Again for the Cheat Sheet:
Notice: I skipped a few races that were either uncontested (my local representatives to the CA assembly), uninteresting (congress), or unlikely to change minds (president). Email me if you are curious about those.
Measure J (LA COUNTY)
YES, 60% Confident
Measure J was put on the ballot here in LA County in the wake of the Geroge Floyd protests over the summer. But for a long time, there has been a desire among activists to see a change in LA’s criminal justice system. Measure J would do that in 3 ways:
1) It would invest in alternatives to incarceration that would explore whether certain criminal offenders can see better outcomes reforming outside the prison system, especially mental health interventions
2) It would invest funds in programs in low-income communities hoped to reduce crime: job training, housing, and mental health services.
3) It would make sure these programs are funded into the future by dedicating 10% of the county budget (among unrestricted funds) going forward
I tend to think that parts 1-2 are worthwhile programs worth investment. I see from both study and firsthand experience that our current criminal justice system errs on the side of being too harsh, with devastating consequences on individual lives and communities. We need experimentation to see if alternatives will work and produce results. Am I convinced that the county will have 100% airtight better results with these programs? No. But it is worth experimenting on because the payoff of success is high.
On Part 3 (creating a 10% permanent budget set-aside), I have more skepticism. A big reason why the funds are in perpetuity is that there is fear that the sheriff's office is politically connected enough to ensure that these programs do not survive the normal budget process. Many public-sector union jobs are on the line if money diverts from the existing criminal justice system, so I understand this concern. But there is also a thought that it is worth dedicating funds for the sake of “Defunding the police.” There are serious issues with police accountability with the LA sheriff's office. As I write this, the board of supervisors is trying to figure out if it can impeach the current sheriff for his dodgy conduct. But I worry that budget cuts will lead to the police department cutting resources needed for accountability and community-policing. It may also cause some good, experienced cops to retire, which may lead to less experienced officers to hurt community relations. I also think it's lousy governance to force elected officials to allocate their budgets in specific ways. For instance, I worry that some of the programs funded will show better results than others, and that measure J will make it hard for future budgets to allocate funds appropriately based on results. Ideally, the BOS would have allocated funds through the budget or a bond to pay for these alternative programs over some time, then let them get continuing funding once we get the data on their effectiveness.
Ultimately, I think the potential positives of measure J, especially the potential for finding successful alternatives to incarceration, outweigh the governance concerns. I will vote, yes.
LA County District Attorney
GASCON, 80% confident
According to many legal analysts, the county district attorney is the most powerful position in the criminal justice system, given how much of the system works locally. LA County is the largest county in America; our DA is arguably the most influential player in the whole United States. The DA has broad discretionary power to decide which offenders and which crimes to focus their resources prosecuting, and which not to charge extensively.
I have come to believe that we are far too punitive in the way we treat those accused and convicted of crimes in the United States. Rather than seeing their capacity and dignity, we focus on the potential threat to society they represent. This sentiment has massive negative consequences for society because there are enormous costs when treating a whole class of people (usually from marginalized backgrounds) as problems and not assets. Fixing this requires profound change and will not be easy. But one of the accessible places to start is asking our DA to focus their resources on crimes where the threat to society is clearly higher than the cost of incarceration and (often) losing access to the job market and other critical social capital. This strategy means trying to reduce the number of non-violent offenders (i.e., drug and property offenders) in the criminal justice system.
Of the two candidates, Gascon is the one who is more likely to achieve this. As police chief and DA of San Francisco, this focused, shifting resources away from drug and property crime and violent crime. He was a co-author on Prop 47 (which prop 20 tries to roll back) that reduced penalties for drug and property crime statewide. He is a supporter of bail reform (prop 25), and while I doubt he will be perfect, his policies, I think, will directionally right.
Incumbent Jackey Lacey opposed efforts like prop 47 and cash bail and has generally been more resistant to many criminal justice reforms. Even so, crime rates have gone up under her DA tenure, illustrating that “tough on crime” does not automatically lead to less crime but always leads to more offenders’ punishment. With some merit, Lacey has also been accused of being too close to the local police unions and has taken a lot of money from police unions in her re-election campaign. I think some of this can be attributed to DAs’ natural tendency to become close to law enforcement by doing their job. Still, to me, Lacey has gone beyond this in a way that is concerning when issues of accountability come up.
So for me, I plan to vote for Gascon.
LA Community College District
Seat 1: Hoffman, 80% Confident
Seat 3: Anderson, 60% confident
Seat 5: Henderson, 75% confident
Seat 7: Mike Fong, 55% confident
Community College Board is one of those annoying races where I know almost nothing and am mostly reliant on other people’s out-of-context endorsements. The LACCD oversees the network of 9 community colleges in the city, including ELAC and LACCD, a massive source of educational opportunity for both students between high school and college and older adults going back to school (about ~250k students at any one time). The Board of Trustees is the district’s elected governors, and MANY people are running for each seat (up to 10). UGH. I did ask around people who know community colleges and got some good intel from them to make my best judgments.
