California and Los Angeles Primary Voter Guide 2024: President, Senate, House, Props, District Attorney, State Assembly, Judges, School Board
Primary season is upon and it's time to remember you are an actual citizen of an actual country called The United States of America that is actually the greatest country in the world. Take pride in your citizenship here. For the USA to lose, that means humanity loses. No country has the fantastic combination of rule of law, cultural dynamism, freedom to fail and experiment, colorblindness, a business and science environment that is limitless, and on top of that a moral imperative deep within our DNA to aspire to do good. We are by no means perfect. But we are by all means seeking to be "more perfect." There will be no "moving to Canada." You will stay here and fight. Whatever hopes you may or may not have around a declining USA, I assure you the axis of evil that would replace us would be far far worse. And given the USA is the main character on planet Earth, staying here to make her better is the greatest lever you can pull to make the world better. An ascendent USA is a better world. Let's fight for it.
The "Primaries" are not just for voting on the presidential nominees. Depending on where you live, you may have many things to vote on. I live in Santa Monica, so I'm sharing my opinions on how I'm voting and how I recommend citizens of the greater Los Angeles area vote. No excuses. It's easy to register to vote and it's easy to become informed on what's on the ballot. Google is your friend. Go to campaign websites, read- yeah it takes some time but take it as an opportunity to learn more about what's going on in your community. For my general worldview which will color why I vote the way I do, you can read the intro to my 2022 voter guide, my opinions haven't changed. Put simply, I want the economy to grow, I want more housing to be built, I want schools to focus on academic achievement, I want less waste in government, I want laws to be enforced, and I want a high functioning government that allows individuals and businesses to prosper. Put less simply, you can read The Techno-Optimist Manifesto by philosopher Marc Andreessen, that's my bible. And how I vote is basically all downstream of that philosophy. I'll put my recommendations at the top for easy reference but keep scrolling for the explanation. Let's dive in.
President of the United States- Joe Biden
U.S. Senate California- Adam Schiff
U.S. House California District 36- Ted Lieu
California Proposition 1- No
Los Angeles, Measure HLA, City Mobility Plan Implementation Initiative- Yes California State Assembly District 51- Rick Chavez Zburr
Los Angeles District Attorney- Eric Siddal (Anyone but Gascón)
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 124)- Emily Theresa Spear
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 12)- Lynn D Olson
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 39)- Steve Napolitano
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 48)- Renee Rose
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 93)- Victor AvilaSuperior Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 97)- Sam Abourched
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 115)- Keith Koyano
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 130)- Christopher Darden
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 135)- Steven Yee Mac
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 137)- Michael Berg
Los Angeles City Council District 2- Marin Ghandilyan
Los Angeles City Council District 4- Ethan Weaver
Los Angeles City Council District 6- Imelda Padilla
Los Angeles City Council District 8- Marqueece Harris-Dawson
Los Angeles City Council District 10- Grace Yoo
Los Angeles City Council District 12- John S. Lee
Los Angeles City Council District 14- Kevin de León
Los Angeles County School Board of Education District 1- DeWayne Davis
Los Angeles County School Board of Education District 3- Dan Chang
Los Angeles County School Board of Education District 5- Graciela Ortiz
Los Angeles County School Board of Education District 7- Tanya Ortiz Franklin
President of the United States- Joe Biden
Don’t need to overthink this, very likely Biden and Trump will be the nominees. CA has an open primary which means regardless of your party preference you can vote for a democrat or a republican. The top two "vote-getters" move on to the general election. I'm voting Biden. I generally think he has done pretty good. Economy doing well, oil production highest its ever been, warming up to nuclear, the border situation is a disaster but not all his fault, republicans won’t make a deal. To me, it’s a deal breaker that Trump tried to steal the election. I’m not talking about January 6th, I’m talking about the actual election day. “Find me the votes”, fake electors, the attack was systematic. The intro in the USA v Donald Trump court case is damning. Fun read. Also I like Noah Smith's pieces, A vote for Trump is a vote for chaos and Biden should run on a message of abundance. Yeah, the guy has serious brain decline and it sucks. Trump is old too, not as bad on the brain front. But even still. Also, balancing the budget, which republicans and democrats both don’t care about, would be nice.
