The upcoming election season is approaching, and it's important for our community members to stay informed about key deadlines. Here are the crucial dates to keep in mind:

● October 5: Mail-in ballots begin going out. Keep an eye on your mailbox.
● October 21: This is the last day to register online to vote. Make sure you're registered by visiting the voter registration page.
● October 26: Select vote centers open across L.A. County. Find a convenient location here.
● October 29: Last day to request a replacement mail-in ballot if needed.
● November 5: All mail-in votes must arrive at county election offices by this date.
● December 5: The final results will be announced.

Ensure your voice is heard—mark these dates on your calendar and be prepared to participate in the upcoming election!

L.A. Voters to Decide on Ethics Reforms to Address City Hall Corruption

Los Angeles voters will decide on a series of ethics reforms on Nov. 5, aiming to address recent political corruption scandals at City Hall. The proposed reforms, under Charter Amendment ER, seek to increase the operational independence of the City Ethics Commission, including setting a minimum annual budget, enhancing authority over spending and hiring, and allowing outside legal counsel in limited situations. A "yes" vote supports these changes, while a "no" vote keeps current rules intact. While some view these reforms as necessary steps towards accountability, critics argue that key provisions were weakened due to pressure from special interests.

L.A. Voters to Decide on Independent Redistricting Commission

Los Angeles voters will decide on Charter Amendment DD on Nov. 5, which proposes creating an independent redistricting commission to draw council district boundaries, instead of the current process controlled by the City Council. The measure aims to prevent conflicts of interest, as council members previously drew their own districts. If approved, a 16-member independent panel would be established, acting without council involvement. Proponents argue that this change is crucial for transparency and fairness, while opponents claim that experienced officials are better suited for this task.

L.A. Charter Amendment HH: Governance and City Operations Reforms

Measure HH, on the Nov. 5 ballot, proposes amendments to the Los Angeles City Charter to clarify city governance rules and set new standards. Key changes include expanding the City Attorney's subpoena power, requiring financial disclosures for commissioners before appointment confirmation, and granting the City Controller authority to audit contractors. The measure also proposes neighborhood-specific representation for the Board of Harbor Commissioners. The aim is to address transparency and ethical gaps, streamline processes, and improve accountability in city operations. There is no official opposition to the measure, and financial impact is expected to be minimal.

Title: L.A. City Charter Amendment II: City Administration and Operations

Summary: Measure II proposes amendments to the L.A. City Charter to clarify city operations. These include allowing city departments to sell food and merchandise, specifying that the El Pueblo Monument and the L.A. Zoo are park properties, prohibiting gender identity discrimination in city employment, and giving the Airport Commission authority to set ground transportation fees at LAX. Supporters argue these changes improve services, while no official opposition has been submitted. Financial impacts are uncertain, as changes might require additional resources for implementation.

Title: L.A. Unified School Board Election: District 3 Race Overview

Summary: The L.A. Unified School Board oversees the nation's second-largest school district with 538,000 students. Three seats, including District 3, are up for election on Nov. 5. Board members are responsible for hiring the superintendent, approving the budget, and overseeing charter schools. District 3 incumbent Scott Schmerelson and challenger Dan Chang are running. Schmerelson, with over 30 years of experience, prioritizes traditional public schools while Chang supports co-locations for their benefits. Chang focuses on increasing autonomy at schools, while Schmerelson emphasizes student safety and campus improvements.

Title: Charter Amendment LL: LAUSD Redistricting Reform

Summary: Charter Amendment LL proposes an independent redistricting commission for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), aiming to remove political influence in redrawing district boundaries. Currently, the LAUSD Redistricting Commission consists of members appointed by politicians. The proposed amendment would allow community members to apply to serve, starting in 2030, and end the City Council's final approval of district maps. Supporters argue that this change will promote transparency, community representation, and prevent gerrymandering. No formal opposition has been presented. A "yes" vote supports creating the independent commission, while a "no" vote maintains the current process.

