latimes--2020-11-03--Prop. 23, which would have imposed new regulations on dialysis industry, fails

A $ 100-million effort to impose new regulations on the dialysis industry was defeated Tuesday .
Proposition 23 would have required dialysis clinics to employ at least one doctor who would be on site whenever patients are receiving treatment .
Supporters of the measure , including the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West , said dialysis clinics were putting profits over patient care by not having a doctor available in the event of complications or an emergency .
Opponents , however , argued the measure was the latest attempt by SEIU-UHW to weaponize the ballot box to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend itself when the union ’ s real interest is getting clinic workers to unionize .
The dialysis industry put more than $ 100 million into fighting the measure , saying the unnecessary added cost would lead to dialysis clinics closing , which would put patients at risk .
Proposition 23 was opposed by 64 % of voters , according to the state ’ s unofficial election tally Wednesday morning .
In California , there are roughly 600 dialysis clinics treating thousands of people suffering from kidney failure with machines that remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to remove waste and excess fluids before returning the blood to their body .
Patients typically require dialysis three days a week for about four hours a day in order to live .
Due to the high demand for dialysis , clinic operators say they are typically open six days a week for up to 16 hours a day .
In addition to having a doctor on site at all times , Proposition 23 would have required clinics to report dialysis infection information to the California Department of Public Health every three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state agency ’ s website .
Clinics would have faced a fine of up to $ 100,000 for failing to report the data or reporting inaccurate information .
Clinics are currently required to report dialysis infection-related information to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The measure would have also required clinics to obtain approval from the state ’ s public health department before closing or substantially reducing services .
Proposition 23 would have barred clinics from refusing access to a patient based on their insurance .
Most people on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which extends coverage to people with kidney failure regardless of age or disability status .

A $100-million effort to impose new regulations on the dialysis industry was defeated Tuesday.
Proposition 23 would have required dialysis clinics to employ at least one doctor who would be on site whenever patients are receiving treatment. Supporters of the measure, including the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, said dialysis clinics were putting profits over patient care by not having a doctor available in the event of complications or an emergency.
Advertisement
Opponents, however, argued the measure was the latest attempt by SEIU-UHW to weaponize the ballot box to try to force the dialysis industry to spend millions to defend itself when the union’s real interest is getting clinic workers to unionize. The dialysis industry put more than $100 million into fighting the measure, saying the unnecessary added cost would lead to dialysis clinics closing, which would put patients at risk.
Proposition 23 was opposed by 64% of voters, according to the state’s unofficial election tally Wednesday morning.
In California, there are roughly 600 dialysis clinics treating thousands of people suffering from kidney failure with machines that remove a patient’s blood and filter it to remove waste and excess fluids before returning the blood to their body. Patients typically require dialysis three days a week for about four hours a day in order to live. Due to the high demand for dialysis, clinic operators say they are typically open six days a week for up to 16 hours a day.
In addition to having a doctor on site at all times, Proposition 23 would have required clinics to report dialysis infection information to the California Department of Public Health every three months, which would be posted on the state agency’s website. Clinics would have faced a fine of up to $100,000 for failing to report the data or reporting inaccurate information.
Clinics are currently required to report dialysis infection-related information to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Advertisement
The measure would have also required clinics to obtain approval from the state’s public health department before closing or substantially reducing services. Proposition 23 would have barred clinics from refusing access to a patient based on their insurance.
Most people on dialysis in California are covered by Medicare, which extends coverage to people with kidney failure regardless of age or disability status.


latimes--2020-11-03--Voters reject Prop. 16, which would have allowed affirmative action policies in California

A statewide ballot measure that would allow affirmative action programs to be reinstated in California was rejected by voters in Tuesday ’ s election .
Under Proposition 16 , public universities would have been allowed to consider race , sex , color , ethnicity or national origin to address diversity in admissions and other programs .
State and local governments also would have been allowed to consider those factors when hiring government employees and awarding government contracts .
The proposition was placed on the ballot by the Democrat-controlled California Legislature to repeal Proposition 209 , a highly controversial measure approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action programs in the state .
Supporters of Proposition 16 raised more than $ 20 million , enough to support an aggressive statewide advertising campaign in the month before election day .
Opponents raised roughly $ 1.5 million , but recent polls showed that the measure has faced strong opposition .
Ward Connerly , a former UC regent who championed Proposition 209 and led efforts to end affirmative action across the country , said California voters saw Proposition 16 as an affront to the principle of fairness .
“ [ Proponents ] still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is OK to discriminate against one group of people in the interest of trying to benefit another , ” Connerly said Tuesday night .
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber ( D-San Diego ) said California voters approved Proposition 209 when California was steeped in political and ethnic division , enflamed by a series of ballot measures in the mid-1990s including Proposition 187 to strip government services from immigrants who entered the country illegally .
Weber said the passage of Proposition 209 has set back women and Black , Latino , Asian American and Native American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put California out of step with the nation — being one of only eight states that have had this ban on equal opportunity — and serves as an impediment to local and state policies to address the economic and social disparities experienced by women and people of color , ” said Weber when advocating for the amendment in the Legislature .
Weber wrote the legislation for Proposition 16 .
Weber argued that research has shown that teacher diversity can have a profound effect on closing the achievement gap for nonwhite students .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are barred from recruiting based on race because of Proposition 209 .
Tom Campbell , a former Republican congressman from the Bay Area who supported Proposition 209 in 1996 , said reinstating affirmative action programs through Proposition 16 would be fundamentally unfair , particularly at the state ’ s public universities — including those in both the University of California and California State University systems .
“ I think that if a state keeps somebody out of college or from a contract or employment , because of their race , if they do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Campbell , who is now a law professor at Chapman University ’ s Fowler School of Law and an opponent of Proposition 16 .
Campbell said California ’ s universities need to do more to have their student bodies reflect the demographics of California ’ s overall population , including increasing the number of Latino and Black students .
But he believes there are ways to do that without enacting racial preferences .

Proposition 16 would allow public universities, including UCLA, above, to reinstate affirmation action programs based on race, ethnicity and gender.
A statewide ballot measure that would allow affirmative action programs to be reinstated in California was rejected by voters in Tuesday’s election.
Under Proposition 16, public universities would have been allowed to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin to address diversity in admissions and other programs. State and local governments also would have been allowed to consider those factors when hiring government employees and awarding government contracts.
The proposition was placed on the ballot by the Democrat-controlled California Legislature to repeal Proposition 209, a highly controversial measure approved by voters in 1996 that barred affirmative action programs in the state.
Supporters of Proposition 16 raised more than $20 million, enough to support an aggressive statewide advertising campaign in the month before election day. Opponents raised roughly $1.5 million, but recent polls showed that the measure has faced strong opposition.
Advertisement
Ward Connerly, a former UC regent who championed Proposition 209 and led efforts to end affirmative action across the country, said California voters saw Proposition 16 as an affront to the principle of fairness.
“[Proponents] still have not persuaded the people that it is OK to discriminate against one group of people in the interest of trying to benefit another,” Connerly said Tuesday night.
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) said California voters approved Proposition 209 when California was steeped in political and ethnic division, enflamed by a series of ballot measures in the mid-1990s including Proposition 187 to strip government services from immigrants who entered the country illegally. Weber said the passage of Proposition 209 has set back women and Black, Latino, Asian American and Native American people for generations.
“This change put California out of step with the nation — being one of only eight states that have had this ban on equal opportunity — and serves as an impediment to local and state policies to address the economic and social disparities experienced by women and people of color,” said Weber when advocating for the amendment in the Legislature. Weber wrote the legislation for Proposition 16.
Weber argued that research has shown that teacher diversity can have a profound effect on closing the achievement gap for nonwhite students. She also noted that police agencies and schools are barred from recruiting based on race because of Proposition 209.
Tom Campbell, a former Republican congressman from the Bay Area who supported Proposition 209 in 1996, said reinstating affirmative action programs through Proposition 16 would be fundamentally unfair, particularly at the state’s public universities — including those in both the University of California and California State University systems.
“I think that if a state keeps somebody out of college or from a contract or employment, because of their race, if they do that, that’s wrong,” said Campbell, who is now a law professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law and an opponent of Proposition 16.
Campbell said California’s universities need to do more to have their student bodies reflect the demographics of California’s overall population, including increasing the number of Latino and Black students. But he believes there are ways to do that without enacting racial preferences.


latimes--2020-11-03--California voters approve Prop. 22, allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to remain independent contractors

