VOTER’S GUIDE 2024: Santa Monica & California — General Election
Context and recommendations for your ballot.
I’m Alec. I grew up in Los Angeles. For the past few years, I’ve been a registered voter in Santa Monica — my permanent address — as I attend law school on the East Coast. If you live in California, you have probably already received your mail-in ballot. If you haven’t, you can always register in-person at a polling location on the day of the election: Nov. 5. You can check your registration status here. If you’ve already voted, you can check the status of your California ballot here.
For those of you registered outside of California, consider checking out this website for state-by-states voting guides.
If you’re here, you probably feel strongly about the importance of voting. You know that your voice matters because — even in a state that experts have already colored in blue — there’s a long list of races where your vote could make the difference. You’re probably inundated with texts and social media posts and phone calls, plus a daily dose of news coverage about the presidential election. The goal of this guide is to make your voting process easier by sharing information about how I’m approaching the races and measures that you’ll see on your ballot. If you have any questions, you can email (or Tweet, call, text, sky-write) me.
NATIONAL —
President and Vice President: KAMALA D. HARRIS / TIM WALZ
Vice President Harris makes a stronger case for economic opportunity, freedom in healthcare choice, and stable relationships with other countries. Former President Trump doesn’t seem interested in protecting our freedoms or ensuring that my generation will have stable long-term financial prospects… or stopping himself from using the Office of the President like a vindictive mafioso.
CALIFORNIA —
United States Senator: ADAM B. SCHIFF
You’ll see two boxes here: the “Full Term” and the “Short Term.” That’s because U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein passed away in September 2023. Senator Laphonza Butler was appointed to fill her seat, but she isn’t seeking reelection. That means that you’ll be voting to fill the remainder of Feinstein’s term — which ends in January 2025 — and for her successor to serve the following six years. The candidates for these two races are the same.
I’m voting for U.S. Representative Adam Schiff because he has been a reliable representative of Californians in the House of Representatives. His opponent, a Republican and former baseball player, has a more conservative set of policies and has an incomplete plan for the state’s housing and homelessness crisis.
Now… onto the state’s many measures. Consider checking out useful guides from LAist and Politico to learn more about each.
State Measure 2 — YES.
This measure authorizes California to borrow $10B to repair and renovate public schools. It’s challenging to find opponents to this measure because there are few more worthy reasons to spend state funds.
State Measure 3 — YES.
This measure amends the California Constitution to recognize everyone’s right to marry. This is an easy one.
State Measure 4 — YES.
This measure authorizes California to borrow $10B to preserve natural resources, protect drinking water, and prevent wildfires. The price tag is high, but this is not the place to start tightening our belt.
State Measure 5 — YES.
This measure lowers the threshold (from 66% to 55%) for voters to approve housing and public infrastructure bonds by local governments. It also allows those local governments to assess property taxes to repay the bonds. Realtors associations are pouring money into a “no” vote because this measure helps facilitate more affordable housing at cost to homeowners. That’s the whole idea, though! In a state with a housing crisis, the financial responsibility falls on homeowners to make their reality a possibility for others.
State Measure 6 — YES.
This measure would end involuntary servitude in Californian jails and prisons. If the government requires its citizens to complete labor under threat of punishment, that’s slavery. This is a meaningful step towards the promise of the yet-unrealized 13th Amendment.
State Measure 32 — YES.
This measure would moderately increase the state minimum wage to $18/hour. As consumer prices rise and minimum wage jobs abound, this is a perfectly reasonable response.
State Measure 33 — YES.
This measure would repeal a 1995 law that prohibited local government’s ability to impose rent control. Versions of this measure have appeared on your ballot in the past but have not yet passed. There’s a lot of money on each side of this issue (but significantly more on the “no” side of the ballot). The total economic result here is muddled, but I come on with a “yes” vote for a simpler reason: it doesn’t make sense to impose a statewide prohibition on rent control laws when so many cities in California are facing unique housing challenges. One restriction doesn’t fit all. Let local governments be responsive to their housing challenges.
State Measure 34 — NO.
This is a weird one. The measure would require organizations to spend almost all of the money that they receive from a particular federal drug program on “direct patient care.” That seems… reasonable. But, why is this on our ballot? Probably, because of a political fight. This measure is targeted at a Los Angeles-based organization that spends a significant amount of money on politics, including measures like the one listed right above this! Groups interested in protecting homeowners support this measure because it would harm their political opponent, who supports Measure 33. I’m not interested in someone trying to trick me into making their political opponent weaker. Keep me out of this.
State Measure 35–NO.
This measure makes permanent a tax that is used to fund Medi-Cal health services and imposes rules on how that funding must be spent. That’s a valiant goal, but this isn’t the best way to extend that tax. The CA legislature will do the same before the tax expires and, in my view, they’re better positioned to impose the sorts of rules about how that funding should be spent than the authors of this measure. Polling indicates that this measure will probably pass.
State Measure 36 — NO.
This measure would allow felony charges for some drug offenses and minor thefts, if the defendant has two prior and similar convictions. Drugs and theft are a problem in California. The solution is not threatening people with more time in prison. That is a tried-and-failed policy.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY —
District Attorney: GEORGE GASCON
This race is a familiar story that has played out across multiple District Attorney races since the summer of 2020: an incumbent DA that ran on a progressive platform (e.g. ending cash bail, choosing not to prosecute minor offenses, reducing prison population) is being challenged by a “law and order” candidate making the argument that crime is increasing because of lenient government policy.