Title: Measure US: LAUSD Facilities Bond

Summary: Measure US asks voters to approve a $9 billion bond through increased property taxes to renovate and repair Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) facilities. The district, which includes over 1,000 schools, aims to modernize outdated buildings and improve accessibility, energy efficiency, and green spaces. Funds would come from property taxes averaging $25.04 per $100,000 of assessed property value. Supporters say updated schools would enhance learning and create a healthier environment. Opponents question the bond's cost amid declining enrollment and criticize the limited public input. A "yes" vote allows LAUSD to borrow $9 billion for these projects, while a "no" vote denies the request.

Title: Evaluating L.A. Superior Court Judge Candidates

Summary: L.A. Superior Court judges play a crucial role in overseeing trials involving state and local laws. Voters are asked to choose judges, which can be challenging due to limited information and nonpartisan positions. The L.A. County Bar Association (LACBA) provides candidate ratings—ranging from "Exceptionally Well Qualified" to "Not Qualified"—based on their legal background and judicial demeanor. Endorsements and candidates' past experience, such as working as prosecutors or public defenders, can also help voters make informed decisions.

Seats on the Ballot:

1. Office No. 39:
   • George A. Turner Jr. (Deputy Public Defender) - LACBA: Qualified
   • Steve Napolitano (Attorney/Councilmember) - LACBA: Qualified
2. Office No. 48:
   • Ericka J. Wiley (Deputy Public Defender) - LACBA: Qualified
   • Renee Rose (Deputy District Attorney) - LACBA: Well Qualified
3. Office No. 97:
   • Sharon Ransom (Deputy District Attorney) - LACBA: Well Qualified
   • La Shae Henderson (Deputy Public Defender) - LACBA: Qualified
4. Office No. 135:
   • Steven Yee Mac (Deputy District Attorney) - LACBA: Well Qualified
   • Georgia Huerta (Deputy District Attorney) - LACBA: Well Qualified
5. Office No. 137:
   • Luz E. Herrera (Attorney/Law Professor) - LACBA: Qualified
   • Tracey M. Blount (Senior Deputy County Counsel) - LACBA: Well Qualified

Key Points to Consider:

• LACBA Ratings: These evaluations provide insight into the qualifications and temperament of the candidates.
• Endorsements: Consider endorsements from organizations and trusted figures.
• Experience: Pay attention to candidates' previous work, including positions like Deputy Public Defender, Deputy District Attorney, and others, as their experience can indicate preparedness for the role.

Voting for judges helps determine who will make significant decisions affecting justice at a local level.

Summary of the Los Angeles District Attorney Race:

The L.A. County District Attorney race features incumbent George Gascón and challenger Nathan Hochman. This influential role impacts which crimes are prosecuted and the overall approach to justice in the county.

Key Points:

• George Gascón (Incumbent): Elected in 2020, he focuses on reducing mass incarceration and addressing racial disparities in the justice system. He has rolled back the prosecution of many misdemeanors, rarely charges juveniles as adults, and avoids sentencing enhancements.
• Nathan Hochman: A criminal defense attorney and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General, he advocates for tougher crime policies, pledging to prosecute all misdemeanors and tackle the fentanyl crisis aggressively. He supports modifying or repealing Proposition 47, which reduced certain felonies to misdemeanors.

Voter Considerations: Voters should evaluate candidates' crime-fighting strategies, their positions on Proposition 47, and their commitments to police accountability, as these will shape the future of justice in L.A. County.

Overview of the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees Elections and Candidates

The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD), the largest community college district in California, consists of 13 districts and 21 colleges. This guide emphasizes the importance of the Board of Trustees, which oversees substantial budgets funded by taxpayer dollars, impacting not only education but also community development. With challenges such as declining enrollment post-pandemic and a recent vote of no confidence against the current chancellor, Francisco Rodriguez, the board's role is crucial in addressing issues like student housing, financial accountability, and fostering diversity among faculty. Candidates for board seats include Baltazar Fedalizo (Private Equity Investor), Andra Hoffman (Incumbent Director of Career Services), Peter Manghera (Teacher), Cheyenne Sims (Executive Director of HBCU Route), Nancy Pearlman (Environmentalist and Former College Educator), Louis Anthony Shapiro (Retired Educator), David Vela (Incumbent Consulting Firm Owner), Elaine Alaniz (Medical Healthcare Recruiter), Jason R. Aula (Business Owner), Nichelle Henderson (Incumbent Faculty Advisor), Kelsey Iino (Incumbent Community College Counselor), and Robert Payne (Writer, Researcher, and Videographer), each prioritizing different initiatives aimed at improving student access, safety, and resources within the district.