Californians sided with the $ 200-million Proposition 22 campaign led by Uber and Lyft , voting to pass the measure and grant ride-hail and delivery companies an exemption from California employment law to continue treating workers as independent contractors .
The fight was one of the most closely watched ballot measure contests in the country and the costliest in state history .
A win for the app-based companies has the potential to create a new campaign paradigm , with companies sidestepping government and spending large sums of money to sway voters with traditional advertisements and more unconventional direct marketing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also deals a blow to California ’ s powerful labor unions , underdogs in the race with far fewer financial resources than their foes .
“ Yes on 22 ” led with 58 % of the vote , compared with nearly 42 % , when the Associated Press called the race after 11 p.m .
The ballot measure needed more than 50 % of the vote to become law .
“ California has spoken , and millions of voters joined their voices with the hundreds of thousands of drivers who want independence plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spokesman for the “ Yes on 22 '' campaign .
“ With the passage of Prop .
22 , app-based rideshare and delivery drivers across the state will be able to maintain their independence , plus have access to historic new benefits , like a minimum earnings guarantee and health care.
” At the crux of the measure is a debate about the changing American workforce .
With Proposition 22 , voters were asked to decide whether people who sign into an app to deliver groceries or drive riders to and from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections , benefits and wages as more traditional workers .
Uber and Lyft have long argued that state regulations fail to account for the complexity of their business models and they should be treated as technology platforms , not transportation providers .
The measure allows the companies to avoid paying for a standard , more expensive suite of benefits as required under state law , but still provide workers — who would remain independent contractors — with some benefits .
Proposition 22 requires the companies to provide an hourly wage for time spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a local or a statewide minimum wage .
It also requires that drivers receive a stipend for purchasing health insurance coverage when driving time averages at least 15 hours a week , a stipend that grows larger if average driving time rises to 25 hours a week .
But work hours only include time spent driving to , picking up and carrying a rider or delivery to a destination , not the time spent waiting in between trips .
The measure ’ s passages means workers for ride-hail and delivery companies will receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state law approved last year .
“ Rideshare drivers and workers across California refused to back down even as Uber , Lyft and DoorDash plowed a record $ 200 million into a deceitful campaign to strip workers of the essential protections they need now more than ever , ” said Art Pulaski , executive secretary treasurer of the California Labor Federation .
“ The end of this campaign is only the beginning in the fight to ensure gig workers are provided fair wages , sick pay and care when they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the Service Employees International Union and the Teamsters , persuaded the California Legislature in 2019 to pass Assembly Bill 5 , which codified and expanded a state Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for classifying more gig workers as employees instead of independent contractors .
Gov .
Gavin Newsom publicly encouraged Uber , Lyft and labor to negotiate a compromise that could have created a unique classification allowing the companies to treat their workers as independent contractors and giving unions some ability to organize them , but that deal never materialized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lyft , DoorDash , Instacart and Postmates turned to the ballot .
The companies argued that if Proposition 22 failed , drivers would have lost the flexibility to determine their own schedules , customers could have faced higher prices , and service could have been limited in some areas .
Newsom , who signed AB 5 , remained neutral on Proposition 22 .
The California Legislative Analyst ’ s Office found that paying for standard benefits and protections makes up about 20 % of total employee costs for companies , suggesting a significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been required to adhere to AB 5 .
The analyst ’ s office also says that rideshare and delivery companies , most of which are headquartered in state , are worth “ about as much as Ford , General Motors , and Fiat Chrysler combined.
” The companies spent heavily to protect their business model .
Contributions on both sides totaled more than $ 224 million , with more than 90 % of the money coming from the five app-based companies supporting the measure : Uber , Lyft , DoorDash , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

A car with Uber and Lyft stickers on its windshield leaves the departure terminal at Los Angeles International Airport.
Californians sided with the $200-million Proposition 22 campaign led by Uber and Lyft, voting to pass the measure and grant ride-hail and delivery companies an exemption from California employment law to continue treating workers as independent contractors.
The fight was one of the most closely watched ballot measure contests in the country and the costliest in state history.
Advertisement
A win for the app-based companies has the potential to create a new campaign paradigm, with companies sidestepping government and spending large sums of money to sway voters with traditional advertisements and more unconventional direct marketing to customers. The measure’s passage also deals a blow to California’s powerful labor unions, underdogs in the race with far fewer financial resources than their foes.
“Yes on 22” led with 58% of the vote, compared with nearly 42%, when the Associated Press called the race after 11 p.m. The ballot measure needed more than 50% of the vote to become law.
“California has spoken, and millions of voters joined their voices with the hundreds of thousands of drivers who want independence plus benefits,” said Geoff Vetter, a spokesman for the “Yes on 22” campaign. “With the passage of Prop. 22, app-based rideshare and delivery drivers across the state will be able to maintain their independence, plus have access to historic new benefits, like a minimum earnings guarantee and health care.”
At the crux of the measure is a debate about the changing American workforce. With Proposition 22, voters were asked to decide whether people who sign into an app to deliver groceries or drive riders to and from the airport should receive the same employment protections, benefits and wages as more traditional workers.
Uber and Lyft have long argued that state regulations fail to account for the complexity of their business models and they should be treated as technology platforms, not transportation providers. The measure allows the companies to avoid paying for a standard, more expensive suite of benefits as required under state law, but still provide workers — who would remain independent contractors — with some benefits.
Proposition 22 requires the companies to provide an hourly wage for time spent driving equal to 120% of either a local or a statewide minimum wage. It also requires that drivers receive a stipend for purchasing health insurance coverage when driving time averages at least 15 hours a week, a stipend that grows larger if average driving time rises to 25 hours a week.
But work hours only include time spent driving to, picking up and carrying a rider or delivery to a destination, not the time spent waiting in between trips. The measure’s passages means workers for ride-hail and delivery companies will receive weaker benefits than they would have under a state law approved last year.
“Rideshare drivers and workers across California refused to back down even as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash plowed a record $200 million into a deceitful campaign to strip workers of the essential protections they need now more than ever,” said Art Pulaski, executive secretary treasurer of the California Labor Federation. “The end of this campaign is only the beginning in the fight to ensure gig workers are provided fair wages, sick pay and care when they’re hurt at work.”
Labor unions, including the Service Employees International Union and the Teamsters, persuaded the California Legislature in 2019 to pass Assembly Bill 5, which codified and expanded a state Supreme Court ruling that paved the way for classifying more gig workers as employees instead of independent contractors.
Advertisement
Gov. Gavin Newsom publicly encouraged Uber, Lyft and labor to negotiate a compromise that could have created a unique classification allowing the companies to treat their workers as independent contractors and giving unions some ability to organize them, but that deal never materialized.
As talks stalled, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and Postmates turned to the ballot. The companies argued that if Proposition 22 failed, drivers would have lost the flexibility to determine their own schedules, customers could have faced higher prices, and service could have been limited in some areas. Newsom, who signed AB 5, remained neutral on Proposition 22.
The California Legislative Analyst’s Office found that paying for standard benefits and protections makes up about 20% of total employee costs for companies, suggesting a significant increase in business costs if app-based companies would have been required to adhere to AB 5. The analyst’s office also says that rideshare and delivery companies, most of which are headquartered in state, are worth “about as much as Ford, General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler combined.”
The companies spent heavily to protect their business model.
Contributions on both sides totaled more than $224 million, with more than 90% of the money coming from the five app-based companies supporting the measure: Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates and the parent company of Instacart.


latimes--2020-11-03--Prop. 14 stem cell bond holding onto lead

A ballot measure to authorize $ 5.5 billion in new funding for stem cell research continued to hold its lead early Wednesday .
Proposition 14 asked voters to approve an infusion of cash for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine , known as CIRM , for stem cell studies and trials .
California voters created CIRM in 2004 after approving a bond measure that year for $ 3 billion .
CIRM used that bond money for research grants , new laboratories and training programs , but unallocated funds ran out last year , prompting supporters of the agency to return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the measure had yet to be called as of Wednesday morning .
Proposition 14 received significant support in coastal counties in the state .
Proponents raised more than $ 16 million to fill airwaves with stories of successful treatments stemming from the first bond measure .
The largest funder of the supporting campaign was real estate investor Robert Klein , who drafted the previous ballot measure and went on to be CIRM ’ s first chairman — a move that sparked criticism from lawmakers .
CIRM ’ s creation in 2004 was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George W. Bush ’ s decision to cut off federal funding for stem cell research amid religious opposition to using human embryonic stem cells .
Under the 2004 measure , Proposition 71 , California created a state constitutional right to conduct stem cell research .
Religious objections to this year ’ s bond measure were largely absent , with little organized opposition or cash thrown into fighting Proposition 14 .
However , newspaper editorial boards , including those at and , opposed the measure .
Opponents included CIRM board member Jeff Sheehy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t take on new debt while facing deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic .
With interest , Proposition 14 will cost the state $ 260 million per year , or $ 7.8 billion over the next 30 years , according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst ’ s Office .
The state is still paying off the $ 3-billion stem cell bond from 2004 , which will cost an additional $ 3 billion in interest .
Supporters of the measure said the bond will fill a void in crucial grant funding that could lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases and conditions , including cancers , spinal cord injuries , Alzheimer ’ s , Parkinson ’ s and heart disease .
They say the 2004 bond advanced research and treatments for more than 75 diseases , including two cancer treatments for fatal blood disorders that were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration .

Alysia Padilla-Vaccaro stands with her 8-year-old daughter, Evangelina Vaccaro, who was born with no immune system and a disorder commonly known as bubble baby disease. A previous stem cell bond measure in California helped pay for Evangelina’s treatment.
A ballot measure to authorize $5.5 billion in new funding for stem cell research continued to hold its lead early Wednesday.
Proposition 14 asked voters to approve an infusion of cash for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, known as CIRM, for stem cell studies and trials. California voters created CIRM in 2004 after approving a bond measure that year for $3 billion. CIRM used that bond money for research grants, new laboratories and training programs, but unallocated funds ran out last year, prompting supporters of the agency to return to taxpayers for additional money.
Results for the measure had yet to be called as of Wednesday morning. Proposition 14 received significant support in coastal counties in the state.
Advertisement
Proponents raised more than $16 million to fill airwaves with stories of successful treatments stemming from the first bond measure. The largest funder of the supporting campaign was real estate investor Robert Klein, who drafted the previous ballot measure and went on to be CIRM’s first chairman — a move that sparked criticism from lawmakers.
CIRM’s creation in 2004 was largely a state effort to counter then-President George W. Bush’s decision to cut off federal funding for stem cell research amid religious opposition to using human embryonic stem cells. Under the 2004 measure, Proposition 71, California created a state constitutional right to conduct stem cell research.
Religious objections to this year’s bond measure were largely absent, with little organized opposition or cash thrown into fighting Proposition 14. However, newspaper editorial boards, including those at the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle , opposed the measure. Opponents included CIRM board member Jeff Sheehy, who argued that the state shouldn’t take on new debt while facing deficits due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
With interest, Proposition 14 will cost the state $260 million per year, or $7.8 billion over the next 30 years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. The state is still paying off the $3-billion stem cell bond from 2004, which will cost an additional $3 billion in interest.
Supporters of the measure said the bond will fill a void in crucial grant funding that could lead to new treatments and cures for chronic diseases and conditions, including cancers, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and heart disease. They say the 2004 bond advanced research and treatments for more than 75 diseases, including two cancer treatments for fatal blood disorders that were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.


latimes--2020-11-03--Holly Mitchell beats Herb Wesson in race for L.A. County Board of Supervisors seat

State Sen. Holly Mitchell will be the next 2nd District supervisor on the powerful Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors .
Mitchell took a strong lead Tuesday evening in the race against Los Angeles City Councilman Herb Wesson , and as election results continued to be tabulated Wednesday , she maintained the top position .
As of 4:45 p.m. , Mitchell had secured almost 61 % of the vote while Wesson was at 39 % .
Wesson called Mitchell to concede and was gracious in their conversation about the future of the district and Los Angeles County as a whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Political analysts had expected the race to be close , given how many residents knew Wesson and his work on the L.A. City Council .
With Mitchell ’ s victory , the L.A. County Board of Supervisors , seen as the most powerful local governmental body in the country , will be an all-female board for the first time in history .
In another closely watched county race , supporters of Measure J , a proposal that would direct more county money to social services and jail diversion programs , declared victory Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the vote .
It has pulled in more than 1.6 million votes of support .
“ The passage of Measure J is the tipping point for justice not only in L.A. County but across the country , ” Isaac Bryan , co-chair of the Yes on Measure J campaign , said in a statement .
“ For decades we have fought to change hearts , minds and policy .
Finally , our communities will have the resources to bring our freedom dreams to life.
” The race for the board seat was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with both candidates focused on highlighting their records on criminal justice reform .
“ Both Mitchell and Wesson will try to make the case that they are better at continuing the fight for reform on the board , ” said Earl Ofari Hutchinson , a political analyst and longtime L.A. community activist .
“ How well each make that case will be huge with how voters view their candidacy.
” Political analysts and community activists anticipated that the contest could come down to which candidate voters believed was more invested in addressing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ How are we going to take care of our fellow neighbors ?
That ’ s what this particular election is about in 2020 , is electing somebody you , for sure , have the confidence will make sure we can all live in L.A. County during and after this pandemic .
Period , ” said Tina McKinnor , a longtime political strategist and civic engagement director from LA Voice Action , which supported Mitchell in the race .
“ We have to get through COVID or nothing can be done.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and generational lines .
Mitchell , 56 , came to politics in 2010 after leading a large L.A. child and family care organization , and she is known among her peers in the Legislature as an astute anti-poverty policymaker .
A mother of an adult son , Mitchell had a big break in the Senate five years ago when she stood up to her fellow Democrats , arguing that their budget failed to appropriately serve poor Californians .
Wesson , 68 , has held public office for 22 years , most recently on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ father of four , including one son experiencing homelessness , Wesson is known as a savvy negotiator who pushed for multiple increases in the city ’ s minimum wage but has been dogged by accusations that he gives in easily to special interests , including real estate developers .
While Wesson was serving as council president , the FBI launched a corruption investigation into City Hall , which focused largely on Councilman Jose Huizar , who faces charges of bribery and money laundering and whom Wesson once called his “ best friend ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not faced allegations .
In January 2019 , his chief of staff was included in an FBI search warrant seeking evidence for its investigation but has not been publicly accused of any wrongdoing .
Mitchell has highlighted the corruption scandal in her TV ads .
“ When he continues to talk about and remind us that he was the leader of the council and all that power afforded him to do , one has to wonder , ” Mitchell said in an interview .
Wesson has pushed back and said he was shocked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doing .
“ I am disgusted by what occurred , and no matter what we do , it is virtually impossible to legislate integrity , ” he said .
Another decision for voters in L.A. County was Measure J .
Measure J will require that 10 % of locally generated , unrestricted county money — estimated between $ 360 million and $ 900 million — be spent on a variety of social services , including housing , mental health treatment and jail diversion programs , and used for investments in communities disproportionally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be prohibited from using the money on prisons , jails or law enforcement agencies .
The measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors amid growing calls for criminal justice reforms after a spate of local law enforcement shootings and the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
Supporters said the public outrage over the shootings gave momentum to long-standing efforts to increase non-law-enforcement investments in communities of color .
“ We have tried building political movements out of the loss of life in Los Angeles County and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget , and what we continue to be told is , ‘ There ’ s no money for alternatives to incarceration , there ’ s no money to expand mental health ” and addiction treatment , said Eunisses Hernandez , co-chair of the Re-Imagine L.A. County campaign , which led the charge on supporting Measure J .
Some believed the measure was rushed , including the League of Women Voters of L.A. County , which was neutral on the measure .
Opponents of Measure J include the Assn .
for Los Angeles Deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3.5 million on campaign advertising on TV and social media .
While Measure J doesn ’ t call directly for police budget cuts , opponents say money would inevitably be slashed from law enforcement , with L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva , in a tweet , going so far as to raise the specter of a “ Mad Max ” future in the region if the measure passes .
Political experts agreed it was hard to discern how voters would swing on Measure J .
Former Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky , who authored several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board , said it ’ s usually important for the supervisors to make the case for a funding measure over a period of time .
“ In this particular instance , the case was being made on national television every day from the murder of George Floyd forward , ” said Yaroslavsky , who represented the 3rd District until 2014 .