There has been a small total increase in violent crime over the past few years — and a decrease in some crimes over this past year — but my sense is that public perception is outrunning the reality. There’s no reason to think that Gascon’s policy are contributing to a less safe Los Angeles, and it would be a overreaction to replace him with a conservative challenger seizing on fears about public safety. Hochman can’t promise a safer community merely because he claims to be the candidate of a more punitive justice system.
County Measure G — YES.
This is a big one. Measure G would increase the size of the board of supervisors (from five people to nine people) and turn the county’s top executive into an elected position (instead of being an appointed position by the board of supervisors). It would also create an ethics commission to investigate wrongdoing. You can read more about Measure G from the LAist here. Los Angeles County is too large to be represented by only five members on its powerful board of supervisors. I’m in favor of expansion.
County Measure A — YES.
Another important one. Measure A would increase the county’s sales tax to raise more than $1B/year to fight the county’s gravest problem: the thousands of residents that cannot afford to live in a home. This isn’t an automatic fix for Los Angeles’ most intractable issue, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Judge of the Superior Court, №39: GEORGE A TURNER JR.
Turner Jr. is a longtime public defender who narrowly gets my vote over a qualified and civically engaged opponent in Steve Napolitano.
Judge of the Superior Court, №48: RENEE ROSE
Rose receives a stronger rating from the Los Angeles County Bar Association, which is enough to win my vote.
Judge of the Superior Court, №97: SHARON RANSOM
As above, the difference in LACBA ratings makes the difference here.
Judge of the Superior Court, №135: GEORGIA HUERTA
Heurta’s longer career as a Deputy District Attorney gives her the edge.
Judge of the Superior Court, №137: TRACEY M. BLOUNT
There’s a lot to like about Luz E. Herrera, who teaches and runs a legal services organization in Compton, but Blount boasts significantly more experience with direct applicability to the bench.
SANTA MONICA —
Santa Monica General Municipal Election for City Council: DAN HALL, ELLIS RASKIN, BARRY A. SNELL, NATALYA ZERNITSKAYA
Santa Monica is governed by a seven-person city council. Four members have terms that expire this year:
- Mayor Phil Brock is running for reelection after joining the council in 2020.
- Oscar de la Torre is running for reelection after joining the council in the same year.
- Gleam Davis is not running for reelection. She has been on the council since 2009.
- Christine Parra is also not running for reelection. This was her first term.
So, that means that there will be at least two new faces on the council. If Brock or de la Torre lose their bid for reelection, there could be as many as four new councilmembers.
If you’re a Santa Monica resident, you have probably received texts and calls from groups like “Safer Santa Monica” supporting the incumbents, Vivian A. Roknian, and John Putnam. Call this Slate #1. They promise to address the housing crisis, prioritize rent control, and ensure public safety. Here’s the bad news: Brock and de la Torre have been averse to ethics oversight, which is especially strange based on de la Torre’s promise to challenge corruption during his 2020 campaign.
A slate of challengers has emerged: Barry Snell, Dan Hall, Ellis Raskin, and Natalya Zernitskaya. Their platform is basically the same: housing, rent control, safety. But, they have more endorsements from organizations like the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and Santa Monica for Renters’ Rights. Let’s call this Slate #2.
So, what’s the difference between the two groups aside from incumbency? Slate #1 seems to have a more aggressive stance on homelessness. They’re not proposing a dramatically different set of plans (to the extent that anyone is being specific), but their messaging seems to err more on the side of involving police rather than increasing the supply of affordable housing.
For me, that difference is enough. It isn’t easy being a councilmember, but the incumbents have left too questionable a record during their first term. These challengers are signaling a more complete and less punitive approach towards our unhoused neighbors. I would look forward to welcoming them onto the council.
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education: MARIA LEON-VAZQUEZ, JON KEAN, JENNIFER SMITH
The three names above are the incumbents. The only other name in the race — Christine Falaguerra — has withdrawn. This race is over.
State Assembly for the 51st District: RICK CHAVEZ ZBUR
I have been moved! After the new California Assembly districts were drawn in 2020, I was swapped from the 50th District to the 51st District. Goodbye, Richard Bloom. Hello, incumbent Rick Chavez Zbur. You have my vote for reelection over your Republican challenge who believes that AI should not be regulated.
United States Representative for the 36th District: TED W. LEIU
Ted Lieu has been the representative of district since 2023, even though he was elected to Congress for the 33rd District in 2015. More fun with redistricting here. If you find this annoying and weird, you’re right!
Lieu gets my vote over his Republican challenger.
Santa Monica General Municipal Election Measures:
- Measure F — YES.
This measure would raise $3M in taxes by raising a corporate headquarters tax, but small businesses would be exempt. Perfect. That’s the ideal way for governments to raise revenue.
- Measure K — YES.
This measure would increase the parking facility tax (from 10% to 18%) paid at privately owned garages. It would raise an expected $6.7M in revenue. It has support from police officers, firefighters, and schoolteachers. This seems like a moderate tax increase that won’t break the bank for those impacted.
- Measure PSK — NO.
This measure would require the money raised from Measure K to be used only for public safety. It seems unnecessary to limit how the government can spend the money raised by Measure K.
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Measures:
- Measure QS — YES.
This measure authorizes a $495M bond to repair schools. There are few more worthy reasons to spend taxpayer resources.
- Measure MM — N/A.
Here’s a strange one. This appears on Santa Monica ballots because of a registrar’s error. Only Malibu residents are eligible to vote on Measure MM, which is a near-equivalent to Measure QS for their area.