Measure A: Proposal to Raise LA County Sales Tax for Homelessness Efforts

Los Angeles County voters will decide in November whether to approve Measure A, which seeks to raise the sales tax by 0.5% to generate approximately $1.1 billion annually for homelessness services and affordable housing initiatives. This measure aims to replace the existing 0.25% sales tax from Measure H, set to expire in 2027, with new revenue focused on creating affordable housing, providing rental assistance, and increasing mental health and addiction treatment services. Supporters argue that Measure A is essential to prevent a spike in homelessness, while opponents criticize previous tax measures for failing to yield significant improvements and worry that the increased tax burden may exacerbate economic struggles for residents.

Summary of Measure G: Expanding the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Measure G proposes significant changes to the governance structure of Los Angeles County, which has remained largely unchanged since 1912. It aims to increase the number of elected members on the County Board of Supervisors from five to nine, thereby improving representation for the county's nearly 10 million residents. Additionally, the measure seeks to make the County CEO an elected position, establish an independent Ethics Commission to investigate misconduct and restrict lobbying, and create a nonpartisan Legislative Analyst to review proposed policies. While supporters argue this will enhance accountability and responsiveness, opponents express concerns about politicizing the CEO position and potential costs.

Summary of California Proposition 2: Funding School Facilities

Proposition 2 seeks to address the deteriorating conditions of California’s public K-12 schools and community colleges by allowing the state to borrow $10 billion for repairs, renovations, and new construction. With nearly 6 million K-12 and over 1.9 million community college students affected, many schools are in urgent need of improvements, as 38% do not meet minimum cleanliness and safety standards. The measure, which comes after previous failed funding attempts, aims to provide $8.5 billion for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges through matching grants. Supporters argue that this funding is critical for maintaining safe learning environments, while opponents raise concerns about the potential long-term debt and local property tax increases that could result from the matching funds needed.

Summary of California Proposition 3: Protecting Gay Marriage

Proposition 3 aims to update the California Constitution by removing outdated language from Proposition 8, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. While same-sex marriage is currently legal in California, this measure is seen as a proactive step to protect LGBTQ+ marriage rights amidst concerns that the U.S. Supreme Court may reverse previous rulings on marriage equality.

**Key Details:**

- **Official Title**: Constitutional right to marriage. Legislative constitutional amendment.

- **Vote Implications**:

  - **Yes Vote**: Removes the Prop. 8 language and establishes marriage as a fundamental right.

  - **No Vote**: Retains the existing language in the state constitution.

**Background**: Prop. 8 was passed in 2008 but was ruled unconstitutional in 2013. This proposition is a response to fears about potential changes to marriage equality at the federal level, particularly given the current conservative makeup of the Supreme Court.

**Supporters' Views**: Advocates argue that removing discriminatory language is crucial for reinforcing marriage equality and protecting the rights of all Californians to marry. Supporters include various LGBTQ+ rights organizations.

**Opponents' Views**: Critics, including some conservative groups, argue that the amendment could lead to the removal of all marriage restrictions, which they see as unnecessary since same-sex marriage is already legal.

**Financial Impact**: According to the state Legislative Analyst's Office, Prop. 3 is not expected to have any fiscal impact, as it does not change the current marriage laws.

In essence, Proposition 3 seeks to provide a safeguard for marriage equality in California by updating the constitution to reflect current legal standards.

California Proposition 4: Funding Climate Action

Proposition 4 proposes a $10 billion bond to finance various climate and environmental initiatives in California, including water recycling, flood control, and wildfire and sea level rise protections. If approved, the state would use the funds for loans and grants to local governments, Native American tribes, non-profits, and businesses, with 40% earmarked for lower-income communities most affected by climate change. Supporters argue that it’s essential for proactive climate measures, while opponents caution that it could worsen California's budget deficit and should be funded through the state budget instead. Repayment of the bond is estimated to cost taxpayers about $400 million annually over the next 40 years.