State Sen. Holly Mitchell, left, has scored a victory over L.A. City Councilman Herb Wesson to represent the 2nd District on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
State Sen. Holly Mitchell will be the next 2nd District supervisor on the powerful Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
Mitchell took a strong lead Tuesday evening in the race against Los Angeles City Councilman Herb Wesson, and as election results continued to be tabulated Wednesday, she maintained the top position. As of 4:45 p.m., Mitchell had secured almost 61% of the vote while Wesson was at 39%.
Wesson called Mitchell to concede and was gracious in their conversation about the future of the district and Los Angeles County as a whole, Mitchell’s campaign said.
Advertisement
Political analysts had expected the race to be close, given how many residents knew Wesson and his work on the L.A. City Council.
With Mitchell’s victory, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, seen as the most powerful local governmental body in the country, will be an all-female board for the first time in history.
In another closely watched county race, supporters of Measure J, a proposal that would direct more county money to social services and jail diversion programs, declared victory Tuesday evening after the measure secured 57% of the vote. It has pulled in more than 1.6 million votes of support.
“The passage of Measure J is the tipping point for justice not only in L.A. County but across the country,” Isaac Bryan, co-chair of the Yes on Measure J campaign, said in a statement. “For decades we have fought to change hearts, minds and policy. Finally, our communities will have the resources to bring our freedom dreams to life.”
The race for the board seat was influenced by months of civil unrest, with both candidates focused on highlighting their records on criminal justice reform.
“Both Mitchell and Wesson will try to make the case that they are better at continuing the fight for reform on the board,” said Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a political analyst and longtime L.A. community activist. “How well each make that case will be huge with how voters view their candidacy.”
Advertisement
Political analysts and community activists anticipated that the contest could come down to which candidate voters believed was more invested in addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, homelessness and affordable housing.
“How are we going to take care of our fellow neighbors? That’s what this particular election is about in 2020, is electing somebody you, for sure, have the confidence will make sure we can all live in L.A. County during and after this pandemic. Period,” said Tina McKinnor, a longtime political strategist and civic engagement director from LA Voice Action, which supported Mitchell in the race. “We have to get through COVID or nothing can be done.”
The candidates’ profiles cut across gender and generational lines.
California Law enforcement reform roils L.A. County supervisor race In the tight Los Angeles County supervisor race between state Sen. Holly Mitchell and L.A. City Councilman Herb Wesson, ties to law enforcement and commitment to reform become top issues.
Mitchell, 56, came to politics in 2010 after leading a large L.A. child and family care organization, and she is known among her peers in the Legislature as an astute anti-poverty policymaker.
A mother of an adult son, Mitchell had a big break in the Senate five years ago when she stood up to her fellow Democrats, arguing that their budget failed to appropriately serve poor Californians.
Wesson, 68, has held public office for 22 years, most recently on the Los Angeles City Council.
A father of four, including one son experiencing homelessness, Wesson is known as a savvy negotiator who pushed for multiple increases in the city’s minimum wage but has been dogged by accusations that he gives in easily to special interests, including real estate developers.
While Wesson was serving as council president, the FBI launched a corruption investigation into City Hall, which focused largely on Councilman Jose Huizar, who faces charges of bribery and money laundering and whom Wesson once called his “best friend” on the 15-member council.
Wesson has not faced allegations. In January 2019, his chief of staff was included in an FBI search warrant seeking evidence for its investigation but has not been publicly accused of any wrongdoing.
Mitchell has highlighted the corruption scandal in her TV ads.
“When he continues to talk about and remind us that he was the leader of the council and all that power afforded him to do, one has to wonder,” Mitchell said in an interview.
Wesson has pushed back and said he was shocked to find out what Huizar was accused of doing.
“I am disgusted by what occurred, and no matter what we do, it is virtually impossible to legislate integrity,” he said.
California After year of civil unrest, Measure J asks voters to approve criminal justice reforms The measure would require that 10% of county funds be spent on social services such as housing and jail diversion programs. The county would be prohibited from using the money on prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.
Another decision for voters in L.A. County was Measure J.
Measure J will require that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted county money — estimated between $360 million and $900 million — be spent on a variety of social services, including housing, mental health treatment and jail diversion programs, and used for investments in communities disproportionally harmed by racism. The county would be prohibited from using the money on prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.
The measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors amid growing calls for criminal justice reforms after a spate of local law enforcement shootings and the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Supporters said the public outrage over the shootings gave momentum to long-standing efforts to increase non-law-enforcement investments in communities of color.
“We have tried building political movements out of the loss of life in Los Angeles County and to fight just for some crumbs in the budget, and what we continue to be told is, ‘There’s no money for alternatives to incarceration, there’s no money to expand mental health” and addiction treatment, said Eunisses Hernandez, co-chair of the Re-Imagine L.A. County campaign, which led the charge on supporting Measure J.
Some believed the measure was rushed, including the League of Women Voters of L.A. County, which was neutral on the measure.
Opponents of Measure J include the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which spent more than $3.5 million on campaign advertising on TV and social media.
While Measure J doesn’t call directly for police budget cuts, opponents say money would inevitably be slashed from law enforcement, with L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, in a tweet, going so far as to raise the specter of a “Mad Max” future in the region if the measure passes.
Political experts agreed it was hard to discern how voters would swing on Measure J.
Former Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who authored several ballot initiatives during his 20 years on the board, said it’s usually important for the supervisors to make the case for a funding measure over a period of time.
“In this particular instance, the case was being made on national television every day from the murder of George Floyd forward,” said Yaroslavsky, who represented the 3rd District until 2014.


latimes--2020-11-03--Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas declares victory in 10th District

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas declared victory over attorney Grace Yoo in his race to represent a Koreatown-to-Crenshaw district on the Los Angeles City Council , setting the stage for a return to City Hall after an 18-year absence .
While returns were still being tabulated , Ridley-Thomas held a commanding lead over his opponent Wednesday , with 61.4 % of the vote compared to Yoo ’ s 38.6 % .
In L.A. ’ s Silver Lake-to-Sherman Oaks district , urban planner Nithya Raman maintained a smaller but significant lead over City Councilman David Ryu , in a contest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking to pull City Hall further to the left , according to the partial results .
The two sets of candidates were competing for the two seats just as L.A. ’ s political leaders confront a massive budget shortfall , a lingering pandemic and a frustrating homelessness crisis .
Ridley-Thomas , 65 , said he was “ tremendously heartened ” by the results , saying voters showed that they want someone in a “ position of responsibility who knows what he ’ s doing and has demonstrated it over and over again.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go to work and deliver on the commitments that I ’ ve made to work on my priority issue , namely homelessness , and to not allow it to take a back seat to any other policy agenda , ” he said .
Because he has been on the council previously , Ridley-Thomas , an elected official for nearly three decades , is permitted to serve only a single four-year term .
Yoo , an activist who has challenged City Hall over real estate development and other issues , was mounting her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been heavily outspent by her rival and his allies .
Raman , 39 , waged an aggressive challenge against Ryu , propelled by an array of grass-roots activists on the left — Democratic Socialists of America-Los Angeles and Ground Game L.A. , among others — combined with the financial might of writers , actors , directors and others in the entertainment industry .
If Raman retains her lead , she will be the first candidate to unseat a sitting council member since 2003 , when former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa ousted Councilman Nick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credited her campaign ’ s 2,000 volunteers for making the council bid “ a special collective effort.
” “ Win or lose , we ’ re going to carry this community energy into building a more just , sustainable Los Angeles no matter what , ” she said .
Ryu , 45 , acknowledged that he was lagging in the partial returns .
He said he had tried over the course of the campaign to tell voters about his work on anti-corruption measures and on homelessness , including the construction of new shelter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wanted to make sure I had the opportunity to finish what I started , ” Ryu said .
“ Both of those were issues near to my heart.
” While Raman ran with the backing of Bernie Sanders , Ryu drew support from city employee unions , the county ’ s Democratic Party and high-profile but frequently more establishment Democrats , including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton .
This was the first time in more than a century that Los Angeles conducted its regular municipal election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a push by the council to boost voter turnout and bring a greater share of younger , nonwhite and lower-income voters .
Although turnout grew dramatically this year , the change did not upend the status quo at City Hall .
A majority of this year ’ s contests were decided in the March primary election , with four incumbents — council members Nury Martinez , Paul Krekorian , John Lee and Marqueece Harris-Dawson — winning their reelection bids .
Former state Sen. Kevin de León , now a councilman , easily vanquished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to represent part of the Eastside .
Two contests went on to a second round : the battle between Ryu and Raman , waged in a district with wealthy neighborhoods such as Hancock Park and Hollywood Hills , and the contest between Yoo and Ridley-Thomas , which has been playing out in parts of South L.A. such as West Adams and Leimert Park .
In the latter contest , Ridley-Thomas ran on his decades of experience and his list of accomplishments , including the reopening of Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for public transportation and homeless services .
An outspoken critic of Sheriff Alex Villanueva , he also touted his work as a police reformer .
Yoo , 49 , worked to portray Ridley-Thomas as a career politician , someone who would immediately use the council office as a steppingstone for a mayoral bid .
With the city buffeted both by a homeless crisis and an FBI investigation , one that has resulted in the arrest of two council members , Yoo argued that it was time for a fresh face in the council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponent has been in office for three decades , ” Yoo said Tuesday night .
“ And the quintessential question is , are we better off ?
And the answer is , no , we are not.
” In the wealthier 4th District , which takes in such areas as Hancock Park , Windsor Square and the Hollywood Hills , Ryu had run as a reformer who succeeded in securing passage of new limits on campaign donations from real estate developers .
Ryu , 45 , said he had achieved that goal despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and would work to make more progress during a second term .
Critics said his measure contained too many loopholes .
And in the wake of the George Floyd protests , Raman called on Ryu to disavow the nearly $ 45,000 spent on his behalf by the Police Protective League , which represents LAPD officers .
Raman campaigned on a promise to fight laws “ criminalizing ” homelessness and argued for making the LAPD a much smaller armed force , saying many of the department ’ s duties should be reassigned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ L.A. chapter of Democratic Socialists for America , Raman spread her message nationally , landing favorable profiles in Vogue and the Daily Beast and interviews on bonus segments of the “ Chapo Trap House ” podcast .
Ryu sought to make her leftist supporters a campaign issue , highlighting social media posts from Democratic Socialists for America-L.A. calling police officers “ pigs ” who work in tandem with the Ku Klux Klan .
And he also criticized Raman for signing a pledge supporting the People ’ s Budget , which called for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the city ’ s general fund to law enforcement and policing .
Raman called Ryu ’ s assertion false , saying she did not support any specific size cut — and would need more information on LAPD spending before she could determine how much of a reduction is warranted .
Her campaign manager called Ryu ’ s focus on Raman ’ s supporters “ cheap ” and “ distasteful ” and said it was an attempt to distract voters from Raman ’ s deep grassroots support .

