Would love to hear from people with different opinions or more information.
LACC seat 2: Veres, with Irwin a close second
LACC seat 4: Darryn Harris
LACC seat 6: Randall Winston
State senator: Smallwood-Cuevas
State assembly: Bryan
US Rep; Kamlager-Dove [I don't love her, but Mota sounds just a little too radical for this radical]
LA Muni SC: Yes, seems unobjectionable, and no opponents noted
West Basin div 2: Tyron Turner [Incumbent octogenarian Gray is also on the Inglewood city council, which AG Bonta says is illegal or 'incompatible'. She's also taking meetings remotely, and been absent from the city council for longer than 60 days, requiring her colleagues to vote to allow her continued absence.]
Sheriff: Luna [Villanueva has gone more MAGA in the meantime]
Superior Court
64 Ghobadi
65 Reitano
87 Bayne
131 Tryfman
County Measure A: No [not strongly]
County Measure E: Yes [not strongly]
Governor: Becerra
Lt. Governor: Ma
SoS: Weber
Controller: Cohen
Treasurer: Kounalakis
AG: Bonta
Insurance: Allen
Equalization3: Sukaton
Super: Barrera
Prop 1: Yes. I'm not a big fan of bonds, but there's nothing we need more than housing, so yes.
Prop 2: Yes. I liked the rainy day fund when we passed it, and expanding it seems like a good idea.
Prop 3: Yes. Extends taxes on rich people. We shouldn't have to do this by proposition (and devote the money to a particular item), but I'll take it.
Prop 4: Yes. It's not clear this will do anything, but it removes the ban on public funding of elections. cities and counties can figure out for themselves if they want to do it.
Prop 5: Yes. The recall election should only be about one thing. Should this jerk or jerkette be yanked out of office? Having seen the circus around the Gray Davis recall (and hanging out with 10th place finisher Mary Carey at the Larpies) I think we can save the sideshow for later, even if it costs us the money of a special election.
Prop 37: Yes. This looks similar to the housing for veterans thing we passed a while back. But now opened up to lower and 'middle class' folks. If it runs as planned, it's revenue neutral, the bonds will be paid back by the second mortgage payments made by those who participate. The salary cutoff seems awfully high (200% of median income in a county - $216,200 a year in LA), and the little asterisk about construction defects seems potentially shady, but on the whole, this looks good.
Prop 38: No. It's a worthy cause, but shouldn't be funded by bond measures. This is unlike the CA stem cell proposition some years ago, where W stopped federal funding for stem cell research outside of some established cell lines.
Prop 39: No. Not necessary and expensive.
Prop 40: No. As much as it's grotesque that our *relatively* low income tax rates on high earners have allowed them to amass gargantuan quantities of wealth, I think this proposal to tax wealth is going to turn out to be really unworkable, presuming it survives legal challenges. ON TOP OF THAT, the whole thing is a weird one-time cash infusion that is 90% devoted to healthcare. Again a worthy cause, but we shouldn't be funding healthcare through one-time stunts.
Prop 41: No. Just because prop 40 is stupid, doesn't mean we can't entertain non-stupid versions of the law.
Prop 42: No. Just because prop 40 is stupid, doesn't mean we can't entertain non-stupid versions of the law.
Prop 43: No. Raising the threshold from 50% to 66.6% will tie local government's hands when they need to go to the people to get funding for needed services.
Prop 44: No. We don't need to tie healthcare organizations' hands in figuring out how to spend their money. Nor do want politicians having to determine what is or isn't a valid expense.
Prop 45: No. Allows developers to take end runs around state environmental laws. Will cost the state more money. Restricts courts from stopping projects in violation of the law. No doubt there could be some streamlining and elimination of red-tape, but this looks more like a developer's dream.
State judicial. All of these people have been nominated by the CA gov, so they're all okay by me. There may be some Schwarzeneggar noms for all I know, but that's not so bad. Pete Wilson was back in the 20th century now.

I’m guessing here and you can yell at me in a year if I’m wrong but I think it’s likely we see some pairing back of the cap – maybe raising it to $20K instead of $10K, or abolishing it for some lower-income taxpayers rather than everyone – in the big fight over taxes we’re expecting in Congress in 2025. Democrats will be reluctant to go too far, however, because a lot of economists say upper-income households would benefit most from repealing the cap.