Seat 1
Andra Hoffman is the incumbent and the current LACCD board president, and is generally well respected and got all the key endorsements. She served in the Glendale Community College District, so she is experienced and has done some genuinely useful things on the board. She pushed the LACCD shift to focus more on linking its vocational programs to local industry skill needs. None of the challenging candidates have much traction or significant endorsements. Hoffman was linked to a scandal last year, but investigations didn’t unearth any evidence of wrongdoing. My Vote: Hoffman, 80% confidence
Seat 3
Gerald Anderson and David Vela are the two candidates with Traction. Anderson is currently an instructor at West LA College and LA City College, teaching business and entrepreneurship. He got the LA Times endorsement, partially because he would be the only African American on the LACCD Board if elected, providing diversity. He seems very focused on community colleges’ economic development potential, which is directionally right for the system.
David Vela is the incumbent, endorsed by the LA Dem Party and the College faculty union, and many local elected officials. Vela was appointed to the seat in 2018, having been a longtime figure in democratic politics. The LA Times declined to endorse him, seemingly because he is more focused on rising in local politics than on community colleges as a particular issue. Compared to Anderson, he seems to be more focused on taking care of students’ basic needs (transportation, child care, etc.) than on the jobs/economic development issue, which is not bad (community colleges struggle with supporting students in poverty).
Vela seems like he is fine, not huge red flags. He seems to have a built-in advantage with local elected officials and will probably win. Still, I tend to think that someone with an instructor’s background, with some economic experience, will do a better job than someone whose career has been in politics, and only recently in education. My vote: Gerry Anderson 60% confident
Seat 5
Nichelle Henderson got many endorsements in this race (LA Times, Faculty union, Dem Party). She is a teacher, seems to be very knowledgeable about the whole of the LACCD system and how it functions in the broader educational and economic system. She is also very focused on taking care of the basic needs of students in community college.
She runs against Scott Svonkin, the incumbent, who got some local electeds to endorse (Kamala, Garcetti, Janice Hahn). Svonkin has been on the board since 2011 and president from 2015-17 but was reprimanded by his colleagues after he tried to intimidate his college, Andra Hoffman. That seems pretty bad and seems like an ongoing character issue for him, which is enough for me to vote him out.
Cynthia Gonzalez is the other exciting figure: she has worked as a principal at multiple local schools (Roosevelt and now Diego Learning center in South LA). She is very focused on the needs of high school students rising into community college. But she does not seem to be as familiar with the system as a whole.
I will ultimately vote for Henderson, as she seems most suited for the job and untainted by character issues. Henderson, 75% confident
Seat 7
Mike Fong is the incumbent and seems to be broadly supported by the Democratic establishment. He is challenged by Chris Han, who got the LA Times endorsement, but whose website is very skimpy. I want to like Han; he is a teacher of business law at LA Mission College. He is very focused on the needs of students to have workforce mentorship and apprenticeship opportunities. But his website is also very sparse.
Mike Fong, while not endorsed by the times, was spoken of well by them. He generally seems fine, and since I can’t get a good read on Han, I plan to vote for Fong, 55% confident.
Judges
LA Superior Court Judges are vital players in the criminal justice system, overseeing trials in all different domains. They serve as a kind of “manager” of the courtroom, meaning they must ensure justice is done procedurally. But judges are also influential in the fate of the defendant (do they get released pre-trial? What sentence do they serve if convicted?)
Seat 72: Morgan 90%
Steve Morgan and Myanna Dellinger are the candidates. Dellinger is a progressive law professor from South Dakota who got the DSA endorsement. Morgan is a prosecutor but has been a defense attorney in the past. Morgan is rated as “well qualified” by the bar, while Dellinger is rated as “not qualified.” Morgan also seems to have most of the local establishment behind him (IE the LA Times and Dem Party).
Putting aside the candidates’ views, I think that a significant part of a judge’s job is non-partisan competence. Morgan has the edge there. That alone is enough to get my vote.
Seat 80: McKay 55%
David Berger and Klint McKay are the two candidates. Burger has the Times endorsement, and the local Dem Party, while McKay is getting support from slightly more progressive circles. Burger is a prosecutor, but a reasonably reform-minded one, while McKay is an Administrative law judge who works with social services cases.
McKay has slightly higher marks from the bar (“Well qualified” vs. Burger’s “qualified”). He also brings some diversity of experience as an administrative law judge instead of a prosecutor (most judges on the bench are judges). Thus, I plan to vote for him.
Seat 162: Diamond 65%
David D Diamond and Scott “Andrew” Yang are the two candidates. Diamond is endorsed by the times, and the public defenders union, while Yang is supported by the Dem Party and Labor groups. Both are “well qualified,” according to the bar.
Given they both seem like good candidates, I leaned on the Times endorsement of Diamond, plus the fact that he is a public defender (which I think we need more of on the bench) to vote for him. My Vote: Diamond (60% confident)
Montebello USD
Another race where I came in, knowing absolutely nothing. I don’t even live in Montebello, I live in East LA, but I live two houses away from the cutoff line with LAUSD. I did some digging, and what I found was that Montebello USD had been plagued by scandal in recent years. There have been many administrators put on leave, board members resigning, accusations of impropriety, and embezzlement...quite the drama. So it seems like these jobs are going to be quite important in the future.
That said, of the six candidates, 3 gave no information online. That ruled them out. Of the three that did have information, I ultimately settled on the boring choices of Carlos Cerdan. and incumbent Elizabeth Cabrera as being the most qualified and competent. I hope they do a good job