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas declared victory over attorney Grace Yoo in his race to represent a Koreatown-to-Crenshaw district on the Los Angeles City Council, setting the stage for a return to City Hall after an 18-year absence.
While returns were still being tabulated, Ridley-Thomas held a commanding lead over his opponent Wednesday, with 61.4% of the vote compared to Yoo’s 38.6%.
In L.A.’s Silver Lake-to-Sherman Oaks district, urban planner Nithya Raman maintained a smaller but significant lead over City Councilman David Ryu, in a contest that has drawn nationwide attention from progressives looking to pull City Hall further to the left, according to the partial results.
The two sets of candidates were competing for the two seats just as L.A.’s political leaders confront a massive budget shortfall, a lingering pandemic and a frustrating homelessness crisis.
Ridley-Thomas, 65, said he was “tremendously heartened” by the results, saying voters showed that they want someone in a “position of responsibility who knows what he’s doing and has demonstrated it over and over again.”
Advertisement
“I think it’s time to go to work and deliver on the commitments that I’ve made to work on my priority issue, namely homelessness, and to not allow it to take a back seat to any other policy agenda,” he said.
Because he has been on the council previously, Ridley-Thomas, an elected official for nearly three decades, is permitted to serve only a single four-year term.
Yoo, an activist who has challenged City Hall over real estate development and other issues, was mounting her second run for the seat but had been heavily outspent by her rival and his allies.
Raman, 39, waged an aggressive challenge against Ryu, propelled by an array of grass-roots activists on the left — Democratic Socialists of America-Los Angeles and Ground Game L.A., among others — combined with the financial might of writers, actors, directors and others in the entertainment industry.
If Raman retains her lead, she will be the first candidate to unseat a sitting council member since 2003, when former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa ousted Councilman Nick Pacheco. In a statement, she credited her campaign’s 2,000 volunteers for making the council bid “a special collective effort.”
“Win or lose, we’re going to carry this community energy into building a more just, sustainable Los Angeles no matter what,” she said.
Ryu, 45, acknowledged that he was lagging in the partial returns. He said he had tried over the course of the campaign to tell voters about his work on anti-corruption measures and on homelessness, including the construction of new shelter beds and affordable housing units.
Advertisement
“I wanted to make sure I had the opportunity to finish what I started,” Ryu said. “Both of those were issues near to my heart.”
L.A. City Council candidate Grace Yoo talks with resident Michael Turner on election day. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
While Raman ran with the backing of Bernie Sanders, Ryu drew support from city employee unions, the county’s Democratic Party and high-profile but frequently more establishment Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
This was the first time in more than a century that Los Angeles conducted its regular municipal election in an even-numbered year, part of a push by the council to boost voter turnout and bring a greater share of younger, nonwhite and lower-income voters. Although turnout grew dramatically this year, the change did not upend the status quo at City Hall.
A majority of this year’s contests were decided in the March primary election, with four incumbents — council members Nury Martinez, Paul Krekorian, John Lee and Marqueece Harris-Dawson — winning their reelection bids. Former state Sen. Kevin de León, now a councilman, easily vanquished his poorly financed opponents in his bid to represent part of the Eastside.
Two contests went on to a second round: the battle between Ryu and Raman, waged in a district with wealthy neighborhoods such as Hancock Park and Hollywood Hills, and the contest between Yoo and Ridley-Thomas, which has been playing out in parts of South L.A. such as West Adams and Leimert Park.
L.A. City Council candidate Nithya Raman in Los Angeles on Tuesday night. (Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times)
In the latter contest, Ridley-Thomas ran on his decades of experience and his list of accomplishments, including the reopening of Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital and the passage of ballot measures to pay for public transportation and homeless services. An outspoken critic of Sheriff Alex Villanueva, he also touted his work as a police reformer.
Yoo, 49, worked to portray Ridley-Thomas as a career politician, someone who would immediately use the council office as a steppingstone for a mayoral bid. With the city buffeted both by a homeless crisis and an FBI investigation, one that has resulted in the arrest of two council members, Yoo argued that it was time for a fresh face in the council’s 10th District.
“My opponent has been in office for three decades,” Yoo said Tuesday night. “And the quintessential question is, are we better off? And the answer is, no, we are not.”
In the wealthier 4th District, which takes in such areas as Hancock Park, Windsor Square and the Hollywood Hills, Ryu had run as a reformer who succeeded in securing passage of new limits on campaign donations from real estate developers. Ryu, 45, said he had achieved that goal despite years of resistance from inside City Hall — and would work to make more progress during a second term.
L.A. City Councilman David Ryu speaks with Renee Weitzer, left, and Sabra Williams at the Hollywood Bowl Vote Center. (Dania Maxwell/Los Angeles Times)
Critics said his measure contained too many loopholes. And in the wake of the George Floyd protests, Raman called on Ryu to disavow the nearly $45,000 spent on his behalf by the Police Protective League, which represents LAPD officers.
Raman campaigned on a promise to fight laws “criminalizing” homelessness and argued for making the LAPD a much smaller armed force, saying many of the department’s duties should be reassigned to other workers. A member of the L.A. chapter of Democratic Socialists for America, Raman spread her message nationally, landing favorable profiles in Vogue and the Daily Beast and interviews on bonus segments of the “Chapo Trap House” podcast.
Ryu sought to make her leftist supporters a campaign issue, highlighting social media posts from Democratic Socialists for America-L.A. calling police officers “pigs” who work in tandem with the Ku Klux Klan. And he also criticized Raman for signing a pledge supporting the People’s Budget, which called for the city to allocate less than 2% of the city’s general fund to law enforcement and policing.
Raman called Ryu’s assertion false, saying she did not support any specific size cut — and would need more information on LAPD spending before she could determine how much of a reduction is warranted. Her campaign manager called Ryu’s focus on Raman’s supporters “cheap” and “distasteful” and said it was an attempt to distract voters from Raman’s deep grassroots support.
Times staff writer Benjamin Oreskes contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-11-03--George Gascón holds lead in L.A. County district attorney race

Former San Francisco Dist .
Atty .
George Gascón is holding a steady lead over incumbent Los Angeles County Dist .
Atty .
Jackie Lacey in the nationally watched race to lead the nation ’ s largest local prosecutor ’ s office , a contest that has centered on criminal justice reform .
As of Wednesday morning , Gascón had captured 53.8 % of the vote to Lacey ’ s 46.1 % , holding a lead of about 211,000 votes .
The county registrar ’ s office has tallied nearly 3.2 millions ballots , but did not expect to update @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was not clear how many ballots were left to be counted .
L.A. County is home to 5.8 million registered voters .
The contest between Lacey and Gascón has been considered a litmus test of Southern California ’ s appetite for reform on a number of racial and criminal justice issues .
Gascón , 66 , who served as San Francisco ’ s top prosecutor from 2011 to 2019 , represents a wave of progressive prosecutors focused on reducing the criminal justice system ’ s footprint while maintaining public safety .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Philadelphia and St. Louis in recent years , and a public defender was elected to replace Gascón last year in San Francisco .
Although Gascón has taken flak for surging property crime rates in San Francisco during his tenure and his involvement in the drafting of Proposition 47 — which changed several felonies to misdemeanors under California law — his use of diversion programs and ability to manage violent crime while lowering the city ’ s jail population have drawn praise .
A career prosecutor , Lacey , 63 , showed some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year when she moved to vacate tens of thousands of marijuana convictions and expressed an openness to letting outside agencies , such as the California attorney general ’ s office , review controversial officer-involved shootings .
But of the two , Lacey , the first woman and first African American to head the district attorney ’ s office , is considered the more traditional tough-on-crime prosecutor and has remained a favorite of law enforcement .
Shortly after he spoke to supporters at a drive-in event at the Los Angeles Zoo sponsored by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ optimism and praised his campaign as colleagues alerted him to early returns , which initially had him up by a wide margin .
“ Regardless of what the outcome is , I feel very , very good about the work that we did .
I think we ’ ve moved the needle regardless , ” he said .
“ Obviously if I get elected , we ’ ll roll up our sleeves , and I really hope that L.A. County ’ s criminal justice system will be the shining house on the hill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be the example for other communities , that we will show that we can have both safety and humanity.
” Lacey , who was watching the results with her family at their Granada Hills home , said earlier in the night that she felt confident that her record on public safety and her wealth of experience as a prosecutor would resonate with voters , especially when compared with Gascón ’ s lack of trial experience .
“ I would be surprised if the majority of people in L.A. County were willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let ’ s just go for reform .
Let ’ s be bold about it .
There ’ s no reason to really pay attention to these details , ” she said .
Lacey ’ s campaign coordinator , Walter Koch , cautioned against overreacting to early tallies that had yet to include election day voters .
The vast majority of the ballots that have been counted already are mail-in ballots returned before election day , which have skewed favorably toward progressives nationwide .
Lacey , elected in 2012 and seeking a third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March .
Early returns showed her hovering above the 50 % -plus-one vote share needed to win reelection outright in the primary , but Gascón and former public defender Rachel Rossi picked up enough ballots to hold her under that threshold .
Still , with Gascón finishing roughly 20 percentage points behind Lacey , many political observers began to question if he entered the race too late or failed to broaden his appeal beyond activists .
But the dynamics of the race shifted dramatically following the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which sparked massive protests against police brutality in Los Angeles and across the U.S. Lacey has often faced criticism for declining to charge Los Angeles police officers and sheriff ’ s deputies in a number of controversial shootings of unarmed men during her eight years in office .
Gascón did not charge an officer in a fatal use of force case during his eight-year tenure in office in San Francisco either , but championed legislation last year that lowered the threshold for officers to be charged in such cases .
He has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen investigations into a number of officer-involved shootings in which Lacey declined to file charges .
Nationwide calls for criminal justice reform drew more attention to the race , and Gascón picked up endorsements from vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris and U.S. Sens .
Bernie Sanders ( D-Vermont ) and Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass. )
.
Prominent California politicians , including U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-Burbank ) and L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti , dropped their endorsements of Lacey and chose to back Gascón instead .
Lacey , meanwhile , was backed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and San Francisco Mayor London Breed .
The race was deeply contentious , with Gascón and Lacey trading barbs across digital ads and during a slate of four debates between the primary and general elections .
Gascón ’ s surrogates had begun comparing Lacey ’ s rhetoric on fears of crime spikes under Gascón to some of President Trump ’ s attacks on his political opponents in the late stages of the campaign , while Lacey repeatedly tried to paint her opponent as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about crime victims .
Local activists dogged Lacey often during the campaign , protesting outside her house and office on several occasions throughout the summer .
Lacey has said she received numerous death threats throughout the campaign , at least one of which sparked a Long Beach police investigation .
A clash with Black Lives Matter organizers outside her home in early March ended with her husband , David , pointing a gun at three unarmed demonstrators .
David Lacey was charged with three counts of misdemeanor assault by the California attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more than $ 19 million poured into the race .
Lacey collected roughly $ 7 million in her reelection bid , much of it coming in a flood of law enforcement union contributions from organizations representing rank-and-file L.A. police officers and county sheriff ’ s deputies .
Gascón ’ s coffers surged above $ 12 million by the end of the race , with much of his funding coming from Bay Area mega-donors who have backed reforms such as Proposition 47 , which reclassified some nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Liberal philanthropist George Soros also gave more than $ 2 million to Gascón , and the political action committee Color Of Change raised more than $ 3 million for Gascon in the final two months of the race .

