Comments
ACCORDING TO LIZ - How people perceived this election’s results depends upon their point of view and, no matter how much I may disagree, in a democracy everyone has the right to their opinions and, ultimately, I have to respect the consequences.
That doesn’t mean that I have to like them. And this article is to articulate why I disagree with some, maybe too many, of the choices Californians made last Tuesday.
At the federal level these votes may still be consequential, with Democrats leading by a hair in California’s 21st, 27th, and 47th Congressional districts behind by about 2% in the 13th, 41st, and 45th districts.
A huge number of ballots – almost five million as of last Friday evening including mail-in and provisional ballots as well as those rejected by the optical scanners – have yet to be tallied, and there may be challenges on close races further delaying final results for some seats in the House.
When these, along with yet-to-be-counted ballots in Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Arizona, the popular vote for President may be very close, with Kamala’s numbers projected to top out between 73 and 74 million, while the Don’s will likely end up between 75 and 76 million – certainly not the landslide the news hacks at the Burger King’s beck-and-call trumpeted.
The lack of good options to support significantly reduced turnout in California about 50% after 79.42% (2008) and 72.36% (2012) for Obama, 75.27% Trump (2016) and 80.67% Biden (2020).
But of those who voted, 58.5% of Californians (over 64% in LA County) voted for Harris-Walz with under 39% supporting (32% in LA County) Trump-Vance.
County elections officials in the Golden State must report final official results for presidential electors to the Secretary of State by December 3rd (and all other state contests by the 6th) for the Secretary of State to certify the results on December 13, 2024.
For me, surprises included Steve Garvey performing shockingly well against Adam Schiff sucking up over 41% of the vote for the junior Senate seat but here. Not unsurprisingly in Los Angeles Garvey’s numbers fell to 34.5%.
And that in NELA, where I voted, David Kim attracted 44% of the vote for Congress in California’s 34th District running against the well-liked Jimmy Gomez, perhaps more evidence that people just want a change.
In State races, the knowledgeable Jessica Caloza won NELA’s 52nd District seat for State Assembly, handily beating her opponent with two-thirds of the vote. However, keep your eyes on Frankie Carrillo who, with one race under his belt, may become a force for the future. His commitment to second chances and for healthcare, environmental and housing justice “because we are ALL safer in a more just world” resonates, especially in opposition to the nouveau Trump dystopia.
Cue the spotlight: in the CD 14 race, Ysabel Jurado swept the streets of NELA and parts of downtown trouncing the despicable Kevin De León 57% to 43%. Although her sleazy opponent – forever tainted by the leaked audio recording scandal – refused to concede until Friday evening.
Elsewhere in the City, land-use reform advocate Adrin Nazarian won against grassroots crusader Jillian Burgos in Council District 2 but she, again, is one to watch in upcoming years.
I guess only the most despicable incumbents can be beaten since the well-respected and knowledgeable Grace Yoo went down to defeat against Heather Hutt, Council District 10’s caretaker Councilmember in the aftermath of the disgraced Mark Ridley-Thomas getting the boot and interim appointee Herb Wesson’s resignation in 2022.
Because the rest of California did not hew to more of my recommendations on the ten propositions Californians could vote on is not just sour grapes. The results are consequential.
Almost 58% approved Prop 2 authorizing $10 billion in bonds for public school and community colleges that will cost taxpayers a cool $500 million per year for 35 years. California’s coffers have swung from a healthy surplus to a considerable deficit in just a few years. But the people have given them a blessing to spend more tax dollars despite having not demonstrated much fiscal responsibility in recent years. Sigh.
Prop 3 was to amend the California Constitution to remove language stating that a marriage is only between a man and a woman, and recognize the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. On this, over 62% overall agreed with me that this was a no-brainer.
Almost 59% approved Prop 4 turning control over another $10 billion in bonds to the Sacramento profligates to the tune of about $400 million a year for 40 years. There are ways to protect safe drinking water and address climate risk than this bond measure which will allow too much of our tax dollars to be sucked up by bureaucracy and special favors.
I felt Prop 5 was a necessary evil required to counterbalance Sacramento meddling in local land use issues and priorities by lowering the supermajority mandate for communities to borrow funds for affordable housing and public infrastructure. But the NOs won.
Over 53% of Californians disagreed with me on stopping involuntary servitude by the incarcerated, tanking Prop 6 which would have banned jails and prisons from forcing inmates to work; with any potential income more than offset by the costs of oversight and infrastructure.