U.S. Senate California- Adam Schiff
There are two elections here. A regular senate election to serve a 6 year term and a special election to serve the final two months of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s term. There are a lot of randos on the ballot, and there always are, so an easy way to see which candidates are serious is to look at who has raised any money. This article by Cal Matters walks through it. Schiff is very likely going to win, but he also has my vote and it's not even close. Watching the debate, Schiff seems to be the only sane option. Barbara Lee speaks in left platitudes generated by ChatGPT, Katie Porter just says "corporations bad" and Steve Garvey can't point out one specific thing on the dem side he disagrees with. Also LOL 13 minutes into the debate and the moderator wants to move to the middle east. Come on bro. We got plenty of stuff here. It’s important but put that at the end. Here are some scattered notes from the debate. Adam Schiff is the only one who answered the opening question. He talks about windfall profit tax on oil and gas. Talks of increase housing which I like. He rates economy a 7. Talks about using the low income housing tax credit to address housing crisis. It’s unclear to me how affective this is. I am much more of the camp we just need to make it easier to build. There is a huge demand for housing, lower permitting restriction, allow tall apartment buildings, increase mix used. I don’t think throwing more government money at this is the solution. Evidence shows that when supply goes up, pricing goes down. It’s that simple. Oakland has done a good job here as of late. Katie Porter notes: Platitudes that corporate America is greedy. Wants to ban stock trading for people in congress, I like it. She says the economy is a 5. But says that the greedy people are a 10. She’s just an anti corporate shill. Businesses already leaving CA. She talks about how the big banks have screwed people. Just a screaming mom. Barbara Lee notes: Very progressive platitudes in her intro. “One paycheck away from poverty.” There’s just no way that’s true. Platitude. Show me the data. She has passed legislation to make housing a human right LOL. Legislator brain. You can’t just will it into existence. Why not make being a billionaire a human right. Steve Garvey notes: Doesn’t even name one thing he disagrees with from the dem party in his opening question. He rates economy a 5 at most. To lower housing costs he says we need to help the economy. Bro, you said nothing specific.
U.S. House California District 36- Ted Lieu
Ted Lieu going to win this. He’s the only democrat running in a very blue district. Plus he’s the incumbent. This isn’t even going to be close. Looking at some of the competition posts on X, they a little crazy. Saving time here by not even diving into this. For some of these less known races, X is very helpful to see what these people think.
California Proposition 1- No
Authorizes $6.38 Billion in Bonds to Build Mental Health Treatment Facilities for Those With Mental Health and Substance Use Challenges; Provides Housing for the Homeless. Legislative Statute.
Here is info on Proposition 1. Here's a great Pirate Wires piece on it. Let me quote it:
Of the $6.4 billion Prop 1 seeks to wrest from taxpayers, it will spend $4.4 billion on funding around 6,800 addiction/behavioral health treatment beds, which amounts to an average cost of almost $650,000 per bed — an obscene sum even by California’s distorted standards. The remaining $2 billion will be allocated to fund various housing projects, including the conversion of hotels and motels into homeless housing, with the eventual goal of opening 4,350 new units — amounting to an average cost of around $460,000 per unit. But these new units will house less than 3% of the state’s total homeless population. By this math, to fully “solve” homelessness in California, it would take a dollar amount — $320 billion — that slightly exceeds China’s entire defense budget.
"$650,000 per bed." A complete and utter joke. Until CA can show fiscal responsibility and show that this money will not be completely wasted, it’s a no. The state has thrown billions at this problem already. The solution here is building more housing not throwing more money in the pit. What is absolutely hilarious about this is how it’s presented. It says it’s a 6.4 billion bond, but it will actually cost about 9.3 billion because of interest. The payments will be $310mn over 30 years. CA had a huge budget surplus of 97.5bn in 2022, and now we are dealing with a 68bn shortfall. That level of incompetence is so high that we need to address that before we keep throwing money down the drain. This is not a left or right issue, this is fraud, this is utter waste.
Los Angeles, Measure HLA, City Mobility Plan Implementation Initiative- Yes
A "yes" vote supports requiring the city to prioritize the completion of street improvement projects described in the previously approved City Mobility Plan and provide accessible information to the public about the progress of these projects.
A "no" vote opposes requiring the city to prioritize the completion of street improvement projects described in the previously approved City Mobility Plan and provide accessible information to the public about the progress of these projects.
Here is the LA times piece on this.