George Gascón, left, candidate for Los Angeles County district attorney, is introduced by Mark Gonzalez, chair of the L.A. County Democratic Party, during a drive-in election night watch party in the Los Angeles Zoo parking lot.
Former San Francisco Dist. Atty. George Gascón is holding a steady lead over incumbent Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey in the nationally watched race to lead the nation’s largest local prosecutor’s office, a contest that has centered on criminal justice reform.
As of Wednesday morning, Gascón had captured 53.8% of the vote to Lacey’s 46.1%, holding a lead of about 211,000 votes. The county registrar’s office has tallied nearly 3.2 millions ballots, but did not expect to update vote totals again until Wednesday afternoon.
It was not clear how many ballots were left to be counted. L.A. County is home to 5.8 million registered voters.
Advertisement
The contest between Lacey and Gascón has been considered a litmus test of Southern California’s appetite for reform on a number of racial and criminal justice issues.
Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey at a news conference Oct. 6. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Gascón, 66, who served as San Francisco’s top prosecutor from 2011 to 2019, represents a wave of progressive prosecutors focused on reducing the criminal justice system’s footprint while maintaining public safety. The movement has achieved election victories in Chicago, Philadelphia and St. Louis in recent years, and a public defender was elected to replace Gascón last year in San Francisco.
Although Gascón has taken flak for surging property crime rates in San Francisco during his tenure and his involvement in the drafting of Proposition 47 — which changed several felonies to misdemeanors under California law — his use of diversion programs and ability to manage violent crime while lowering the city’s jail population have drawn praise.
A career prosecutor, Lacey, 63, showed some deference to the reform movement earlier this year when she moved to vacate tens of thousands of marijuana convictions and expressed an openness to letting outside agencies, such as the California attorney general’s office, review controversial officer-involved shootings. But of the two, Lacey, the first woman and first African American to head the district attorney’s office, is considered the more traditional tough-on-crime prosecutor and has remained a favorite of law enforcement.
Shortly after he spoke to supporters at a drive-in event at the Los Angeles Zoo sponsored by the L.A. County Democratic Party, Gascón expressed optimism and praised his campaign as colleagues alerted him to early returns, which initially had him up by a wide margin.
Advertisement
“Regardless of what the outcome is, I feel very, very good about the work that we did. I think we’ve moved the needle regardless,” he said. “Obviously if I get elected, we’ll roll up our sleeves, and I really hope that L.A. County’s criminal justice system will be the shining house on the hill, if you will, that we will be the example for other communities, that we will show that we can have both safety and humanity.”
Lacey, who was watching the results with her family at their Granada Hills home, said earlier in the night that she felt confident that her record on public safety and her wealth of experience as a prosecutor would resonate with voters, especially when compared with Gascón’s lack of trial experience.
“I would be surprised if the majority of people in L.A. County were willing to say we’re safe enough. Let’s just go for reform. Let’s be bold about it. There’s no reason to really pay attention to these details,” she said.
Lacey’s campaign coordinator, Walter Koch, cautioned against overreacting to early tallies that had yet to include election day voters. The vast majority of the ballots that have been counted already are mail-in ballots returned before election day, which have skewed favorably toward progressives nationwide.
Lacey, elected in 2012 and seeking a third term, nearly ended the race in March. Early returns showed her hovering above the 50%-plus-one vote share needed to win reelection outright in the primary, but Gascón and former public defender Rachel Rossi picked up enough ballots to hold her under that threshold. Still, with Gascón finishing roughly 20 percentage points behind Lacey, many political observers began to question if he entered the race too late or failed to broaden his appeal beyond activists.
But the dynamics of the race shifted dramatically following the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Breonna Taylor in Louisville, Ky., which sparked massive protests against police brutality in Los Angeles and across the U.S. Lacey has often faced criticism for declining to charge Los Angeles police officers and sheriff’s deputies in a number of controversial shootings of unarmed men during her eight years in office.
Gascón did not charge an officer in a fatal use of force case during his eight-year tenure in office in San Francisco either, but championed legislation last year that lowered the threshold for officers to be charged in such cases. He has also promised, if elected, to reopen investigations into a number of officer-involved shootings in which Lacey declined to file charges.
Nationwide calls for criminal justice reform drew more attention to the race, and Gascón picked up endorsements from vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris and U.S. Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Prominent California politicians, including U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) and L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti, dropped their endorsements of Lacey and chose to back Gascón instead.
Lacey, meanwhile, was backed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), several members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and San Francisco Mayor London Breed.
The race was deeply contentious, with Gascón and Lacey trading barbs across digital ads and during a slate of four debates between the primary and general elections. Gascón’s surrogates had begun comparing Lacey’s rhetoric on fears of crime spikes under Gascón to some of President Trump’s attacks on his political opponents in the late stages of the campaign, while Lacey repeatedly tried to paint her opponent as an opportunist who didn’t care about crime victims.
Local activists dogged Lacey often during the campaign, protesting outside her house and office on several occasions throughout the summer. Lacey has said she received numerous death threats throughout the campaign, at least one of which sparked a Long Beach police investigation. A clash with Black Lives Matter organizers outside her home in early March ended with her husband, David, pointing a gun at three unarmed demonstrators. David Lacey was charged with three counts of misdemeanor assault by the California attorney general’s office.
As interest increased, more than $19 million poured into the race. Lacey collected roughly $7 million in her reelection bid, much of it coming in a flood of law enforcement union contributions from organizations representing rank-and-file L.A. police officers and county sheriff’s deputies.
Gascón’s coffers surged above $12 million by the end of the race, with much of his funding coming from Bay Area mega-donors who have backed reforms such as Proposition 47, which reclassified some nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, and measures to abolish the death penalty. Liberal philanthropist George Soros also gave more than $2 million to Gascón, and the political action committee Color Of Change raised more than $3 million for Gascon in the final two months of the race.


latimes--2020-11-03--Riot gear stolen from National Guard Armory in Ontario, police say

Officials are investigating after riot gear was stolen from the National Guard Armory in Ontario on Tuesday .
The Ontario @ @ @ @ @ the alleged burglary just after 4 p.m. , said Officer Eliseo Guerrero , a spokesman @ @ @ @ @ officials don ’ t know exactly when the break-in occurred .
Guerrero said the suspect @ @ @ @ @ chain-link fence and into a locked storage container to take shin guards , riot shields @ @ @ @ @ and face shields .
No ammunition or firearms were taken , he said .
Police @ @ @ @ @ video to determine when the burglary occurred and to try to identify suspects .
Guerrero @ @ @ @ @ t have information about whether the break-in was linked to protests happening across the state @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s obviously such a weird time for this stuff , but @ @ @ @ @ any further information at this time , ” he said .