Raising California’s minimum hourly wage appears to have lost although the Prop 32 results are close enough that it might flip once all ballots are counted.
Such a failure flies in the face of data showing there are significant savings for employers: a bigger pay packet improves worker morale and reduces personnel turnover costs. And would cut reliance by minimum-wage workers on State-funded subsidies to make ends meet; in major metropolises like Los Angeles, $18 an hour is substantially less than a living wage.
Prop 33 would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Act enabling local jurisdictions to implement rent control ordinances without state interference. It was poorly framed, harming mom-and-pop proprietors maybe more-so than the abusive corporate landlords it targeted, so probably deserved its demise; hopefully future approaches will take a more holistic view.
The corporate backers of Prop 34 cynically framed it as restricting “Spending by Health Care Providers” when it was in fact a poison pill attack against Aids Project-LA, the respected and very effective advocate for affordable housing. Again, it is close statewide so one can hope but...
Prop 35, providing permanent funding for Medi-Cal health care services, making permanent the existing tax on managed health care plans, and banning the use of funds so-designated for any other purpose, was passed with two-thirds of the voters which will cuts costs for some other State subsidies.
I opposed Prop 36 as just another three-strikes type backlash against criminality that will end up drastically increasing state criminal justice system costs. Even though crime has fallen considerably since exploding in the early pandemic years, that’s what stoked many people’s fears and it passed in a landslide with close to 70%.
California MUST find ways to cut prison expenses. Too much money is spent on locking people up, with less and less to be disbursed on education, healthcare and child support – the best tools for keeping people out of prison in the first place.
At the County level, Measure G amending its Charter to make it more accountable, fair, and democratic appears to be squeaking through. But with just 51.2% in favor and it may be weeks before we know for sure if it will help prevent the County being sucked into the same sort of corruption that has beset Los Angeles City Hall for decades.
The entities that stand to benefit from the “homelessness services and affordable housing” in the much-ballyhooed Measure A appear to have paid the way to its success at 57.15% despite existing programs delivering deleterious results. Ultimately half a percent hike of the already high sales tax will burden all residents and disproportionately the poor it’s purported to protect.
Measure E is yet another pocket-picking effort, this time through a property tax hike to improve fire protection and County emergency response and infrastructure with the support of almost 55% of the voters. Again, its backing was from entities that stand to profit, not the electorate that will pay with their tax dollars
Measure US was another attempt by the Los Angeles Unified School District's to separate property owners from their money. It asked voters to approve issuing $9 billion in bonds by pulling on our heartstrings following years of their own mismanagement.
Supported yet again by those who stand to benefit including the building trades whose upgrades will need further upgrades long before the bonds are paid off. Sadly, with slightly over half the votes counted, it has received two-thirds of them.
In the race for District Attorney, Nathan Hochman walloped George Gascón 61.1% to 38.9%.
I supported Gascón in the last election and in the primary because I profoundly believe that Los Angeles County needed criminal justice reform. It still does. And I doubt the victor will serve Angelenos any better… but the electorate has spoken.
For the City of Los Angeles, the desperately needed Charter Amendment DD establishing an Independent Redistricting Commission passed along with Charter Amendment LL which provides the same for the LAUSD’s Board of Education, both with almost three-quarter supermajorities.
The mishmash of housekeeping items for City operations put forward as Charter Amendment HH passed with over 80% of the vote.
Charter Amendment II, another compendium of changes that I strongly opposed because their impact could not be predicted and their costs defied even the City’s Chief Legislative Analyst’s ability to determine sailed through, garnering over 70%.
While the first major improvement in ethics oversight for the City since the Ethics Commission was established contained in Charter Amendment ER did not go far enough in a City redolent with ethically challenged elected officials and employees, precisely because of this, it got the support of almost three-quarters of Angeleno voters.
Unfortunately, those same voters also approved Charter Amendment FF by 58% that will hoover up tax dollars to pay for City-employed peace officers to transfer their retirement plans from the City to the Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension Plan.
The fact there were so few competitive elections for positions on the Superior Court of Los Angeles is an appalling failure of the existing system considering that this is a step to state and federal courts. Too often, judges run unopposed, and the electorate has no opportunity to weigh in or even obtain basic information before the system paves their way to greater power.
(Liz Amsden resides in Vermont and is a regular contributor to CityWatch on issues that she is passionate about. She can be reached at [email protected].)