“The Mobility Plan proposed hundreds of miles of new bus-only lanes and protected bike lanes, as well as sidewalk and streetscape enhancements in neighborhoods with lots of pedestrians. But since its adoption, the city has completed upgrades to just 88 miles of city streets. That’s only about 5% of the miles envisioned for bike, bus and neighborhood safety projects. At that rate, it will take L.A. 160 years to fully implement the Mobility Plan.”
I fear that this could make road building prohibitively slow. But screw it, it doesn’t seem to have any major opposition. Probably won’t amount to much. But let’s see. Side note, as I read this stuff, it’s not like a left or right issue, it’s a competence thing. Like even when we pass shit, nothing gets done. It’s as if our state capacity is zero. We need to pass shit that actually gets that improved. Noah Smith has a great piece on the outsourcing of state capacity. Since 1970 the percent of our budget going towards government workers has steadily fallen. I’m a believer in not making government bigger than it needs to be, but also as efficient as possible. We need to hire more government workers and stop outsourcing to consultants and non profits who have an incentive to light money on fire.
California State Assembly District 51- Rick Chavez Zburr
Rick Chavez Zburr is going to win. The other two candidates are unserious. This is a joke. No one even challenging him. I think I could beat this guy.
Los Angeles District Attorney- Eric Siddal (Anyone but Gascón)
The main thing here is NOT GASCON. If no one gets a majority, top two go to the general election. I’m not a fan of Gascon, a lot of people aren’t. We need to uphold the rule of law, he is way to soft on crime, which encourages crime. There are victims of crimes and they deserve justice. Nathan has raised the most money, seems like he has a good shot. I have a friend in the DA's office who recommends McKinney and also Siddal, but based on the research I link to below McKinney seems like a long shot. There are a TON of candidates. The fear is that the pool splits up the opposition and Gascon gets 50%, which means he automatically wins. Here is the DA debate, honestly didn't have time to watch it. Former mayor of LA candidate Caruso put out a statement on the race as well as some research on who likely voters will vote for. Archuleta, Hochman, Siddall, Chemerinky, all seem reasonable. But given Siddall is polling well and has Caruso's endorsement, that's who I'm going with. Would be a shame for every other candidate to split the votes among them and Gascon edges the win with 50% of the vote. Trying to avoid that.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County
You can find the candidate statements here. Reading through the statements from many running for judge it is scary to me how many of them are focused on “racial justice.” That is not a judge’s job. A judge must be totally impartial, not bringing in political baggage when assessing a crime. It’s not the judge’s job to try and “fix” anything. It’s broken by the time it gets to them. There job is fair, equal color blind justice.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 124)- Emily Theresa Spear
This is a fun one. So Spear got in trouble for leaving work early and bad mouthing a colleague. But Repecka, running against her, based on her candidate statement, is a pro crime radical who seems far more concerned with the perpetrators of crimes than the victims. Spear has my vote.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 12)- Lynn D Olson
Lynn seems pretty normal. Haymon, on her website, says she “stands at the forefront of combating racial inequality within the justice system through a multifaceted and systemic approach.” Justice should be blind. You cannot issue justice based on race. This is straight racism.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 39)- Steve Napolitano
From Turner's website: “By working to reform the system and reduce the number of people who are incarcerated, we can help create a more just and equitable society.” Wtf is going on. A judge does not reform anything. They judge. Leave that to the legislators. Jacob Lee seems reasonable. Ronda Dixon has no candidate statement and her website says nothing. Napolitano has experience and seems reasonable.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 48)- Renee Rose
Burroughs seems reasonable. Rose is a hardcore supporter of victims which I like, she has my vote. Wiley seems ok.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 93)- Victor Avila
Avila is the only one running, don’t know anything about him.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 97)- Sam Abourched
Henderson seems fine. Abourched seems like a total badass and has served overseas, has my vote. Ransom, from her statement: “understanding the diverse nature of our communities is a vital factor in ensuring that Judges deliver JUSTICE.” I have no idea what this means.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 115)- Keith Koyano
“Keith is a fierce advocate for fair and equitable treatment in the courts for everyone, no matter their background or circumstance.” Wow, no matter their background. Imagine that. Not taking race into account. Has my vote. Brookens seems to not have any experience.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 130)- Christopher Darden
“Darden's work on the Simpson trial made the country aware of his passion for victims' rights.” Victim’s rights, I dig it. Taher has no campaign statement. Gutierrez in her statement says she practices “equitable justice.” She should practice “equal” justice.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 135)- Steven Yee Mac
Fakhreddine has no statement. Huerta says “I am committed to interpreting and applying the law in a fair, just, and impartial manner.” Awesome. Mac says “I am dedicated to service because this country and this community welcomed my family in their time of greatest need. I am running for judge to continue that service.” I dig it. He has my vote.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Office No. 137)- Michael Berg
Herrer “believes that it is important for all those who interact with the legal system to understand what is happening to them when they participate in this important part of our democratic process.” Seems reasonable. “Michael Berg is running for Superior Court Judge to ensure our judiciary is fair, follows the law and affords due process to everyone. He has been endorsed by numerous judges and community leaders and will help create a more safe, secure and inclusive community.” I like his statement the most. Has my vote. James has no statement. Tracey Blount: “Tracey's experience handling Dependency cases and litigation includes child death, broken bone/serious physical abuse, complicated family law abuse/neglect cases, sexual abuse, legal guardianship, sensitive cases (media/celebrity). Tracey has also served on numerous committees related to Dependency law.” Reasonable.
