electorate, there are no specific districts and there are four members total. Council members serve four year terms with two members elected every even-numbered year. This year, there were not more candidates than vacant positions.

If you missed this local election, or are interested in learning more, we have further information below.

Unopposed or primary-elected officials

City Council at Large: Britt Huff

Huff, first elected to City Council in 2013, had previously served on the Planning Commission and the city’s Environmental Advisory Committee. She also has served as mayor in 2018 and 2023. She has previously worked as a foreign service diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, and as Regional Manager for the U.S. Department of Energy.

City Council at Large: Lisa Van Ingen Pope

Pope, with a life-long history of working in directorship levels for educational institutions such as USC and CSU-LB, and as an executive for YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles, has no prior electoral history we could find.

Signal Hill

Every seat in Signal Hill is uncontested this year, so the council cancelled the election and appointed the incumbents to new terms. No recommendation, but there’s a lot here that Long Beach residents should pay attention to.

Signal Hill is a city of about 11,000 people completely surrounded by Long Beach. Its residents share our streets, our schools in Long Beach Unified, our air, and our rental market. Yet Signal Hill tenants have none of the local protections Long Beach renters have fought for. The city has no rent control, no rent stabilization, and no just-cause eviction ordinance of its own. Its renters rely entirely on state law. A family can be priced out on one side of Cherry Avenue with fewer protections than their neighbors a block away.

Housing need is just as stark. Under the state’s current housing cycle, Signal Hill must plan for 517 new homes, of which 161 must be affordable to very low-income households. Tina Hansen points to projects like Las Brisas, and that deserves credit. But a handful of affordable developments is not a housing program, and the city has shown no appetite for the tenant protections that keep working families in the homes they already have.

The cancelled election is its own warning sign. Signal Hill’s municipal elections have long drawn tiny turnouts, often under 20%, in a city of roughly 5,000 registered voters. When even that small contest disappears because no one files to run, a single council majority can govern for decades without real challenge. Hansen has served for over 30 years, and the rest of this slate is incumbents.

That isn’t a sign of satisfaction. It’s a sign that working people in Signal Hill have no organized political voice.

That’s where DSA-LB comes in. Signal Hill sits in the heart of our chapter’s territory, and its renters and workers face the same landlords and the same rising costs we do in Long Beach. The next open seat in Signal Hill could be won by a tenant organizer with a few hundred votes. We intend to be ready.

Unopposed or primary-elected officials

City Council District 1: Keir Jones - Incumbent

Keir Jones was first elected to the council in 2019 after serving as appointed City Clerk, and is currently serving his second term as mayor. A small business owner who runs a local insurance agency, he became involved in public service through California’s fight over Proposition 8 and has continued to serve on several community boards.

City Council District 2: Tina L Hansen -Incumbent

Tina Hansen has served on the Signal Hill City Council since 1994 and has rotated through the mayor’s seat six times, most recently in 2022–23. She is a Deputy District Attorney with the LA County District Attorney’s Office, currently assigned to the Code Enforcement Section. Her tenure has focused on public safety, affordable housing (including the Las Brisas project), new parks and the Hilltop Trail System, and building the city’s budget reserves.

City Clerk: Daritza Perez - Incumbent

Daritza Perez is the current City Clerk, running unopposed to retain the seat. The City Clerk administers Signal Hill’s elections, prepares council agendas and minutes, and maintains public records. We have not been able to find further verifiable information on her background or platform.

City Treasurer: David Hopper - Incumbent

David Hopper is a Certified Public Accountant who has served as Signal Hill’s City Treasurer since at least 2019, running unopposed in each election since. The City Treasurer oversees city funds and tax collection.