Notes on a Too-Early California Primary

In an effort to give California a greater voice in the Presidential nominating process, the state moved its primary from early June to early March. Home to nearly one of every eight people in the United States, it only makes sense that California (and the many other large Super Tuesday states) should get an early say. And in an effort to make voting easier for Californians (and to reduce the cost of holding elections) the state and the city of Los Angeles consolidated all primary elections on that same early March date. Despite encouraging voting by mail and expanding access to early voting in California, voting still requires time and effort, so reducing the number of times a person needs to vote (just one primary and one general election) helps keep voting accessible and increases voter participation (compared to off-cycle local elections, for example). 

However, with an especially crowded and unpredictable Democratic Presidential Primary consuming the media narrative, many important down-ballot local races in Los Angeles (and California more generally) are largely being drowned out. Also on the ballot on March 3 are half of LA’s city council members, three of the five county supervisors, four of the seven LAUSD Board members, every state Assembly member, half of California’s state Senators, and all members of Congress.

With all these things in mind, below are my barely coherent thoughts on how to approach the Primary.

Vote your values and your heart in the Presidential Primary 

Stop thinking about “electability” or any other intangible factor. The beauty of having an early primary is that we get to shape the narrative, not just react to it. Don’t try to just bet on the winner. Don’t compromise your beliefs. Don’t play twelve-dimensional chess against yourself. Vote for the person you most want to be President. That’s the whole point of a primary. 

If you’re wondering, I’m voting for Elizabeth Warren because I think she has the best analysis of the challenges we face as a country, the best vision for how to overcome those challenges, and the best plans to actually get it done. You may disagree, and that’s fine. Vote for who you believe in, and leave the compromises for November. Vote your values, vote your heart. 

Unless your heart is somehow telling you to vote for Mike Bloomberg. DO NOT VOTE FOR MIKE BLOOMBERG. (There are other moderates in the race who aren’t unrepentant racists, there are other former mayors in the race who aren’t openly transphobic, and there’s even another billionaire in the race who doesn’t have a filing cabinet full of NDAs from past sexual harassment and discrimination claims.)

Look beyond the incumbents and frontrunners in City Council elections

LA’s city council is a stagnant pit of inaction and mutual preservation. They protect each other from facing difficult decisions, exemplified by the fact that they almost always vote unanimously.  In the meantime, the many problems we face as a city go unaddressed and unresolved.  Aside from their brazen and heartless efforts to criminalize poverty and homelessness, the most consequential thing the city council did this term was approve a resolution calling on Major League Baseball to vacate the cheating Houston Astros’ World Series win and give it, retroactively, to the Dodgers instead. However you feel about the details of the baseball drama, it’s abundantly clear that the LA City Council needs new voices who are ready and willing to take on the very real challenges our city faces, rather than rubber-stamping each other’s cowardice.  And in almost every race (one incumbent is running unopposed) there are better alternatives to the current council member.

Even in the open seats, voters should look beyond the frontrunners and familiar names.  LA’s City Council members have enormous power, so take some time to figure out which candidate best shares your vision for what the city should be.

And in a quirk of city election rules (a holdover from the time when city elections were held in off years), anyone who gets more than 50% of the vote in the primary automatically wins the seat, bypassing a runoff in November.  No one deserves to coast to victory, make these candidates actually do the work to earn your vote. 

Consider third party candidates or non-incumbents in Assembly, Senate, and Congressional races

California’s open primary system presents a unique opportunity for “safe” districts. (Note that this advice does not apply in “competitive” or “swing” districts.) The open primary means that all candidates of all parties are on one primary ballot, and the two that get the most votes, regardless of party, go on to the general election. The result is that many districts in the more progressive parts of California end up with two Democrats on the general election ballot. 

At the same time, in a California that seems destined for state-level Democratic super majorities, it’s becoming clear that the traditional two-party power structure is no longer adequate to state politics. 

California’s open primary system *should* be an excellent opportunity for third parties to fill the political vacuum, and provide voters with choices that more closely reflect local politics (emphasis on “should” since there are still major structural barriers to third parties). For example, areas like Santa Monica or Berkeley should be able to field a viable Green Party candidate. Lots of urban districts could have a viable DSA candidate. Parts of San Francisco could easily support a YIMBY Party candidate. Our political choices should more closely reflect the values of the electorate and the specific issues of state politics.  In many parts of California those choices should include options outside the traditional two-party binary. 