Los Angeles City Council District
Here is the list of certified candidates. A lot of these folks you can weed out based on them not supplying a candidate statement.
Los Angeles City Council District 2- Marin Ghandilyan
LA Times has a voter guide for this district I'm pulling quotes from. Jon-Paul Bird: “He said he would lead with an emphasis on mental well-being and bring his experience as a mental health professional to city governance.” Mental well-being, what are they talking about. Jillian Burgos: “Burgos is running to protect renters and support the unhoused with “wraparound” services, she said.” Sounds like a lot of money will be spent and nothing will get done. Gonez: “Gonez, 41, is a housing advocate and policy director at the environmental nonprofit Tree People.” LOL. No way. Kbushyan: “Kbushyan said his key issues are homelessness, public safety and government corruption.” Sounds legit. Nazarian: “Nazarian, 50, said he’s passionate about affordable housing, transportation and the environment. He lives in North Hollywood with his wife and three children.” Feels ok. Ghandilyan didn’t respond to the LA Times for a request for an interview, which is both awesome and concerning. LA Times is a complete joke. She’s the only candidate talking about economic growth. Has my support.
Los Angeles City Council District 4- Ethan Weaver
LAist voter guide for District 4. Raman is endorsed by the Sierra Club. DOA for me. I used to support the Sierra Club, all they do is prevent renewable projects from being built. They want humanity to die. Baronian seems reasonable. Weaver's website talks of action, tangible things like cleaning up homeless encampments. Has my support.
Los Angeles City Council District 6- Imelda Padilla
LAis voter guide for district 6. Ayao seems ok. Padilla is pro business which I like. She has my support. Minasova is a bit of a meme. Has a picture with a dog, campaigning for animal rights. Weird.
Los Angeles City Council District 8- Marqueece Harris-Dawson
LAist voter guide for district 8. Harris-Dawson has the most money raised, I feel like this guy gonna win. Seems reasonable. Talks of economic development. Epps doesn't say much about what he's gonna do on his site. Cliff Smith feels like a communist, which is scary because those governments tend to kill their own people.
Los Angeles City Council District 10- Grace Yoo
LAist district 10 voter guide. Hutt is way too focused on race. It’s the economy stupid. Anderson: LA Times is endorsing him, huge red flag. “To win policies that advance equity” from his website. I don’t know what equity means bit it feels like every time I read it, is from someone who sees people as a color, not an individual. Jones-Sawyer: “Reggie knows that our City has failed to deliver real solutions to the homelessness crisis — that’s why he’s working closely with Mayor Karen Bass to cut red tape so we can build more permanent housing faster, for less money, and with support for the unhoused like mental health services, addiction treatment and job training.” Just ok, feels like more of the same. Vásquez: “As a renter, I understand the struggle. I will protect affordable housing units, create social housing, and the right to council to protect renters. I will provide services for the unhoused, permanent housing, and medical outreach to get them off the streets.” Nothing about just increasing housing supply. I have no idea what “social housing” means. Yoo: “I try to look at serious, complicated issues like homelessness, public safety, repairing our city’s infrastructure, building more housing, and tackling gridlock as opportunities to provide well-paying jobs to our residents, allow businesses to innovate, and let the City invest in itself. By doing so we can find ways to solve our problems while creating positive outcomes.” The only candidate who is focused on the economy. She is the one.