California Proposition 5: Making It Easier to Pass Housing and Infrastructure Bonds

Proposition 5 aims to lower the voter approval threshold for local bond measures funding affordable housing and infrastructure projects in California from the current two-thirds to 55%. Advocates argue this change will facilitate more local initiatives to address the housing crisis, as it would encourage local governments to propose more projects, potentially generating billions in funding over the years. Opponents, however, caution that lowering the threshold may lead to increased property taxes for homeowners without guaranteeing the successful construction of affordable housing units, which can be costly to build.

 California Proposition 6: Prohibit Forced Labor

California Proposition 6 seeks to amend the state constitution to ban involuntary servitude as a punishment for crimes, addressing a historical exception that has allowed forced labor in prisons since 1850. Currently, about one-third of incarcerated individuals are required to work, often for less than $1 per hour, and may face penalties for refusal. A "yes" vote would eliminate the possibility of punishment for those who decline to work and allow for the earning of good-time credits instead. The measure is part of a broader reparations initiative aimed at acknowledging and addressing systemic racism and its impacts. While the exact financial implications are uncertain, costs may arise from adjusting payment structures for prison labor.

 California Proposition 32: Raising Statewide Minimum Wage

California Proposition 32 proposes to increase the statewide minimum wage from $16 to $18 per hour, with subsequent yearly increases tied to the consumer price index. For larger employers with 26 or more employees, the increase would take effect on January 1, 2025, while smaller businesses would see the change starting on January 1, 2026.

Key Details:

- **Current Situation**: California's minimum wage varies widely, with some cities paying more than $18 per hour, while the statewide minimum remains at $16. Los Angeles is set to increase its minimum wage to $17.28, with annual adjustments based on the consumer price index.

- **Supporters' View**: Proponents argue that the increase is necessary for workers facing high costs of living in California. They believe raising the minimum wage would provide essential relief and help workers afford basic necessities.

- **Opponents' Concerns**: Critics, particularly from business groups, argue that the increase could burden small businesses and lead to job losses. They contend that minimum wage jobs are not intended to be long-term careers.

- **State Analysis**: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that around 2 million workers would be affected by the measure. While it could raise costs for businesses, it might also decrease the number of individuals reliant on public assistance.

The initiative aims to address the challenges faced by low-wage workers in California. Public support for an increase in the minimum wage has been significant, with polls indicating that a majority of likely voters favor the proposal.

California Proposition 36: Increasing Penalties for Drug and Theft Crimes

California Proposition 36 seeks to increase criminal penalties for certain drug possession and theft crimes in response to rising incidents of "smash-and-grab" robberies and the fentanyl crisis. This measure would roll back some reforms from Proposition 47 by imposing longer prison sentences for repeat offenders and mandating rehabilitation or prison for individuals arrested for drug possession. Additionally, it would require courts to inform drug offenders of potential murder charges if their sales result in fatalities. Supporters, including law enforcement and major retailers, argue that it addresses significant crime issues, while opponents contend it perpetuates over-incarceration and fails to address underlying problems effectively. The financial implications could result in increased state criminal justice costs, potentially ranging from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

District 27 senator US

District 27 encompasses the northwest corner of Los Angeles County, featuring areas such as the western part of the Angeles National Forest, Santa Clarita, Acton, Palmdale, Quartz Hill, and Lancaster. Voter registration in this district shows a Democratic majority at 41.6%, with 29.4% identifying as Republican and 21.1% as having no party preference. The candidates for this district include George Whitesides, a Democrat and aerospace businessman, and the incumbent, Republican Mike Garcia, a U.S. Representative. 

District 27 - overview Los Angeles and Ventura counties, encompassing Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Moorpark, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, part of Santa Clarita, and various Los Angeles communities including Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Encino, Porter Ranch, Reseda, Lake Balboa, Tarzana, West Hills, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills. The voter registration reflects a Democratic majority at 46.6%, followed by 24.7% Republican and 21.5% with no party preference. The candidates in this district are the incumbent Democrat Henry Stern, a California State Senator, and Republican Lucie Volotzky, a mother and business owner.