This advice is somewhat less helpful for Congressional races, since national politics are still largely beholden to the two-party system, and there are legitimate fears that a representative outside of the two major parties would be unable to deliver for their constituents. But any independent or third-party Congressmember would still likely caucus with one of the two major parties. And if you have any doubts of the long term viability of an independent representative, consider that an independent Senator is currently the frontrunner in the Democratic Presidential Primary. 

Even if, like me, your only choices are Democrats (five candidates for Congress, two candidates for Assembly, all Democrats), and even if, like me, you like the incumbents, you should still do your homework on the other options. You may just realize you have an even better choice than the current incumbent. None of our leaders should be able to take their elections for granted. And for everyone saying “I don’t want to risk the seniority and experience of my incumbent Congressmember/Assemblymember/State Senator,” I would just remind you that no one outside of New York City and the Washington political media had any idea who Joe Crowley was (supposedly a future leader of the Democratic Party) until he was defeated in a primary, and now Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a household name all over the country. 

Vote for someone other than Jackie Lacey for District Attorney

Incumbent District Attorney Jackie Lacey is on the wrong side of the criminal justice reform movement. She has aggressively pursued the death penalty, she’s been desperately slow in undoing the disastrous effects of the drug war despite the power to take action (she announced the dismissal of 66,000 marijuana convictions just days ago, and then only because she fears she might lose this election), and she’s never met a corrupt or violent cop that she hasn’t been happy to let off the hook.  LA deserves real reform, and someone who will hold law enforcement accountable for their misdeeds.  Both Rachel Rossi and George Gascon are far better options.  Gascon has had a relatively progressive record as District Attorney in San Francisco, but it’s Rossi, currently serving as public defender who would bring the most radical change to the DA’s office. 

Vote YES on Prop 13

It’s an ironic coincidence that the one statewide proposition on the primary ballot shares its number with the infamous “tax revolt” ballot measure of 1978 that decimated funding for California schools. If not for that older Prop 13, we might not need these bond measures that come up so frequently to fund desperately needed investments. This Prop 13 would funds earthquake retrofits, and mold and asbestos abatement in schools throughout the state. Let’s make sure the state’s students are learning in buildings that are safe. Vote YES on Prop 13. 

Vote YES on Measure R

Measure R will formalize efforts in to increase civilian oversight of the LA County Sheriffs Department and support efforts to expand drug treatment and psychiatric care programs to avoid prison time.  This is a bare minimum compared to what is needed to reign in the Sheriff’s Department under the increasingly belligerent leadership of Alex Villanueva, and to help reduce the populations of our overcrowded and inhumane prisons. We need more oversight and more reform, but this is at least a start.  Vote YES on Measure R.

Seek out trusted resources on Superior Court Judges

The Superior Court Judges are always some of the most difficult choices.  There is so little information to go on for such an important office.  Luckily, there are many organizations out there that have done the work for you.  Seek out the recommendations of political and advocacy organizations you trust.

Mixed feelings about California’s early Primary date

As much as I’m glad that California gets to have an early say in the Presidential nominating contest, I worry that California’s enormous size and very expensive media markets (combined with the unfettered influence of money in elections) give an unearned advantage to familiar names and billionaire candidates who can afford to flood the state with dishonest ads from their pocket change.  The vast majority of voters don’t have time to follow the many debates, or parse the policy differences between so many candidates.  It’s no wonder so many voters express a preference (at least in polling) for the candidates they have “heard” or “seen” the most.  Unfortunately, this year, the candidates getting the most face-time with rank and file voters are far from the best choices. On the other hand, there’s little indication that the “retail politics” of traditional early states like Iowa and New Hampshire actually produce better outcomes (or any outcomes at all, for that matter). At the end of the day, the real problem is the influence of money in politics, not the challenges of running for office in California. Without a mechanism to repair the problem, I have to be happy with having an influential early voice in a flawed system, rather than an irrelevant response to the rest of the country.