Riot gear was stolen from the National Guard Armory in Ontario, police said Tuesday.
Officials are investigating after riot gear was stolen from the National Guard Armory in Ontario on Tuesday.
The Ontario Police Department was notified of the alleged burglary just after 4 p.m., said Officer Eliseo Guerrero, a spokesman for the agency.
But officials don’t know exactly when the break-in occurred. Guerrero said the suspect or suspects broke through a chain-link fence and into a locked storage container to take shin guards, riot shields, batons, a megaphone and face shields. No ammunition or firearms were taken, he said.
Advertisement
Police will be looking for surveillance video to determine when the burglary occurred and to try to identify suspects.
Guerrero added that officials didn’t have information about whether the break-in was linked to protests happening across the state as the election takes place.
“It’s obviously such a weird time for this stuff, but we don’t have any further information at this time,” he said.


latimes--2020-11-03--In search of a little World Series luck, L.A. voters visit Dodger Stadium on election day

It was so foggy early on election day when I drove to Dodger Stadium , but the sun began to break through just as I arrived , which seemed to match the hopeful mood I found in the vote center on the top deck .
People were openly expressing joy , which felt wonderful and novel in a twitchy time so heavy with anxiety , stress and dread .
Joy about exercising their rights as citizens .
Joy about doing so in a place they love and are longing to celebrate in and have missed .
Joy about the chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others — if only briefly and masked .
Joy , too , to be away from the rage they told me they keep encountering on social media and the news , and to be a part of a harmonious diversity of Americans — of so many different ages and backgrounds .
There was no line to get in , but people kept coming and coming — many after driving long distances .
Parents brought their kids .
Big families proudly performed their civic duty together .
Mariachi bands played .
Cheerful volunteers handed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and snacks .
And huge cheers went up every time poll workers learned someone had come to vote for the first time .
“ This is amazing .
This is the Los Angeles that I want to represent us , ” said Olivia Tai , 34 , on a brief break from her stint as a Cantonese-speaking poll worker in Chinatown , as she took in the vote center and posed with the ball field in the background .
Tai wore a shirt tie-dyed blue , white and a sort of pinkish red @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ 11 03 2020.
” On a big label on the front printed with “ WHY I AM VOTING : ” Olivia had written in black marker “ Because this is — for real — the most important election of our lifetime.
” An EMT who freelances for events and on sets , she told me she cares deeply about civil rights and climate change and wants a government that protects and supports people .
“ I would love to be able to have a kid and actually have work policies that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure that I can be taken care of as I ’ m aging , ” she said .
But she also made clear that the election , for her , was equally about worldview , which working the polls had brought home .
She was opting for “ humanism , ” she told me , for a focus not on what divides us but on how most of us are more like each other than different .
“ People can be voting for things that you don ’ t believe in , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re still like you .
You can still relate to them .
You can still look them in the eyes and see them , ” she told me .
First-time voter Jazzlyn Herrera , 19 , a student at Rio Hondo College , said she had come out with her parents to make a similar statement in her vote for a new president .
“ His words cause a lot of anger and hatred , ” she said of our current leader .
“ We need someone more composed.
” The president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ They turn against each other so quickly .
And then it goes to racism .
And it just expands from there.
” I tried to find a supporter of the presidential status quo in my time at the stadium .
I didn ’ t — and I know , much of L.A. doesn ’ t exactly lean his party ’ s way .
But what I heard from those who criticized the president didn ’ t sound partisan .
It was about unity and removing barriers that divided people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the future , whatever happens this time around .
Nancy Moz , 28 , told me she has had it hard during the pandemic .
She has two jobs — working for Norms Restaurants and at a nursing home near Westwood that has lost residents and workers to COVID-19 .
She lives with her family in Westlake — eight people in four bedrooms .
Six of her relatives have gotten the virus , though everyone has made it through .
She said she was voting for a new president “ because I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the people ” but is also very much voting against the current president .
“ I want my voice to be heard .
I believe this is a time to make change .
I do believe that the United States can become united , ” she told me .
She said she hoped for a future of “ acceptance.
” “ As a lesbian Hispanic person , I want to be more accepted , ” she said .
“ I want more acceptance for everyone , for everyday life.
” Giovanna Montgomery , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jamal Young , 37 , drove to the stadium from Pomona , maybe hoping that a little World Series luck would rub off on their ballots .
“ It ’ s been a very scary time .
Very scary , ” she said .
“ I just feel a lot of racism.
” She said she was hoping that her vote and others would lead “ to some peace , some equality .
Hopefully 2021 will bring some positivity.
” Young nodded along .
“ I want to see people come together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .
“ People to treat people nice and be kind to everyone.
” Mike and Lynn Gottschalk told me they ’ d given up their mid-city apartment and moved out to Big Bear after the pandemic hit , since they could now work anywhere remotely .
But they ’ d driven back to town to make a day of voting with friends .
And also to mark the moment , which they hoped would be all about change .
Lynn is from Germany and not yet able to vote here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His grandmother , he said , still lives there and just voted for the first time at age 78 .
She ’ d always been so moderate that she found good on all sides and so never cared passionately enough about who would be the winner of an election .
But the current president ’ s behavior changed that .
She told her grandson , “ We ’ ve got to get him out of the White House.
” He said he felt the same way , especially because of how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
“ I would like less polarization , more discussion , ” he told me .
“ I feel like one of the things that ’ s really unfortunate is that there ’ s less talking and debating .
And I think talking and debating is the only way you can actually come out with better ideas oftentimes.
” “ Like , hear each other ’ s viewpoints , ” his wife said .
“ I would like to see more of it , ” he said .
“ Whoever you vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really , really good thing , and I ’ ve seen less and less of it over the last few years.
” Just as I was leaving the stadium , I ran into Lisa Burnley , 58 , who drives Metro trains for a living and had made the trip from Lynwood .
She did so in memory of her late father , who took voting very seriously and had loved the Dodgers since Brooklyn .
He would have loved to see the World Series victory , she said .
He would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a humble man .
He would have said , ‘ Watch out , he ’ s slick.
’ He wouldn ’ t have gone for none of the negative , ” she said .
She told me she hoped the election would bring her nation “ reunification and stability.
” “ Just look at everything we didn ’ t get a chance to do this year , ” Burnley said .
She said she laid the blame for that “ 150 % '' at the president ’ s feet .
As I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took in this year ’ s world .
I passed a line in front of a sidewalk COVID-19 testing site , a man unloading big sheets of plywood to board up his storefront , other shops already boarded up and blank-faced , the message “ To be continued ... ” on a theater marquee .
And on a cement embankment , a word in silver duct tape caught the sunlight : “ BREATHE.
” That summed up to me what I ’ d just heard from voters .
So many of us hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to breathe freely again , in harmony , together .