Los Angeles City Council District 12- John S. Lee
LAist district 12 voter guide. Lee: “With an agenda focused on public safety, supporting local businesses, and providing core city services, John is committed to putting the neighborhoods of the Twelfth District first and ensuring that his constituents have a voice at City Hall.” Supporting local business sounds good to me. Has my support. Oberstein's website doesn't say much about what she believes.
Los Angeles City Council District 14- Kevin de León
LA Times district 14 voter guide. Jurado: Anyone that describes themselves as an “activist” immediately gives me skepticism. Enough activism. What are you going to do. León: This guy was at the center of a hot mic controversy. I like that he wants to clean up the streets but doesn’t seem to say much else. Seems like the only option. Carrillo: She’s “against the massive gentrification.” Anyone opposed to gentrification doesn’t understand how the world works. Improving neighborhoods is a good thing. Hillery: “CD 14's homeless population demands tailored solutions. I'll prioritize this crisis with unwavering attention and care, considering diverse models of housing and advocating for increased mental health services. As a housing justice advocate.” Not saying anything. Santiago feels like a communist. Diaz: Just a bunch of platitude bullet points on her site. Next. Vargas: “My whole life, I have seen how capitalism uses and abuses families like my own. That’s why I became a socialist.” LOLOL. This guy. He’s a looter. Next. Guerrero: mostly platitudes.
Los Angeles County School Board of Education
I’m much less certain on Board of Education positions. I don’t have a kid and just follow this stuff less. But generally I believe that academic achievement should be the top priority. Our schools should produce fookin brainiacs. Or else what’s it all for. Unless someone gets 50% of vote, there is a run off in the general election. Here is the LAist voter guide.
Los Angeles County School Board of Education District 1- DeWayne Davis
LAist voter guide district 1. Al-Alim: Army veteran, grew up in the system, seems ok. Tambor: “A significant emphasis on the involvement of parents in education." Sounds good. Brasfield: “Elevate mathematics comprehension standards for optimal growth (science, engineering, coding, etc.)”, I like this, but this guy doesn’t seem like he has a shot at all. No relevant experience. Flagg: Throws around “equity” and funding amounts around, light on specifics of what that money is doing. Newbill: Athletic Director, been deep in the community, seems ok. Watts: Platitudes. Doesn’t have the right experience. Davis: Talks about how a solid instructional plan is what’s needed for at risk kids. I like the sounds of this. DeWayne Davis has my endorsement.
Los Angeles County School Board of Education District 3- Dan Chang
Chang: “My first priority is to raise academic performance within LAUSD…My second priority is to reduce the central office bureaucracy to return more funding and autonomy to school sites.” Awesome. Schools focusing on academic performance, imagine that. This guy has my endorsement. Badger: Zero focus on academic achievement. Farmakalidis: Too hippie. I do like that she talks about fiscal responsibility. But not enough on academic excellence. Villalta: Was put on unpaid leave for not getting the covid vaccine. So she’s out for blood. I dig what she’s saying but seems a bit too hardo. Schmerelso: Focused on faculty and staff and safety of children. No academic rigor to speak of.
Los Angeles County School Board of Education District 5- Graciela Ortiz
Gallardo: Seems like a reasonable dude. Griego: “Supporting the whole child by providing mental health and social-emotional support to all students through counselors, psychiatric social workers, restorative justice advisors, and school climate advocates.” LOLOLOL you slog through making a voter guide no one is gonna read and you come across and this makes it all worth it. LAUSD is failing academically, and Karla wants “school climate advocates” wtf is going on. Gutierrez: His first priority is a water filtration system at all schools. That feels weird. Ortiz: Seems reasonable. Between him and Gallardo, my gut is Ortiz.
Los Angeles County School Board of Education District 7- Tanya Ortiz Franklin
Gutiérrez: Focused on academic excellence but I feel like Tanya is the move here. Tanya Ortiz Franklin: “Our district’s most important responsibility is to ensure more students are prepared to thrive in the college, career, and life of their choice.” I dig it.
This concludes the guide, thank you for reading my fellow American.