Adam Tapia, 23, wearing his Kershaw jersey, came from Whittier to vote Tuesday at Dodger Stadium in Elysian Park.
It was so foggy early on election day when I drove to Dodger Stadium, but the sun began to break through just as I arrived, which seemed to match the hopeful mood I found in the vote center on the top deck.
People were openly expressing joy, which felt wonderful and novel in a twitchy time so heavy with anxiety, stress and dread.
Joy about exercising their rights as citizens. Joy about doing so in a place they love and are longing to celebrate in and have missed. Joy about the chance to be out in the company of others — if only briefly and masked.
Advertisement
Joy, too, to be away from the rage they told me they keep encountering on social media and the news, and to be a part of a harmonious diversity of Americans — of so many different ages and backgrounds.
There was no line to get in, but people kept coming and coming — many after driving long distances.
Parents brought their kids. Big families proudly performed their civic duty together.
Mariachi Los Pasajeros plays for voters on election Tuesday at Dodger Stadium in Elysian Park. (Al Seib/Los Angeles Times)
Mariachi bands played. Cheerful volunteers handed out free sandwiches and coffee and water and snacks. And huge cheers went up every time poll workers learned someone had come to vote for the first time.
“This is amazing. This is the Los Angeles that I want to represent us,” said Olivia Tai, 34, on a brief break from her stint as a Cantonese-speaking poll worker in Chinatown, as she took in the vote center and posed with the ball field in the background.
Advertisement
Politics Election 2020 live updates: Northern battleground states remain too close to call President Trump and Joe Biden battled into Wednesday morning with no clear winner, as major contests remained too close. Biden urged patience, while Trump called the election into question.
Tai wore a shirt tie-dyed blue, white and a sort of pinkish red. It had numbers on the back: “11 03 2020.” On a big label on the front printed with “WHY I AM VOTING:” Olivia had written in black marker “Because this is — for real — the most important election of our lifetime.”
An EMT who freelances for events and on sets, she told me she cares deeply about civil rights and climate change and wants a government that protects and supports people.
“I would love to be able to have a kid and actually have work policies that support that. I want to make sure that I can be taken care of as I’m aging,” she said.
But she also made clear that the election, for her, was equally about worldview, which working the polls had brought home.
She was opting for “humanism,” she told me, for a focus not on what divides us but on how most of us are more like each other than different.
Brent Young takes a selfie photo with wife, Dina Young, and their 10-year-old son, Truman Young, as they came to Dodgers Stadium in Elysian Park to vote in the 2020 general election. (Al Seib/Los Angeles Times)
“People can be voting for things that you don’t believe in, but they’re still people. They’re still like you. You can still relate to them. You can still look them in the eyes and see them,” she told me.
First-time voter Jazzlyn Herrera, 19, a student at Rio Hondo College, said she had come out with her parents to make a similar statement in her vote for a new president.
“His words cause a lot of anger and hatred,” she said of our current leader. “We need someone more composed.”
The president’s words trigger people, she said. “They turn against each other so quickly. And then it goes to racism. And it just expands from there.”
I tried to find a supporter of the presidential status quo in my time at the stadium. I didn’t — and I know, much of L.A. doesn’t exactly lean his party’s way. But what I heard from those who criticized the president didn’t sound partisan. It was about unity and removing barriers that divided people. It sounded patriotic. It also sounded like the future, whatever happens this time around.
Nancy Moz, 28, told me she has had it hard during the pandemic. She has two jobs — working for Norms Restaurants and at a nursing home near Westwood that has lost residents and workers to COVID-19. She lives with her family in Westlake — eight people in four bedrooms. Six of her relatives have gotten the virus, though everyone has made it through.
She said she was voting for a new president “because I feel he cares a little more about the people” but is also very much voting against the current president.
“I want my voice to be heard. I believe this is a time to make change. I do believe that the United States can become united,” she told me. She said she hoped for a future of “acceptance.”
“As a lesbian Hispanic person, I want to be more accepted,” she said. “I want more acceptance for everyone, for everyday life.”
Giovanna Montgomery, 23, said she and her husband, Jamal Young, 37, drove to the stadium from Pomona, maybe hoping that a little World Series luck would rub off on their ballots.
“It’s been a very scary time. Very scary,” she said. “I just feel a lot of racism.”
She said she was hoping that her vote and others would lead “to some peace, some equality. Hopefully 2021 will bring some positivity.”
Young nodded along. “I want to see people come together, how it should be,” he said. “People to treat people nice and be kind to everyone.”
Mike and Lynn Gottschalk reflect after voting on election Tuesday at Dodger Stadium in Elysian Park. (Al Seib/Los Angeles Times)
Mike and Lynn Gottschalk told me they’d given up their mid-city apartment and moved out to Big Bear after the pandemic hit, since they could now work anywhere remotely. But they’d driven back to town to make a day of voting with friends. And also to mark the moment, which they hoped would be all about change.
Lynn is from Germany and not yet able to vote here. Mike, 31, comes from Wisconsin. His grandmother, he said, still lives there and just voted for the first time at age 78. She’d always been so moderate that she found good on all sides and so never cared passionately enough about who would be the winner of an election. But the current president’s behavior changed that. She told her grandson, “We’ve got to get him out of the White House.”
He said he felt the same way, especially because of how much one man had divided the country against itself.
“I would like less polarization, more discussion,” he told me. “I feel like one of the things that’s really unfortunate is that there’s less talking and debating. And I think talking and debating is the only way you can actually come out with better ideas oftentimes.”
“Like, hear each other’s viewpoints,” his wife said.
“I would like to see more of it,” he said. “Whoever you vote for, I think talking is a really, really good thing, and I’ve seen less and less of it over the last few years.”
Just as I was leaving the stadium, I ran into Lisa Burnley, 58, who drives Metro trains for a living and had made the trip from Lynwood. She did so in memory of her late father, who took voting very seriously and had loved the Dodgers since Brooklyn. He would have loved to see the World Series victory, she said. He would have loathed our president.
Los Angeles residents and Dodgers fans Erik Solis and his fiancee Patricia Van take a selfie after casting their ballots at Dodger Stadium. (Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times)
“He was such a humble man. He would have said, ‘Watch out, he’s slick.’ He wouldn’t have gone for none of the negative,” she said.
She told me she hoped the election would bring her nation “reunification and stability.”
“Just look at everything we didn’t get a chance to do this year,” Burnley said. She said she laid the blame for that “150%” at the president’s feet.
As I drove home along Sunset Boulevard, I took in this year’s world. I passed a line in front of a sidewalk COVID-19 testing site, a man unloading big sheets of plywood to board up his storefront, other shops already boarded up and blank-faced, the message “To be continued...” on a theater marquee.
And on a cement embankment, a word in silver duct tape caught the sunlight: “BREATHE.”
That summed up to me what I’d just heard from voters.
So many of us hope to move past this moment and be able to breathe freely again, in harmony, together.


latimes--2020-11-03--One voted for Trump, the other for Biden. But this mother and daughter are closer than ever

Graciela Murillo was watching the news Tuesday on Telemundo — just as she does every morning — when she made an announcement : She wanted to go vote .
“ Damé una pelota para votarla , ” Murillo , 86 , told her daughter Sonia , 53 , confusing the Spanish word for “ ballot , ” which is “ boleta , ” with “ ball.
” “ Give me a ball to vote !
Yo quiero Donald Trump.
” So after breakfast and lunch — coffee , buttery bread and a sandwich for Graciela , scrambled eggs for Sonia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ street from their Boyle Heights home to the Wabash Recreation Center to vote for the first time together .
But Sonia , a part-time cafeteria worker for the Los Angeles Unified School District , had no intention to cast her vote for Trump .
She cast her ballot for Joe Biden .
“ I wasn ’ t going to vote , but she motivated me , ” Sonia said matter-of-factly .
She hadn ’ t voted before this election because she didn ’ t know how to .
“ I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and Republicans.
” What she does know is that she wants Sen. Kamala Harris to be the first female vice president .
“ That ’ s the only thing I know.
” Asked why she voted for Trump , Graciela said : “ Es el que sale mucho en la televisión.
” He ’ s the guy who appears on TV a lot .
And she finds the Republican president very handsome .
“ I don ’ t think a thing ” about the fact that her daughter voted for Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s her choice .
If she likes that man , then she can have him , ” she giggled .
As for Sonia , only one thing mattered to her .
“ I was just so grateful that my mom wanted to vote because she ’ s never voted before , ” she said in Spanglish .
“ It was a pleasure and I didn ’ t care who she voted for , ” adding that her mother has a photo of a former president , Barack Obama , in the living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Kennedy men .
“ Those are the ones she remembers , ” said Sonia of her mother , who has Alzheimer ’ s .
Graciela was born and raised in Zacatecas , Mexico , and came to the United States when she was 21 with her soon-to-be husband Samuel Murillo .
Sonia is an L.A. native — born and raised in East L.A .
But the two women , despite voting red and blue , have a lot in common : They both had their first child at 25 and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Graciela ’ s birthday , and Sonia ’ s husband of nearly 20 years died two months ago from gangrene complications .
Ever since , the two women have grown closer .
They ’ re inseparable .
“ Hacemos todo juntas , me and my mom.
” They do everything together .
And come next election , they plan to go back to the voting polls .
“ Now I know what to do and I ’ m looking forward to voting again with my mom , ” Sonia said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do it again , ” she told her mother .
“ We ’ re going to keep going .
”

Graciela Murillo was watching the news Tuesday on Telemundo — just as she does every morning — when she made an announcement: She wanted to go vote.
“Damé una pelota para votarla,” Murillo, 86, told her daughter Sonia, 53, confusing the Spanish word for “ballot,” which is “boleta,” with “ball.” “Give me a ball to vote! Yo quiero Donald Trump.”
So after breakfast and lunch — coffee, buttery bread and a sandwich for Graciela, scrambled eggs for Sonia — the mother-daughter duo drove down the street from their Boyle Heights home to the Wabash Recreation Center to vote for the first time together.
Advertisement
Sonia Murillo, right, puts on a “I Voted” sticker as her mother Graciela Murillo waits to leave the Boyle Heights polling site after voting for the first time ever. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
But Sonia, a part-time cafeteria worker for the Los Angeles Unified School District, had no intention to cast her vote for Trump. She cast her ballot for Joe Biden.
“I wasn’t going to vote, but she motivated me,” Sonia said matter-of-factly. She hadn’t voted before this election because she didn’t know how to. “I don’t know much about politicians and voting, Democrats and Republicans.” What she does know is that she wants Sen. Kamala Harris to be the first female vice president. “That’s the only thing I know.”
Asked why she voted for Trump, Graciela said: “Es el que sale mucho en la televisión.” He’s the guy who appears on TV a lot. And she finds the Republican president very handsome.
“I don’t think a thing” about the fact that her daughter voted for Biden, said Graciela in Spanish. “That’s her choice. If she likes that man, then she can have him,” she giggled.
Sonia Murillo and her 86-year-old mother Graciela Murillo voted for the first time. https://t.co/12El9GPbrf… @latimesphotos #FirstTimeVoter pic.twitter.com/5XkQotgHFG — Irfan Khan عرفان (@latfoto) November 4, 2020
As for Sonia, only one thing mattered to her.
“I was just so grateful that my mom wanted to vote because she’s never voted before,” she said in Spanglish. “It was a pleasure and I didn’t care who she voted for,” adding that her mother has a photo of a former president, Barack Obama, in the living room. She also liked Bill Clinton and the Kennedy men. “Those are the ones she remembers,” said Sonia of her mother, who has Alzheimer’s.
Advertisement
Graciela was born and raised in Zacatecas, Mexico, and came to the United States when she was 21 with her soon-to-be husband Samuel Murillo. Sonia is an L.A. native — born and raised in East L.A. But the two women, despite voting red and blue, have a lot in common: They both had their first child at 25 and are widows. Samuel died five years ago on Graciela’s birthday, and Sonia’s husband of nearly 20 years died two months ago from gangrene complications.
A photo of President Obama inside Graciela and Sonia Murillo’s home. (Sonia Murillo )
Ever since, the two women have grown closer. They’re inseparable. “Hacemos todo juntas, me and my mom.” They do everything together. And come next election, they plan to go back to the voting polls.
“Now I know what to do and I’m looking forward to voting again with my mom,” Sonia said. “In four years, we’re going to do it again,” she told her mother. “We’re going to keep going.”